05-19-2008, 08:34 PM
|
 | Administrator | | Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Northern Virgnia
Posts: 13,124
Thanks: 1,243
Thanked 2,857 Times in 1,341 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by reformedman  Quote:
Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis he stated militated a clear proof that believer's baptism is clearly and necessarily inferred by Acts 2:41-42 | That was his opinion, he wasn't requesting a debate. But anyway.
He said that it never hit him solidly enough to cause him to see a paedobaptist position.
I think he should be commended for standing on his convictions enough to voice it, and as friends we should understand that he continues to receive our encouragement, not get effected as if we are being pressed for a debate.
I don't say any of this with bitterness, it is only something that I saw that I'd like to say with all due respect to you.
To continue, I do not believe(strictly as an opinion) that if a credo said they saw the light and went to paedo, and a person responded inversely with defenses and prooftexts supporting paedo, that you would permit people bringing up defenses and prooftexts.
All under the bridge anyway, now that I see its been moved to the debate area of the forum. Again, I say this just as observation and opinion, not for slander or accusation. | The thread began, and has remained, in the baptism forum. I was merely noting that Chris invited comment on his position, hence commentary on his switch was not out of accord with the OP. Chris has agreed with my assessment.
|