06-20-2008, 12:28 PM
|
| Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,568
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidius  Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK Well in that case I will run right down to the local RC church and get my new infant baptized! I sure don't want to disappoint Mr. Calamy! | What he is saying is that if infants cannot be members of the visible church, then they cannot be members of the invisible church. Baptists cannot have it both ways. If you do not think that infants should be part of the visible church then I respect your position, however, if this is taken to its logical conclusion you will have to affirm that they cannot be part of the invisible church (this is not to say that all covenant children are members of the invisible church).
The whole argument comes down to this: are the children of Christians pagans, or are they part of the visible church? | I guess the correct answer for us Presbyterians would be that they are wet pagans, wouldn't it? For all intensive purposes they're pagans (or to use Mr. Calumy's terminology and be more specific, Turks and Infidels) who attend church more regularly than the dry pagans. | They may be unregenerate, but they are not "pagans" - those outside the visible church.
__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
|