Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer  He doesn't care whether the child is baptised or not. An antipaedobaptist does care. Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilgrim Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer
Then you're still a Baptist in crisis, Bill; I would rather hear from someone who insists on antipaedobaptistic principles in order to see how those principles work out in practice.
| Matthew, what is it in Bill's post that you find to be inconsistent with antipaedobaptistic principles? Here it is in its entirety: Quote: |
Matthew, it is not my place to say when a child has reached the ability to understand the gospel. This much I do know, it is the gospel that saves. The gospel is taught, Christian principles modeled and the child exposed to the blessings of the church. I don't care whether the child was baptized or not. Salvation is not secured differently for either of them. When the time comes that they are able to understand the gospel and profess faith in Christ - praise God!
| | |
May I clarify my statement? That comment was made in order to reinforce the matter of regeneration. I believe baptism is important, but it does not save. Of course, I will reject infant baptism but I am not saying that baptism is unimportant, just irrelevant in regards to regeneration. I used a strong negative in order to make my point. I thought it was clear but apparently not.