Scott Clark and Infant Baptism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Scott Bushey said:
and hence, the inconsistencies.....On one hand u say:



and on the other:



Again, how is this different from the OT time? Men have only entered into the invisible distinction, by the new birth.



False dichotomy. See my previous statement.



A testimony proves nothing. It is simple presumption at best; time would be a better thermometer.

I disagree that the Esau issue is a 'straw man'. U demonstrate it by your 'testimony' statement alone; Implying that the OT saints that were justified by faith alone didn't testify of said faith.

Since there is only one gospel, the same one that was preached to Abraham, Rom 10 is as pertinent to the OT time period as the NT one.
Click to expand...
I think I see the problem here. You want the sign to be the actual thing that it signifies--the entrance into the New Covenant. But the sign of baptism doesn't bring you in-it is merely an external witness to one's credible claim to have been placed into covenant by God's working. It testifies to the reality that you were born again into God's family. In the OT, the sign of circumcision testified to the fact that you had been born into Abraham's family. How much more blessed is the sign of the New Covenant! Applied properly, it testifies that you have actually been given eternal life! Circumcision signalled only the promise of life to those who would believe--and a glorious thing surely it was--but baptism testifies that redemption has been applied. Not just the potential, but the surety.
That the sign is often misapplied by fallible men does not negate what it means for those to whom it is applied correctly.
I'm not sure about your Esau paragraph. Can you explain what you mean by: "Implying that the OT saints that were justified by faith alone didn't testify of said faith"?
Thanks.
 
Harley said:
I'm pressed for time too, so the most I said is that the Gospel is preached to them by a sign that demonstrates the sincerity and goodwill of God to deliver what He promises, like an engagement ring--the sealing. I said nothing about its efficacy, so my view on baptism cannot be charged as including ex opere operato, or some kind of auto-efficacy or baptismal regeneration. Such a view has absolutely no welcome place in my theology anywhere. It is utterly repulsive, anti-Gospel, nullifies the free grace of God.

No matter the child doesn't remember--it did happen. God gave it to them, that's all that needs to be known to benefit.

As for the idea that circumcision is only a reminder, I think it waters down what Romans 4 says about it. But then again, there's other business for the day, and I've written on it here and copiously in other places in recent threads, so I'll stop there. I for one see that the warrant to baptize households as clear, and the spirituality of baptism and the profession of adults preceding baptism hold no weight against it per what I've written here and elsewhere.
Click to expand...
So, when does the child begin to benefit from having the Gospel preached to them in a sign they don't remember? When they are later told and can understand that they were baptized? Not trying to be sarcastic here, though it might read that way. Just trying to understand.

As for household baptisms, why did you drag those into this? You know how those discussions go between baptists and Presbyterians:
Presbyterian: Household baptism!
Baptist: Prove from the Scriptures that there were infants in those households
Presbyterians: (silence)
The household baptism schtick goes nowhere--you're better off trying to show that the Old Covenant is exactly the same in every way as the New so that the sign should mean the exact same thing and be applied in exactly the same way. Which is also doomed to failure, but is a lot more entertaining.
Grace and peace to you, brother. I hope none of this sounds mean--I'm simply at a loss how to communicate better.
 
Ben Zartman said:
Applied properly, it testifies that you have actually been given eternal life!
Click to expand...

Ben Zartman said:
but baptism testifies that redemption has been applied. Not just the potential, but the surety.
Click to expand...

You keep saying this and then contradicting yourself. I cited your previous statements, if u look back at our dialog i.e. presumption.

That the sign is often misapplied by fallible men does not negate what it means for those to whom it is applied correctly.
Click to expand...

....and hence, circumcision or infants. It is not any different in either epoch and u prove this by your own words here.
 
Ben Zartman said:
So, when does the child begin to benefit from having the Gospel preached to them in a sign they don't remember? When they are later told and can understand that they were baptized? Not trying to be sarcastic here, though it might read that way. Just trying to understand.

As for household baptisms, why did you drag those into this? You know how those discussions go between baptists and Presbyterians:
Presbyterian: Household baptism!
Baptist: Prove from the Scriptures that there were infants in those households
Presbyterians: (silence)
The household baptism schtick goes nowhere--you're better off trying to show that the Old Covenant is exactly the same in every way as the New so that the sign should mean the exact same thing and be applied in exactly the same way. Which is also doomed to failure, but is a lot more entertaining.
Grace and peace to you, brother. I hope none of this sounds mean--I'm simply at a loss how to communicate better.
Click to expand...

No defect in your communication brother. I don't think I misunderstand your position at all, as two years ago I was a well-convinced Baptist for all the reasons you cited before, even thinking that the paedo view necessitates some kind of automatic efficacy in the subject which I hold as anti-Gospel. Your arguments for your position and against mine are clear and familiar to me, though I disagree that the Scriptures necessitate them. Your skit doesn't strike me as accurate, but I believe your representation of yourself that you intend no bullying. I trust that I can say the same, even if I write strongly too.

As for efficacy, it's almost like asking when I expect the Spirit of the wind to blow. He does that on His own, making the ordinances efficacious as a means to implant or confirm faith at the time He chooses, but never as obligated to because the sacrament was given. In the normal course, it will be efficacious as the child comes to understand what baptism means, and in the prayers and discipleship of the congregation as they grasp its significance and apply it accordingly.

"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." Does faith always come when the Word is preached? Not always. When it comes, is it always in the moment when the Word is preached? By experience, no.

Classic example: John Flavel preaches a sermon in Europe, a young man hears the preaching. 80 years later in America, reflecting on the sermon, that man is converted. I oftentimes benefit from a sermon after I've heard it, sometimes getting more out of the reflection than I do the listening (not unusual with small children). Some old sermons which I've heard previously still bear fruit even now. During Communion Season some of the greatest benefits have come before and after the worship service, and not during the partaking itself (though sometimes yes, during the partaking). January 14, 1855 on another continent, Spurgeon preaches on the hideousness of unbelief, and it convicts me 160 years later. Gerald Bilkes preaches in the Puritan Seminary chapel about Paul's undauntedness and composure in shaking the snake from his hand, I hear about it from a student and not firsthand, I still seek to apply that principle. I'm likely benefiting from sermons that I've forgotten have been preached.

Yet the reason that baptism may continue to be an efficacious means of grace is because it is a sign: it points to Christ, tells us to put faith in Him, thus it is a Gospel messenger. It is a seal because it authenticates the promise, and assures that God fully means to stand by His promise to deliver righteousness upon believing, like the bull in Genesis 15, like the Lord's Supper sealing the promise of life in His body and blood, like the ring sealing a man's promise to marry and confirming the woman's faith in his word. So long as baptism is a sign and seal of Christ's righteousness, life, death, it will preach to all who witness it, and most dearly and personally to the one to whom God directly gives it. For that reason, its efficacy cannot be tied to one time and place, and cannot be tied to the recipient's memory.

Back to the original comment that sparked this: did God promise salvation by faith to all who believe, whether inside or outside the church? Yes. Does he preach the Gospel and confirm the same promise of salvation by faith in Christ to the baptized in a way beyond the way he has preached it to the unbaptized? Absolutely yes. That's true whether the sign is given to infants or not.

HH baptisms got brought in for your comment that we think we have warrant to bring in unbelievers (big time straw man). So let's be fair that I'm not the first to introduce side topics in our dialogue. To be clear: we don't g0 searching the Scriptures in hopes of finding a way to admit people into the church who we know to be unbelievers--we go to the New Testament, find out who is baptized, and build our doctrine accordingly. We see households baptized, therefore we baptize households whether or not that household has any infants on it. And as a matter of due diligence we search out the immediate context and the whole Biblical context to confirm we have understood the nature and recipients correctly. There's only so much ado about infants because the main difference between us is that the Baptist position necessitates an intelligent profession in the case of absolutely everyone who is baptized, and thus infants are by default at the center of controversy. We simply disagree--those under care of a household head are to be baptized. Even the term "paedobaptist" is a straw man that's gotten grandfathered into our theological vocabulary on both sides. Per Romans 4, the spiritual nature of baptism and the intelligent profession of adults mentioned in the New Testament is no reason to preclude the infant members of households than the spiritual nature of circumcision and the profession of faith by Abraham was warrant to preclude infant males.

But then again, we've come full circle because that's where we disagree. And I've written copiously already on circumcision, Abraham's profession, so this'll get redundant. I speak strongly I know, but I trust that's more out of earnest and not out of any felt antagonism. God bless you too.
 
Last edited:
One thing I've ran into a lot in discussions with baptists is this idea that in the OT, you were "born into" the covenant physically, but in the NT you only become part of the covenant when you are "born again". This is not an accurate distinction. The condition of real covenant membership has always been faith. Without faith, those people were simply external members of God's people, just like any unconverted churchgoer is today. God always has called people to a real faith and trust in him. That is why the people of Israel are exhorted to "circumcise their hearts" - because this sign pointed to a spiritual thing. This is also why in the NT Paul says that one is true Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart. And in Ephesians 3:3 he says:

"For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh"

In essence he is saying - don't get fooled by these Judaizers - they say you cannot be saved without circumcision, but they don't even understand the sign. The sign doesn't save you, but it points toward a sovereign work of God wherein he removes our sins from us, and we then put all confidence in God and none in our own works. We are the ones who are truly circumcised. We have the spiritual circumcision - they just have the outward sign.
 
I'm loving the exchange between you two brothers (@Harley, @Ben Zartman).

[Edit: The question below is open to all to respond to; not just Harley and Ben.]

As I continue to try and discern the mind of God on the issue of Christian baptism one area of the covenantal infant baptism position I struggle to understand (my own shortcomings to be sure) is why, taking the Presbyterian view, Jesus would institute the sacrament and command Christians to give their children the sign and seal of the new covenant when according to God's eternal decree there will be some children of believers who before the creation of the world were foreordained to everlasting death. The number of the elect is so certain and definite that it cannot be increased or diminished. In recognizing the truths of this high mystery and handling it with special prudence and care, why would God command this sign and seal be given to those who are not counted among the elect? This question is narrowly focused on the mind of God alone.

I fear I have a blind spot or two and would appreciate some clarity to help my understanding. Thank you in advance.

Have a joyful day in the Lord everyone!
 
Last edited:
B.L. McDonald said:
why would God command this sign and seal be given to those who are not counted among the elect?
Click to expand...

Hi B.L.,
I pray, since u have addressed 'Harley' and 'Ben', that u would allow me a question to you in response: Why would God command the sign of circumcision to those 'not counted among the elect'?
 
B.L. McDonald said:
I'm loving the exchange between you two brothers (@Harley, @Ben Zartman).

As I continue to try and discern the mind of God on the issue of Christian baptism one area of the covenantal infant baptism position I struggle to understand (my own shortcomings to be sure) is why, taking the Presbyterian view, Jesus would institute the sacrament and command Christians to give their children the sign and seal of the new covenant when according to God's eternal decree there will be some children of believers who before the creation of the world were foreordained to everlasting death. The number of the elect is so certain and definite that it cannot be increased or diminished. In recognizing the truths of this high mystery and handling it with special prudence and care, why would God command this sign and seal be given to those who are not counted among the elect? This question is narrowly focused on the mind of God alone.

I fear I have a blind spot or two and would appreciate some clarity to help my understanding. Thank you in advance.

Have a joyful day in the Lord everyone!
Click to expand...

Thank you brother. I'm short on time, but give Romans 4:11 some thought and you'll see the position that puzzles you has been done 1500 years before the NT church.
 
Harley said:
Thank you brother. I'm short on time, but give Romans 4:11 some thought and you'll see the position that puzzles you has been done 1500 years before the NT church.
Click to expand...
Per Paul, who are those saved in Christ? Those who received Jesus through faith, and now have the Holy Spirit in them!
 
B.L. McDonald said:
I'm loving the exchange between you two brothers (@Harley, @Ben Zartman).

As I continue to try and discern the mind of God on the issue of Christian baptism one area of the covenantal infant baptism position I struggle to understand (my own shortcomings to be sure) is why, taking the Presbyterian view, Jesus would institute the sacrament and command Christians to give their children the sign and seal of the new covenant when according to God's eternal decree there will be some children of believers who before the creation of the world were foreordained to everlasting death. The number of the elect is so certain and definite that it cannot be increased or diminished. In recognizing the truths of this high mystery and handling it with special prudence and care, why would God command this sign and seal be given to those who are not counted among the elect? This question is narrowly focused on the mind of God alone.

I fear I have a blind spot or two and would appreciate some clarity to help my understanding. Thank you in advance.

Have a joyful day in the Lord everyone!
Click to expand...
All those found in and under the NC are saved by faith in Christ and already have received the Holy Spirit, as water Baptism sign of that having happened!
 
Scott Bushey said:
You keep saying this and then contradicting yourself. I cited your previous statements, if u look back at our dialog i.e. presumption.



....and hence, circumcision or infants. It is not any different in either epoch and u prove this by your own words here.
Click to expand...
I will ascribe your inability to understand to my own failure in communication rather than to the obduracy that it appears you are displaying. I don't believe I can explain it any more clearly--if you still see inconsistencies in my gleaming, seamless arguments, I will say with the prophet: "Alas! I have spent my strength in vain and for nought." I suppose it would be a lot to suppose that we together could mend a five-century-old rift.
In my defence, I say only that it's usually pretty hard to figure out exactly what your point is, and addressing what I think you're saying, you say you're saying something else. It's been fun, but I'll leave it here between us, and no doubt see you here and there about the forum.
 
Harley said:
No defect in your communication brother. I don't think I misunderstand your position at all, as two years ago I was a well-convinced Baptist for all the reasons you cited before, even thinking that the paedo view necessitates some kind of automatic efficacy in the subject which I hold as anti-Gospel. Your arguments for your position and against mine are clear and familiar to me, though I disagree that the Scriptures necessitate them. Your skit doesn't strike me as accurate, but I believe your representation of yourself that you intend no bullying. I trust that I can say the same, even if I write strongly too.

As for efficacy, it's almost like asking when I expect the Spirit of the wind to blow. He does that on His own, making the ordinances efficacious as a means to implant or confirm faith at the time He chooses, but never as obligated to because the sacrament was given. In the normal course, it will be efficacious as the child comes to understand what baptism means, and in the prayers and discipleship of the congregation as they grasp its significance and apply it accordingly.

"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." Does faith always come when the Word is preached? Not always. When it comes, is it always in the moment when the Word is preached? By experience, no.

Classic example: John Flavel preaches a sermon in Europe, a young man hears the preaching. 80 years later in America, reflecting on the sermon, that man is converted. I oftentimes benefit from a sermon after I've heard it, sometimes getting more out of the reflection than I do the listening (not unusual with small children). Some old sermons which I've heard previously still bear fruit even now. During Communion Season some of the greatest benefits have come before and after the worship service, and not during the partaking itself (though sometimes yes, during the partaking). January 14, 1855 on another continent, Spurgeon preaches on the hideousness of unbelief, and it convicts me 160 years later. Gerald Bilkes preaches in the Puritan Seminary chapel about Paul's undauntedness and composure in shaking the snake from his hand, I hear about it from a student and not firsthand, I still seek to apply that principle. I'm likely benefiting from sermons that I've forgotten have been preached.

Yet the reason that baptism may continue to be an efficacious means of grace is because it is a sign: it points to Christ, tells us to put faith in Him, thus it is a Gospel messenger. It is a seal because it authenticates the promise, and assures that God fully means to stand by His promise to deliver righteousness upon believing, like the bull in Genesis 15, like the Lord's Supper sealing the promise of life in His body and blood, like the ring sealing a man's promise to marry and confirming the woman's faith in his word. So long as baptism is a sign and seal of Christ's righteousness, life, death, it will preach to all who witness it, and most dearly and personally to the one to whom God directly gives it. For that reason, its efficacy cannot be tied to one time and place, and cannot be tied to the recipient's memory.

Back to the original comment that sparked this: did God promise salvation by faith to all who believe, whether inside or outside the church? Yes. Does he preach the Gospel and confirm the same promise of salvation by faith in Christ to the baptized in a way beyond the way he has preached it to the unbaptized? Absolutely yes. That's true whether the sign is given to infants or not.

HH baptisms got brought in for your comment that we think we have warrant to bring in unbelievers (big time straw man). So let's be fair that I'm not the first to introduce side topics in our dialogue. To be clear: we don't g0 searching the Scriptures in hopes of finding a way to admit people into the church who we know to be unbelievers--we go to the New Testament, find out who is baptized, and build our doctrine accordingly. We see households baptized, therefore we baptize households whether or not that household has any infants on it. And as a matter of due diligence we search out the immediate context and the whole Biblical context to confirm we have understood the nature and recipients correctly. There's only so much ado about infants because the main difference between us is that the Baptist position necessitates an intelligent profession in the case of absolutely everyone who is baptized, and thus infants are by default at the center of controversy. We simply disagree--those under care of a household head are to be baptized. Even the term "paedobaptist" is a straw man that's gotten grandfathered into our theological vocabulary on both sides. Per Romans 4, the spiritual nature of baptism and the intelligent profession of adults mentioned in the New Testament is no reason to preclude the infant members of households than the spiritual nature of circumcision and the profession of faith by Abraham was warrant to preclude infant males.

But then again, we've come full circle because that's where we disagree. And I've written copiously already on circumcision, Abraham's profession, so this'll get redundant. I speak strongly I know, but I trust that's more out of earnest and not out of any felt antagonism. God bless you too.
Click to expand...
Beautifully put, even if we continue to disagree. At least our positions are clear. Thanks for the discussion, although the OP's head might be spinning, wondering where his thread went.
 
Dachaser said:
All those found in and under the NC are saved by faith in Christ and already have received the Holy Spirit, as water Baptism sign of that having happened!
Click to expand...

U continue to kick against the harmony of biblical theology; Dispensationalizing God's word. There is only one gospel. All believers, no matter the time frame, are saved by faith.
 
Ben Zartman said:
I will ascribe your inability to understand to my own failure in communication rather than to the obduracy that it appears you are displaying. I don't believe I can explain it any more clearly--if you still see inconsistencies in my gleaming, seamless arguments, I will say with the prophet: "Alas! I have spent my strength in vain and for nought." I suppose it would be a lot to suppose that we together could mend a five-century-old rift.
In my defence, I say only that it's usually pretty hard to figure out exactly what your point is, and addressing what I think you're saying, you say you're saying something else. It's been fun, but I'll leave it here between us, and no doubt see you here and there about the forum.
Click to expand...

Ben, if u like, I can show u the contradictions in what u have said. if not, thats fine also. Love u, none the less.
 
B.L. McDonald said:
I'm loving the exchange between you two brothers (@Harley, @Ben Zartman).

As I continue to try and discern the mind of God on the issue of Christian baptism one area of the covenantal infant baptism position I struggle to understand (my own shortcomings to be sure) is why, taking the Presbyterian view, Jesus would institute the sacrament and command Christians to give their children the sign and seal of the new covenant when according to God's eternal decree there will be some children of believers who before the creation of the world were foreordained to everlasting death. The number of the elect is so certain and definite that it cannot be increased or diminished. In recognizing the truths of this high mystery and handling it with special prudence and care, why would God command this sign and seal be given to those who are not counted among the elect? This question is narrowly focused on the mind of God alone.

I fear I have a blind spot or two and would appreciate some clarity to help my understanding. Thank you in advance.

Have a joyful day in the Lord everyone!
Click to expand...
It's never safe to ask "Why would God?" as it seeks to bring human logic into the secret things of God. We must ask: "What has God said?" In this case, the baptists and paedos disagree on the answer to the latter question. Baptists believe that circumcision was a sign of the old administration, it was administered in the era of shadows, and is among those rudiments that were abrogated when Christ instituted the New Covenant. The New Covenant has different features (Hebrews calls them "better," though our Presbyterian friends have a different idea of what better means than we do), it has different ordinances. All those things in the OT--the tabernacle, the sacrifices, the feasts, circumcision, etc--have real parallels in the NT administration. They were all pointing to a reality that was to come. Of course there was justification by faith, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and communion with God--but with the coming of Messiah all of the shadows that pointed to Him were no longer required; all the physical pictures that pointed to spiritual realities were done away with, because the substance had arrived.
We have remaining only two pictures that the church paints: Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Both have shadows in the OT, both point not to future realities, but to present blessings.
If you remember that presbyterians have a more complicated ecclesiology in which (because this was true in the OT), you can be in covenant with God without actually being regenerated, then you understand why they baptize infants. They are not testifying that the child is elect: they are bringing it into the covenant in hopes that it will prove to have been. Baptists believe that the New Covenant is made up only of those who have been justified, and thus adopted into God's family. So we apply the sign of the covenant only to those who can credibly claim to have been saved. The sign does not fetch you into covenant--God has already done that in regeneration. It is the visible church acknowledging your confession.
 
Ben Zartman said:
It's never safe to ask "Why would God?" as it seeks to bring human logic into the secret things of God. We must ask: "What has God said?" In this case, the baptists and paedos disagree on the answer to the latter question. Baptists believe that circumcision was a sign of the old administration, it was administered in the era of shadows, and is among those rudiments that were abrogated when Christ instituted the New Covenant. The New Covenant has different features (Hebrews calls them "better," though our Presbyterian friends have a different idea of what better means than we do), it has different ordinances. All those things in the OT--the tabernacle, the sacrifices, the feasts, circumcision, etc--have real parallels in the NT administration. They were all pointing to a reality that was to come. Of course there was justification by faith, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and communion with God--but with the coming of Messiah all of the shadows that pointed to Him were no longer required; all the physical pictures that pointed to spiritual realities were done away with, because the substance had arrived.
We have remaining only two pictures that the church paints: Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Both have shadows in the OT, both point not to future realities, but to present blessings.
If you remember that presbyterians have a more complicated ecclesiology in which (because this was true in the OT), you can be in covenant with God without actually being regenerated, then you understand why they baptize infants. They are not testifying that the child is elect: they are bringing it into the covenant in hopes that it will prove to have been. Baptists believe that the New Covenant is made up only of those who have been justified, and thus adopted into God's family. So we apply the sign of the covenant only to those who can credibly claim to have been saved. The sign does not fetch you into covenant--God has already done that in regeneration. It is the visible church acknowledging your confession.
Click to expand...
This discussion seems to hinge on just how new the NC really is!
 
Let me make this simple:
U previously said:
"but baptism testifies that redemption has been applied. Not just the potential, but the surety."

"Applied properly, it testifies that you have actually been given eternal life!"

and then,

"Do we sometimes judge wrongly? of course. Peter did too, in that Simon Magus and Ananias were members of his congregation, but mistaken application doesn't negate the sign".


This is only a few of the tensions I have read in your posts.

Again, how is the above any different in practical application from the OT sign?
For example, the sign is placed on us and our children. We look for confession and place the sign. This is the same for the OT saint; Are they saved; Only God knows. None of us can say w/ surety that any of us are, in reality, saved. We presume they are, at best.

My whole point is showing that the distinctions u make, i.e. circumcision was primarily a national designation (in the way u are using it), is no different from the NT sign, i.e. the Israel of God; which has always been the same gospel, no matter the timeframe.
 
Dachaser said:
Not all who were cimcusized under the OC were saved
Click to expand...

The above is no different in the NT economy w/ water baptism.

but all who have received Jesus and have the Holy Spirit in them are, in order to have water Baptism given to them!
Click to expand...

How does anyone know who the HS is indwelling? Please Sir, tell me how?
 
Last edited:
Ok, let's get one thing straight, when the NT speaks of the "old covenant", it is speaking of the covenant made at Mount Sinai, that is the Mosaic covenant. It is not speaking of the one made 430 years earlier with Abraham. Circumcision was given as a sign of the eternal covenant that God revealed with Abraham.
 
Dachaser said:
Not all who were cimcusized under the OC were saved, but all who have received Jesus and have the Holy Spirit in them are, in order to have water Baptism given to them!
Click to expand...

There has always been an external community of professing believers and an internal community of true believers. That is why Jesus teaches us about wheat and tares, and those at the final judgment who will be cast out. In that sense, nothing has changed between the pre and post Christ dispensations. In Hebrews we read that they could not possess the land because of unbelief. The promises always required faith, not just belonging to some ethnicity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

scottmaciver
  • Locked
Infant Baptism
Replies
0
Views
2K
scottmaciver
scottmaciver
Tyrese
  • Locked
Infant Baptism
2 3
Replies
64
Views
26K
Contra_Mundum
Contra_Mundum
Z
  • Locked
Infant Baptism?
2
Replies
55
Views
20K
toddpedlar
toddpedlar
Romans922
  • Locked
Infant Baptism????
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
Larry Hughes
L
C. Matthew McMahon
  • Locked
Federal Theology and Infant Baptism
Replies
2
Views
3K
C. Matthew McMahon
C. Matthew McMahon
Back
Top