I'm sort of new to all of this, please help me out where I've gone wrong. From what I gather, reformed presbyterians will baptize an infant even though they realize there is go guarantee this child is elect (it's a good thing the reformed presbyterians and reformed baptists can agree on who the elect are). Getting back to the presbyterian position, there's no sweat over baptizing as sign of election if you equate it to the covenant of circumsion. Still it's just a sign. Now the baptists on the other hand will baptise anyone who makes a profession of faith. Of course, to them this is just a sign too, it was never meant to guarantee a person's salvation. I just don't see a difference.
Had I been born around Moses' time as a child of Gentiles but with a desire to worship and obey the God of Abraham, would Noahide law require I get circumsized?
Makes me wonder if anyone's done a comparison study on the "electionness" of Credo baptized baptist children versus Paedo baptized presbyterians. Of course this doesn't negate the requirement if it is a requirement.
Had I been born around Moses' time as a child of Gentiles but with a desire to worship and obey the God of Abraham, would Noahide law require I get circumsized?
Makes me wonder if anyone's done a comparison study on the "electionness" of Credo baptized baptist children versus Paedo baptized presbyterians. Of course this doesn't negate the requirement if it is a requirement.