Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There seems to be implied in infant baptism some type of spiritual working of God not seen in believers baptism, as we would hod to the profession of faith itself sign of being in the Covenant.Regulative principle of worship and 1689 federalism to speak cogently to the paedo-baptist covenant theology and its errors.
Does your church require those infant baptized to be redone as adults then?There seems to be implied in infant baptism some type of spiritual working of God not seen in believers baptism, as we would hod to the profession of faith itself sign of being in the Covenant.
If you'll notice, I based my answer on the Baptist Catechism's answer:There seems to be implied in infant baptism some type of spiritual working of God not seen in believers baptism, as we would hod to the profession of faith itself sign of being in the Covenant.
Notice the 2 reasons: regulative principle of worship and Baptist federal theology. Paedobaptist would argue according to their federal theology that infant baptism is a good and necessary consequence. 1689 federalism refutes that idea.99. Q. Are the infants of such as are professing believers to be baptized?
A. The infants of such as are professing believers are not to be baptized, because there is neither command or example in the holy scriptures, or certain consequence from them to baptize such (Ex. 23:13; Pr. 30:6; Lk. 3:7, 8).
Thanks for the clarification.If you'll notice, I based my answer on the Baptist Catechism's answer:
Notice the 2 reasons: regulative principle of worship and Baptist federal theology. Paedobaptist would argue according to their federal theology that infant baptism is a good and necessary consequence. 1689 federalism refutes that idea.