A question for my Presbyterian friends
This is NOT intended to be the start of a debate. It's just a question I have been thinking about and I am wondering how a Presbyterian would answer it. Someone PLEASE answer! I have been very curious.
Who is the federal head of an adopted child? Is federal headship based upon whether they reside in a believing or unbelieving household? Or what about a fostered child? What happens if the child is taken away from believing foster parents(therefore under Christ as his federal head) and given to the unbelieving biological parents? Is he now under Adam again? And then what if his covenant breaking parents end up in jail and lose all parental rights to the child and he is adopted by believing parents, is he under Christ again? Would this not be awfully confusing to the child? What happens if a child is born to believing parents, therefore in the covenant, and his parents die. He is then placed with his unbelieving grandparent. He went from being in the covenant, to out of the covenant, because he is now being raised in a covenant breaking home?
Or is being in the covenant based upon the physical bloodline of the believing parents? Then if a child is taken away from unbelieving biological parents and placed in a believing home, he would have to verbally profess faith to be baptized, as an adult would? Then, like I asked in the previous paragraph, a child is physically born to believing parents, parents die, he is placed in an unbelieving home. He is being raised in an ungodly environment where God is never talked about one way or another. So since God is never mentioned, he never "rejects the faith" but nor does he verbally accept it. Since he was born to covenant keeping parents, and he never broke covenant by "rejecting the faith", is Christ still his federal head? Even if he never steps foot in church his whole life, and never prays, never reads the Word, etc.?
All Scripture is useful for practice and life. I need to know how infant baptism is practical. I would really love to hear any thoughts on this.
Please understand that my tone was intended to be respectful in this post and that I do respect and love my Presbyterian brothers and sisters.
posted by Josh's Loving Wife, aka Angela Brisby @ 8:26 AM
15 Comments:
the fallacy here is the assumption that infants are under Christ as their federal head.
Your argument assumes that they begin with Christ as their federal head, if they're born in a believing household.
I deny this premise, and, therefore, the entire argument looses steam.
Furthermore, you could have asked all your questions to Moses.
I mean, if a child is circumcised, and then the assyrians take the child and raise him to worship baal, does his covenant head change from Christ back to Adam???
Same thing.
btw, I'm debating your hubby on this issue over at his blog, I'm awaiting his response.
Hey Paul, you said: Your argument assumes that they begin with Christ as their federal head, if they're born in a believing household.
Actually that was presicly my question. What condition makes the child "in the covenant"? Is it the physical bloodline of the believing parents, or residing in the home of believing parents? I know you can't believe faith is the determining factor, because you baptize them as a sign and seal of the covenant before they show any signs of faith.
As a Presby, do you not assume that if they are in the covenant, then Christ is their federal head?
you said: I mean, if a child is circumcised, and then the assyrians take the child and raise him to worship baal, does his covenant head change from Christ back to Adam???
well, does it? I agree, it is the same thing.
Paul, P.S. When are you and my hubby ever not debating this issue? :)
Hello Angela,
What put a child in the covenant in Moses' day?
Apply all your questions to him as well.
Why would your "problems" not equally bear against Moses?
As a presby I do not assume that their federal head is Christ, you believe that there are non-elect in the covenant, right (like you hubby?)? Thus it is not necessary that one has Christ as their federal head in order to be in covenant with him.
Furthermore, let's say infants are assumed to have Christ as their head. Thye OT children were assumed this as well, then. How would your argument not work against Moses.
I'm saying that your argument cannot be correct, because you could have used it to say Moses was wrong.
Paul, you said: I'm saying that your argument cannot be correct, because you could have used it to say Moses was wrong.
If OT circumsision equaled NT baptism, you would be correct. Too bad it doesn't :)
In the same way NT circumcision of the heart equals OT circumcision of the flesh, NT baptism equals the OT cermonial proselyte baptism.
Paul, you said: As a presby I do not assume that their federal head is Christ, you believe that there are non-elect in the covenant, right (like you hubby?)? Thus it is not necessary that one has Christ as their federal head in order to be in covenant with him.
Yes I do agree with Josh on this issue. However, is your view here the majority view among Presbeterians? Because I personally have heard different presbies say different things about this. Just Saturday I heard one deny original sin entirely. I also have heard a very prominent pastor on our area tell me that the federal head of the child of believing parents can be both under Adam and under Christ at the same time! I am still wondering how that is possible.
Hi Angela,
"If OT circumsision equaled NT baptism, you would be correct. Too bad it doesn't :)"
No one has ever said it is *equal.* The main argument has been *replacement.* In the OT circumcision was the OT sign for membership in the covenant (among other things). In the NT, baptism is the visible sign of covenant membership.
Circumcision represented union with Jehovah, a circumcised heart, justification by faith, removal of sin, etc. Why would this sign be given to someone whose federal head was Adam?
That's the only similarity I need to refute this argument.
"In the same way NT circumcision of the heart equals OT circumcision of the flesh, NT baptism equals the OT cermonial proselyte baptism."
Did no one have a circumcised heart in the OT? Flesh circumcision represented this (among other things) as well. Why would a sign which *you admit* represents this be given to those whose federal head was an uncircumcised heart???
"However, is your view here the majority view among Presbeterians?"
I've never taken a head count. :-)
This wouldn't matter either, correct? The bottom line is that my answer avoids your argument.
"Because I personally have heard different presbies say different things about this. Just Saturday I heard one deny original sin entirely."
Yeah, and I've heard some baptists say some stupid things also. Furthermore, above we had argumentum ad populum, now we have the fallacy of guilt by association. Moreover, the guy you'rte referring to denies the confessional standards and so just because he may go to a presbyterian chruch does not make him a presbyterian.
We can play this game forever. Did you know that all the cults (besides the RC church) are credo-baptists? Hmmm.
"I also have heard a very prominent pastor on our area tell me that the federal head of the child of believing parents can be both under Adam and under Christ at the same time! I am still wondering how that is possible."
Well, that would depend on how terms are being used. Indeed, you and Josh believe that unbelievers can be "in Christ" yet also "in Adam." Furthermore, depending on how he argued, we could apply this to the OT children as well. I can't comment on it as I don't know the details.
"No one has ever said it is *equal.* The main argument has been *replacement.* In the OT circumcision was the OT sign for membership in the covenant (among other things). In the NT, baptism is the visible sign of covenant membership."
But proselyte baptism was just as much a sign of membership in the covenant community (not necesarily in covenant with Christ, though) as circumcision was (also, not necesarily in covenant with Christ).
"Circumcision represented union with Jehovah, a circumcised heart, justification by faith, removal of sin, etc. Why would this sign be given to someone whose federal head was Adam?"
So, was it assumed that an 8 day old boy was in union with Jehovah and had a circumsized heart? What about the girls? what was their visible sign of entrance into the covenant? I guess they had to wait until they could make a profession?
(previous comment) "As a presby I do not assume that their federal head is Christ, you believe that there are non-elect in the covenant, right (like you hubby?)? Thus it is not necessary that one has Christ as their federal head in order to be in covenant with him."
You just said that circumcision (sign of entrance into the covenant-but just for boys) represented union with Jehovah, a circumcised heart, justification by faith (faith of an 8 day old boy, what happened to original sin? Maybe it was cut away with the foreskin. No, that can't be it, cause that would make it a work, and a work of the parents at that,)removal of sin...if circumcision is representative of all these things, then why would you say "Thus it is not necessary that one has Christ as their federal head in order to be in covenant with him."
If they are in union with God, have sins forgiven...etc...Christ is indeed their federal head.
Please reconcile your two statements if you want to use them to refute my arguments :)
"Did no one have a circumcised heart in the OT? Flesh circumcision represented this (among other things) as well. Why would a sign which *you admit* represents this be given to those whose federal head was an uncircumcised heart???"
The same reason you do:)You (as a presbeterian whole) give baptism to babies, which statistically speaking, most probably won't continue in the faith. Of course not all who profess will continue, however, if they are already professing, we must give them the judgment of charity and baptize them.
"Thus it is not necessary that one has Christ as their federal head in order to be in covenant with him."
You baptize babies who's federal head may not necesarily be Christ, yet you ask me...
Why would a sign which *you admit* represents this be given to those whose federal head was an uncircumcised heart???"
???
"This wouldn't matter either, correct? The bottom line is that my answer avoids your argument."
Actually, your answer brings about more questions.
"Yeah, and I've heard some baptists say some stupid things also."
Granted. And I laugh along with you.
"Furthermore, above we had argumentum ad populum, now we have the fallacy of guilt by association. "
Actually I was just stating two other views I had heard concerning this issue, so as to question whether or not your view here is not monolithic.
Indeed, you and Josh believe that unbelievers can be "in Christ" yet also "in Adam."
Yes, but not at the same time in the same category. From the eternal prospective, they are only either one or the other. Humanly speaking a person can be in Christ externally, yet in Adam internally.
Hi Angela,
I appreciate your attempts at finding inconsistencies. In fact, I feel like I'm talking to Josh! :-)
The only problem is that these are usually found because of uncautious and careless readings. But, it could be because of my uncautious writing. I'll try and be more clear.
AB: "But proselyte baptism was just as much a sign of membership in the covenant community (not necesarily in covenant with Christ, though) as circumcision was (also, not necesarily in covenant with Christ)."
PM: I guess I fail to see the relevence here.
Also, I don't think it was "just as much" a sign of membership in covenant community. Is there a verse for that?
AB: "So, was it assumed that an 8 day old boy was in union with Jehovah and had a circumsized heart? What about the girls? what was their visible sign of entrance into the covenant? I guess they had to wait until they could make a profession?"
PM: i. I don't think it was assumed that he had a circumcised heart. You framed the question as a conjunction. In logic, if one part of a conjunct is false, then entire proposition is false.
ii. You're confusing the sign and the reality of the sign. If you want to say that a person *has* to be assuemd to have had these things then what if someone is baptized and then leaves the faith, and then comes back? What if he says he really didn't believe at first, and was lying to impress some girl. I assume you do not believe in re-baptism (even though many baptists do, so this isn't monolithic ;-) ). So, you even recognize that someone can have the sign yet not have any of the reality.
iii. Girls were circumcised under their federal head.
AB: "You just said that circumcision (sign of entrance into the covenant-but just for boys) represented union with Jehovah, a circumcised heart, justification by faith (faith of an 8 day old boy, what happened to original sin? Maybe it was cut away with the foreskin. No, that can't be it, cause that would make it a work, and a work of the parents at that,)removal of sin...if circumcision is representative of all these things, then why would you say "'Thus it is not necessary that one has Christ as their federal head in order to be in covenant with him.'"
PM: i. Again, you confuse the sign with the thing signified. Abraham had the sign AFTER he was justified by faith, but then turned around and gave it to his 8 day old, who was not justified by faith yet. So, your argument, again, can be given to Abraham.
ii. It is not necessary to have Christ as one's federal head because we KNOW that people are baptised/circumcised, and thus members of the covenant without having Christ as thei federal head.
iii. You have the problem of allowing non-elect to be covenant members, and then to try and argue against Presbyterians. You see, if YOU have a problem with someone receiving something that represents Christ as their federal head, but then you also allow people whose covenant head is Adam, then this is your problem as well as mine. Thus it's a pseudo problem.
iv. It is not *necessary* that someone have Christ as their federal head because of this argument I've given to your hubby:
Well, I assume that the Brisby's hold to the 1689 LBC. In ch. 6 we read:
"3___ They being the root, and by God's appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free."
Why did "all" mankind become corrupt, by nature, from birth? Well, simply because Adam was "all" mankind's federal head.
So, using the logical law of excluded middle we can ask, "who was Isaac's federal head?" And we would have two options: Either P ∨ ¬ P. That is, either Adam was Isaac's federal head, or Adam was not. Indeed, this apllies to all of the circumcised.
Are the Brisby's denying that any circumcised Israelite had Adam as their federal head? Since we saw above that, even according to Brisby's confession, all men have Adam as their federal head (until they trust in Christ as their representative, see LBC. ch. 11).
Further, either Adam or Christ can be a federal head for a man. All men have a federal head. Therefore, if they do not have Adam then they have Christ, and vice versa. One will note that this is a valid disjunctive syllogism. It cannot be denied. So, if the Brisby's are unwilling to say that Adam was Isaac's federal head (upon birth) then Isaac must have had Christ as his federal head. Indeed, if all Israelites had Christ as their federal head, which they would have to if Adam was not (see above argument), then all Israelites would be justified (see. LBC ch. 11). All Israelites were not justified, therefore not all Israelites had Christ as their federal head (again, a valid modus tollens).
What follows from the above? Well, we are *forced* to agree with this syllogism:
All male Israelties were to recieved the sign of covenant membership.
Some male Israelite's federal head was Adam.
Therefore some whose federal head was Adam were to receive the sign of covenant membership.
The above is obviously a valid syllogism (Datisi AII-3). I doubt the Brisby's will challenge P1. P2 was established by the above disjunctive syllogism and corrsponding modus tollens arguments. Thus, my conclusion necessarily follows. Not only that, it is a sound argument."
Therefore, it is not *necessary* that one have Christ as their federal head in order to receive the sign of covenant membership.
AB: "If they are in union with God, have sins forgiven...etc...Christ is indeed their federal head."
PM: I agree, but not all who are in the covenant have this. Not all who receive the sign receive the thing signified.
AB: "Please reconcile your two statements if you want to use them to refute my arguments :)"
PM: I don't need to for you've shown no inconsistency. Indeed, you've shown how it's resolved. I quote you:
"Yes, but not at the same time in the same category. From the eternal prospective, they are only either one or the other. Humanly speaking a person can be in Christ externally, yet in Adam internally."
Now, I don't agree with this language totally, but it catches the drift of how I "reconcile" the two.
AB: "The same reason you do:)You (as a presbeterian whole) give baptism to babies, which statistically speaking, most probably won't continue in the faith."
PM: I'd like to see the "statistics" for this. Also, aren't you arguing for postmillenialism above? Furthermore, are you saying that most baptists kids will continue in the faith? You should note that *most* people who are outspoken against the faith and were former christians, were baptists, and the kids of baptists.
AB: "You baptize babies who's federal head may not necesarily be Christ, yet you ask me...
Why would a sign which *you admit* represents this be given to those whose federal head was an uncircumcised heart???"
???"
PM: Well, you failed to realize that I was giving you a reductio ad absurdum argument. Re-read what I wrote in that light. it refutes your position.
AB: "Actually, your answer brings about more questions."
PM: That may be, but it still answers your original question. You said you just had an "honest" question. I think you have your mind made up and my answer does not matter. So, now that I have shown the consitency of my position you'll just bring up more questions.
AB: "Actually I was just stating two other views I had heard concerning this issue, so as to question whether or not your view here is not monolithic."
PM: Yeah, well your views are not monolithic either. Indeed, many of your elders do not agree with Josh and yourself (i.e., your position on covenant membership). So, we can play this one all day.
AB: "Yes, but not at the same time in the same category. From the eternal prospective, they are only either one or the other. Humanly speaking a person can be in Christ externally, yet in Adam internally."
PM: i. Yeah, same for me. So if you escape the dilemma this way, so do I.
ii. No, actually it's not just a "human" perspective. According to Hebrews 10 it is *GOD* who calls the non-elect "his people." So, it's not just from a "human" perspective. God views them of being in covenant with him as well, though they receive the curses rather than the blessings of the covenant. Only covenant members receive covenant curses. They are doubly cursed, then. Cursed by the CoW and the NC.
~Paul
p.s. eventually you and Josh will come around :-)
p.p.s Hope you don't midn my use of CAPS, I just did it to emphasize some words and I was to lazy to italicize them. :-)
Does it seem to you that our comments are beoming increasingly longer?
Ok, here we go...
"I appreciate your attempts at finding inconsistencies. In fact, I feel like I'm talking to Josh! :-)"
Birds of a feather...
"Also, I don't think it was "just as much" a sign of membership in covenant community. Is there a verse for that?"
You are right. I should have said, "as well as".
"So, you even recognize that someone can have the sign yet not have any of the reality."
Absolutely. It happens. But it should not be the norm of the new covenant. See Jeremiah 31:34.
" Again, you confuse the sign with the thing signified. Abraham had the sign AFTER he was justified by faith, but then turned around and gave it to his 8 day old, who was not justified by faith yet. So, your argument, again, can be given to Abraham."
Then I guess circumcision wasn't representative of being justified by faith after all.
" and thus members of the covenant without having Christ as thei federal head."
Sure, but this should not be the norm.
"You see, if YOU have a problem with someone receiving something that represents Christ as their federal head, but then you also allow people whose covenant head is Adam, then this is your problem as well as mine. Thus it's a pseudo problem."
I don't believe it's a pseudo problem. This is why--while I'm sure you and I both would rather have only the regenerate elect in the covenant at any given time, thus keeping the bride of Christ completely pure, baptists at least make an effort to that end. We admit only those into the covenant community which have made profession that Christ is their federal head, of course not in those words, but that is the basic idea. Whereas, you admit people into the covenant community who may or may not even ever profess faith. I know that baptists also apostatize, however, the judgment of charity would have us assume all who profess are under Christ.
"Are the Brisby's denying that any circumcised Israelite had Adam as their federal head? "
I'll just speak for myself here, but I would venture to say that probably the vast majority of Israelistes were under Adam at the time of their circumcision. But I can say that because I don't believe circumcision was representative of having been justified by faith.
"So, if the Brisby's are unwilling to say that Adam was Isaac's federal head (upon birth) then Isaac must have had Christ as his federal head. "
I am not unwilling to say that Isaac had Adam as his federal head at birth. He probably did. I think I missed the part of our conversation where I lead you to believe otherwise.
" I agree, but not all who are in the covenant have this. Not all who receive the sign receive the thing signified."
I agree, however, this SHOULD be the norm.
"I'd like to see the "statistics" for this."
I'll try to find them for you. I heard them several years ago.
I am not saying that most baptist kids continue in the faith. But the statistics I saw were very interesting. They showed the percentage of kids who continue in their parents' traditions, when it comes to the different more popular denominations.
The reason that most former christians used to be baptists may have something to do with the fact that there are about a billion more baptist denominations than presbeterian. The Reformed Baptist denomination is the only one I am arguing for.
"your views are not monolithic either. Indeed, many of your elders do not agree with Josh and yourself (i.e., your position on covenant membership). So, we can play this one all day."
Actually, I can't think of any of our elders who fully agree with us. But I may be wrong about that. I didn't ever claim our views were monolithic, and I will be the first to admit that just because a view isn't monolithic doesn't make it any less valid. In posting my original post, I was trying to get a feel for how presbeterians would answer the question I asked. In asking whether your view was the majority view, I was simply wondering if it was safe to assume that you were speaking for the presbeterian whole.
"So, it's not just from a "human" perspective. God views them of being in covenant with him as well, though they receive the curses rather than the blessings of the covenant. Only covenant members receive covenant curses. They are doubly cursed, then. Cursed by the CoW and the NC."
Agreed.
"p.s. eventually you and Josh will come around :-)"
Thanks for the vote of confidance. I think. :)
AB: "Absolutely. It happens. But it should not be the norm of the new covenant. See Jeremiah 31:34."
PM: I never argued that it's "the norm." And, that's not why believe in infant baptism.
Furthermore, many baptists read that verse as saying that the covenant includes *only* the elect. I didn't see anything there where it said, "non-elect covenant members are not the norm."
And, there's other intepretations of that verse which have nothing to do with the status of covenant members before jehovah.
My point is that it is not *necessary* that one have Christ as his federal head in order to be on covenant, which youi now admit. Thus thus isn't a problem for me.
AB: Then I guess circumcision wasn't representative of being justified by faith after all.
PM: I don't see why not???
Romans 4:11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision
Circumcision was a "seal" of the righteousness he had by faith. He then gave this sign to his 8 day old.
Bahnsen notes, "Abraham’s circumcision was God’s testimony in Abraham’s flesh that righteousness cannot be merited by man’s natural efforts – that it must be graciously imputed to the helpless sinner. Abraham was reckoned righteous, therefore, only by trusting in God’s promise and provision – by faith."
AB: Sure, but this should not be the norm.
PM: And thus you've given me my argument.
AB: We admit only those into the covenant community which have made profession that Christ is their federal head, of course not in those words, but that is the basic idea. Whereas, you admit people into the covenant community who may or may not even ever profess faith. I know that baptists also apostatize, however, the judgment of charity would have us assume all who profess are under Christ.
PM: Just like people in the OT were admitted in to the covenant who did not profess.
Also, I know this is your practice and opinion, but there is *no* verse that says, "only those who profess should be admitted."
I assume that God's ways are binding until He revokes them. Hence we see the disspensationalist tendency you employ.
You can employ rhetoric, like you did above, but despite the emotive force, this wasn't an argument.
People who profess should be judged with charity, that's the way it's always been. Adults have *always* had to profess.
AB: I'll just speak for myself here, but I would venture to say that probably the vast majority of Israelistes were under Adam at the time of their circumcision. But I can say that because I don't believe circumcision was representative of having been justified by faith.
PM: No, it was a sign and a seal of justification by faith. It represented that justification comes by faith alone.
AB: I agree, however, this SHOULD be the norm.
PM: I agree that we should seek to make this the norm, but it need not be a present reality for all.
Since I think children of believers are included in the covenant, I obviously don;t buy the premise. Indeed, if my position is correct then yours must be false.
We've not argued for this yet, we've only argued that it is not a damning argument against me that some infants might not have Christ has their federal head.
AB: The reason that most former christians used to be baptists may have something to do with the fact that there are about a billion more baptist denominations than presbeterian. The Reformed Baptist denomination is the only one I am arguing for.
PM: Ah, the no true scotsman fallacy.
Well, we both know, painfully, that the Reformed Baptist congregations have PLENTY of peope, who "profess" faith leaving their families and getting excommunicated. Hyper-preterism has affected Reformed Baptist congregations more than Presby ones. So, we can play this game all day.
Oh, and your record with kids, as we both know, is not stellar either.
Let's drop this line of argument since I don't think it's fruitful.
AB: In posting my original post, I was trying to get a feel for how presbeterians would answer the question I asked.
PM: And my view resolves the problem you raised (even *if* it raises more questions).
AB: I was simply wondering if it was safe to assume that you were speaking for the presbeterian whole.
PM: Barna did a study on this, I think I speak for 87.5% of them. ;-)
Well, it looks like we're winding down here....
Paul,
I don't think it's helpful to speak of someone having "dispensationalist tendencies," since, according to your own view, you have the same tendencies by cutting out of the covenant the unbelieving spouse and by cutting the children out of the Lord's Table.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Smooch, smooch.
Josh
Josh,
I don't think you should be saying *anything* since you have my last devestating argument to deal with on your forum.
But, since I'm a nice guy, I'll dismember you above argument:
[1] It has always been the case that an "ubelieving spuse" has been cut out of the covenant! If an spouse in the OT refused to be circumcised (if he were male), refused to honor Jehovah, and refused to do any of the things required for covenant membership, that spouse would be "cut out" or "not even admitted" (depending on the situation) of/into the covenant.
[2] I don't "cut children" out of the Lord's supper. Indeed, since a 12 year old may be considered a "child" and if they make a profession, and it is credible etc, they are admitted. Thus we both allow "children" to partake.
Secondly, if you're talking about infants, well I don't think they ever partook since, as you know, infants cannot digest lamb chops.
Finally, if they were toddler-esk or a bit older, I don't believe that they partook of the OT meals. I believe that "catechized" children partook.
So, how you like me now?!
It's so easy to dismantle your arguments Joshy-poo.
I have no internal inconsistencies, my position is consistent and rational, yours has been demonstarted to be inconsistent and to be dispensational.
Now, I've escaped your dispensationalism charge and you're still left with yours.
Oh, and let's not forget that your response was a tu quoche fallacy. So, not only did your response miss the mark, misunderstand my position, misrepresent my position, it was also logicaly fallacious.
"Smooch, smooch."
I'd rather you not embarrass yourself on your wife's blog, you need to maintain that air of machismo!
ta ta snookums,
~Paul
p.s I know to my refutation of your argument against kids and communion you'll bring up the household passages, but we've been there done that and it's been refuted. You have nothing.
But, check this out, one could argue that the NT tells us that we are to examine ourselves as well as other things only people with relevently functioning cognative faculties can do, thus the NT gives us new directives and hence the position is not dispensational.
I'm not saying that that's my argument but a presby could give it.
This is different than yours since NOWHERE in the NT can it be found that "only those who profess faith are part of the covenant."
You take the proposition, "those who professed faith were baptized" and change it into the logically different proposition that "only those who profess may be baptized."!
Hence credo-baptism is shown, again, to be illogical.
Sorry guy, but you're wrong here.
The only reason you're a credo is because as you've said, "you'll never become paedo, nothing can change you."
So, since you've put so much stock into your bragging about credobaptism you're too embarrassed and proud to admit you're wrong.
In all my years talking to you I've not seen ONE good argument from you for why credobaptism is correct. They all have broken down upon analysis.
Smooch smooch.
~Paul
edited: it should have read, tu quoque fallacy, not "tu quoche."
sorry
Post a Comment
<< Home