It's bad enough that they were being victimised because they just wanted to pray in a public place. But the above statement suggests they were arrested for doing absolutely nothing.

The Cure wrote:
Actually they were inside the red see. That's called immersion.
When we are baptized into Jesus, we are not sprikled by him. We are placed in him.
Same thing.

Yes! Absolutely true.
And the remedy for all this evolutionary conjecture is Faith.

Hence

Mike wrote:
Won't bother arguing which method is best, but perhaps we should at least follow the Lord's example, and be baptised as an adult. Where does that leave paedobaptism?

But more to do with the circumstances He was born into; - baptism wasn't invented then.

Discerning Believer wrote:
Keep in mind that the ceremonial laws (of which circumcision was a part of) as well as the dietary laws were fullfilled in Christ and done away with.
.....the Abrahamic covenant was two fold, national and spiritual.

Thus
1] Can the Lord circumcise the heart at any age?

2] Can the Lord baptise the heart at any age?

Discerning Believer wrote:
Another question. Is an infant able to manifest those outward signs of a circumcised heart?

Mr. J wrote:
The whole OT history is an indictment on Israel because they were rebellious, and inveterably unregenerate. It was only a remnant of election which stayed true to God. That whole history is proof positive that natural man is rebellious, ungodly, unjust and totally unrighteous.

DJC49 wrote:
How were they circumcised in heart?
They weren't.
God promised circumcision of the heart

Deut 10:16 "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked."

quote wrote:
Yet in the old covenant God's Spirit was with His people but not written on their hearts through circumcision of the heart.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Minnow, you're BBC, had an interesting article about Obama & Clinton, (Robed Obama picture ignites row) Isn't he cute?

Oh That's how evangelism works???

Judging by these predictions you folks over there better emigrate... to.. em... ah... well.. eh.. ooo....

I. First, then, DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY AS EXEMPLIFIED IN SALVATION. If any man be saved, he is saved by Divine grace, and by Divine grace alone; and the reason of his salvation is not to be found in him, but in God. We are not saved as the result of anything that we do or that we will; but we will and do as the result of God's good pleasure, and the work of his grace in our hearts."(Spurgeon)

Good Bible teaching by CHS.

A total of 66 infants survived NHS termination attempts in one year alone, it emerged.

Rather than dying at birth as was intended, they were able to breathe unaided. About half were alive for an hour, while one survived ten hours."
(thisislondon.co.uk/news)

And from this Arminian seed comes todays Anglican-Episcopalian Liberal abomination.

So you folks really need to get to grips with the Biblical Doctrines of Grace. Otherwise you are planting seeds of distruction in your own denominations.

Get to the Reformed Church fast and hear the real Word preached.

So why do these homosexual couples want to marry?

One answer thrown about is the "rights" point. But I really cant buy, that this is the whole reason behind it.

The contra-Bible precepts in society has a Satanic origin and source. Homosexual practice is clearly contra-Bible.
It may appear obvious to state this, but nonetheless Satan and wickedness are more manifest today in the mind set of politics, bureacracy, academia and social ethics than seems ever before.

JD wrote:
The bible is full of free will. God has held men accountable for their actions with rewards for doing good and condemantion for doing wrong.

JD wrote:
The very act of sinning is an action of man that is in defiance of God and

"What this all boils down to is this: we are morally accountable for choices that God predestined us to make because God brings our choice about through moral causes. Since moral causes do not remove our moral accountability, we can be justly held accountable for our sins even though they are ultimately ordained by God."

JD wrote:
The proper subjects of baptism are those who have heard the gospel, believed it and been converted and indwelt by the Spirit of God and that is the only ones who the churches are to consider for baptism.

I notice the order you put it in. Sinner acts first.
Hope God follows up later.

Your estimation of the power of iniquity is that it has very little power at all. Iniquity must be very very happy with that position.

But really JD, you shouldn't preclude the Holy Spirit in this way, after all He brings grace and Faith to the sinner, which then enables him to overcome iniquity in a way that mortals simply cannot achieve.

Here is the Covenant of Grace age instructions, valid today in Baptism in both genders now.

7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

The Cure wrote:
I must say that you guys have one screwed up logic. CAn you take two steps back in your mind and actually digest what you have just finished saying? You will baptize an infant that has no profession of faith but you require one of an adult.

The Presbyterian Church are not "baptists" viz we don't build our church upon the "rock" of baptism.

The reason we ask the adult to make a statement is because it is logical for them to declare their faith and agree with the church doctrine, in this ceremony. But obviously that statement has no bearing upon the accomplisment of baptism. We are seeking the fruit of the Holy Spirit from them.