Covenant Infant Baptism[URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=51902152443]]]Unto you and your children.[/URL]

[URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=822091939540]]]Covenant Baptism[/URL]

[URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=103106163813]]]The Covenant of Baptism[/URL]

[URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=102906143934]]]New Covenant Baptism replaces Old Covenant Circumcision[/URL]

The problem that our Baptist cousins present is the discontinuity of the WHOLE counsel of God, which they present in their selective OT verse removal to support their ideology.

(Credit to John Sartelle in his booklet "Baptism", P.l0)

"When a person believed God in the Old Testament, what happened? Answer: He was circumcised.

What was the outward event representing the clean heart in the Old Testament? Answer: Circumcision.
What was the outward sign that marked entry into the community of believers in the Old Testament? Answer: Circumcision.

Now replace the words "Old Testament" with "New Testament", asking the same questions:

When a person believed God in the New Testament, what "happened? Answer: He was baptized.

What was the outward event representing the clean heart in the New Testament? Answer: Baptism

A. Both are taught as initiations into the SAME Covenant:
1. Cir.: Ge.17:7, l0-11; "Ro.4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also"
2. Bap.: Mt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38-39; "38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" Acts 10:47,48

B. Both are significant of conversion and putting away of sin.
1. Cir.: Deut. l0:16; 30:6; Jer.4:4; 9:25-26; Ez.44:7,9;
Ro.2:28-29
2. Bap.: Acts 2:38-39; 22:16; Col. 2:11; Ga. 3:27, 29;
I Pe. 3:21; Ti.3:5-6

C. Both are outward expressions of inward righteousness.
1. Cir.: Ro.4:11
2. Bap.: Mt.3:13-17; Acts 22:16

Obsterver wrote:
Dr Walls says of England: "The offices and liturgies did all along enjoin dipping, without any mention of pouring or sprinkling." About 1550, it began to prevail, being used first in the case of " weak children ;" and "within the space of half a century, from 1550 to 1600, prevailed to be the more general." The English churches finally came to imitate the Genevan, and casting off the domination of the Pope, bowed to the authority of Calvin and adopted pouring instead of dipping.

Calvin, who was not a thorough going reformer, was the first to include sprinkling in a church liturgy

All you have to do to prove this wrong is to look at the early church ancient mosaics.

"A picture is worth a thousand words." For example in the Catacombs.

Baptism is depicted with the candidate standing in water BUT A VESSEL BEING USED TO POUR WATER OVER THEM. These mosaics date back to the early centuries just after New Testament times.

John UK wrote:
And after the apostolic age

But you and Observer can just keep believing in the baptist rewrites of history and even pretend that deep water washing was as necessary as the Arminian verbal authentication of your ceremony.

The fact that we Presbyterians can track our Biblical Theological and historically factual ecclesiastical journey which originates in Apostolic times - in other words John, yes New Testament mode and method carried on.

Struggle as you might with baptistical hypothesis and conjectural facts, one fact is crystal clear that your denomination and its ideologies started in 1521 - and not before.

But don't be sad John just because you devised a church on the basis of ONE definition of baptizw rather than accepting all. Don't be sad because you have to exclude (reinterpret) the Old Testament to achieve your discrimination by age. Don't be sad that your subsequent consequential theory must rely upon a works based ideology to promote its acceptance.

The Article wrote:
"The unveiling of the ECO comes years after former members of The Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America also launched their own bodies in response to the liberal direction of the denominations."

The true Biblical Presbyterian Church Reformed is of course invisible both in human sight and in doctrinal truth.
Which is why so many false churches have risen throughout history with all too human, eg works, philosophies about Bible doctrines.
The Roman Catholics chose to reject Scripture and raise up a variety of graven images. The Arminians reject a Sovereign God and decided that He needed their help to save. The Baptists decided in 1521 to ignore the OT and discriminate by age, also adding a few extra gallons of water to make sure they washed behind the ears.

Observer wrote:
John, even if Presby had an answer, would you trust it, seeing his knowledge of the scriptures and history is woefully inadequate?
His answer that the Presby church had researched matters brought a smile to my face. Isnt that what the RCC says?
Since he posted a quote from Scotty Clark, I googled him and have been reading more from him. All I have to say is And he's a Presby Prof?

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Mike wrote:
I doubt "Exegesist" is Presby. Unless he changed his fingerprints.

Observer wrote:
And why on earth would one be a sign and seal of the other if the two are exactly equivalent?

Extracts wrote:
What is the NT counterpart or parallel to the OT rite of circumcision? It is not the NT rite of baptism

Baptism and circumcision are BOTH sign and seal of the Covenant. THAT connection is borne out in Colossions where two verses together illustrate this...
Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."
__________

Neil wrote:
I have never heard of Presbys using anything more than a palmful of water. Less messy perhaps, but not Biblical, since baptism is supposed to symbolize the washing of regeneration, yet no one considers a palmful of water sufficient to wash even the hands, let alone the whole body

One could say that the communion bread is a kind of 'sign' of the flesh of Christ. But you don't eat a six foot loaf of bread? Or do you in the Baptist church.

As for "washing" the whole body - remember what Peter said...
1Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

So the 'washing' is figurative language in this sense. As in...
Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;"

John UK wrote:
I've prepared a little Bible Study

"Acts 2.38,39 equates circumcision and baptism. In Acts 2.38 the Apostle Peter calls for repentance, faith in Christ and baptism by Jews who are hearing his preaching. In v.39 he gives the reason for this action: "the promise is to you and to your children, and all who are far off...." The Apostle Peter consciously uses the same formula in his preaching as the LORD himself used when he instituted the sign of circumcision in Genesis 17, which the Jews listening understood precisely."

And...
For adult converts, baptism is a sign of what Christ has done for them, forgiven them and washed them. Adult converts are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Forgiveness is through faith in Christ. Baptism is a sign of our new standing with God through faith. Notice, v.39 "The promise (of salvation to those who believe) is for you and for your children." (R.Scott Clark)

Lurker wrote:
Slippery

Instruction for Baptists...

"The connection between baptism and circumcision is quite clear in Colossians 2:11-12. The connection is not direct, but indirect and the point of contact between them is Christ and baptism is the sign and seal of that circumcision. In v.11 Paul says "in him [i.e. in Christ] you were also circumcised with the circumcision done by Christ" and in v.12 he says exactly how it is that we were circumcised in and by Christ: "having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith...." For Paul, in the New covenant, our union with Christ is our circumcision. In baptism, we are identified with Christ's baptism/circumcision, as it were, on the cross. Neither baptism nor circumcision effects this union (ex opere operato), rather God the Spirit unites us to Christ, makes us alive and gives us faith.

John UK wrote:
I tell you that unless a sinner repents, he will perish.
You respond with, "A sinner cannot repent."

In the Reformed camp, the ordo salutis is 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith & repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. (Rom 8:29-30)

In the Arminian camp, the ordo salutis is 1) outward call 2) faith/election, 3) repentance, 4) regeneration, 5) justification, 6) perseverance, 7) glorification.

Now I can see you have pitched your tent in the Arminian camp.
__________

Neil wrote:
you merely stated "Yes we baptise adults who are not covered by a Parental covenant

This active discrimination of itself makes a point, viz your reliance upon the human capacity to grow to an age to offer a verbal conclusion, (confession).
_________

Observer wrote:
Have you ever done any original research yourself?