John UK wrote:
When you say "return", what exactly do you mean? Is he somewhere else at the moment? Return from where?

If you folks ever wonder if you should be baptizing children, just consider how the Lord was against Moses for his covenant neglect in Exodus 4.

If you ever want to know why children might be leaving the churches consider that it may be God's warning to those who are guilty of covenant neglect.

As for me and my house, we will be off making disciples of the nations BY MEANS OF Baptizing and Teaching.

Here is a good read on the error of the catabaptists...

Hidemi Williges wrote:
So, if one is led by the HOLY SPIRIT to get re-baptized, he is led by superstition????
Would you accept the baptism of one who leaves the catholic church, gets saved and is led by the HOLY SPIRIT to get re-baptized in, lets say in a Presbyterian church, is looking not at CHRIST'S work but at man????
What sayest thou.

Thanks for the quaint ditty.
But, what about Matthew 28:19? Does it not say that disciples are made BY MEANS OF Baptism?

Now, I will answer your questions.

Are infants able to believe? I guess that depends on how you define infant. Legally, an infant is a minor. So I would say yes. If you are speaking of a baby 2 days old, I would say no. The question however is not if they can believe, but Gan God save an infant? The answer is of course Yes.

2. Are you aware that covenant breaking has always existed...
Yes, of course, look at Moses in Exodus. This and other heresies have been around sine the days of Paul.

Unless I missed your post, I see that you have evaded my comment (and greek proof) on Matthew 28:19 That disciples are made BY MEANS OF Baptizing and Teaching. DO you have a response to this other than a preconceived notion?

W.G.T. Shedd makes the point (my paraphrase) that if Matthew 28:19 had used the word "circumcize" instead of "baptize", there would be no doubt that male children were included in the commission command.
So, since both circumcision and baptism are covenant signs and seals (Romans 4:11; Col 2:11-12) why are children excluded?

That's funny. The link you sent me clearly states that baptize is a participle of means, and then your author does ever gymnastic move possible to deny it. I'll stick with Wallace, the Bible, the Westminster Confession, and the reformers.

I know that baptism does not save man nor child. However, it is a sign and seal of God's promise to save anyone who comes to Him through faith in Christ. My job is to show the promise to the nations and let God do the choosing.

First, of all it is quite presumptuous to say you KNOW why people are leaving the church.

Second, it is man's prideful way to always BLAME someone other than looking at yourselves (see Adam & Eve)

John UK,
The reason you may not have heard the truths that I am saying is...

1. You have only been exposed to baptistic teaching. And they stay away from the verses that they can't fit into their extra-biblical theology.

2. You have never read reformed systematic theologies or commentaries.

3. You live in a very dark part of the world

4. You need to get out more.

If a missionary went to Russia, He would Preach & Teach the word of God, If God chose to save some the missionary should baptize them. If the saved have infants and children he should also baptize them.

Let me ask you a question now...
If the missionary brings food to the starving Russians should he only give it to the adults who ask for it? Or should he give it to the children is well?

Will the adult Russians eat it all and not give it to their children? So then, how much more the should they show the promise of the bread of life to their children.

John UK wrote:
Well, Coram Deo, where were we?

Again the idea is to "Make Disciples BY MEANS OF going to them, baptizing them and teaching them."

Of course this means, literally go to them (highways & byways) baptize them (with water) and teach them (the gospel/word of God)

The problem for baptists is that we are commanded to do all three of these actions as part of making a follower/disciple of Christ. We must go to them, baptize them and teach them.

Note it does not say go to them, teach them, wait till God does his saving work and then baptize. We do our part, we trust God to elect who he will.

Remember Judas was called a disciple. Therefore, disciples are not necessarily saved.

Yes, teaching (didasko) is a dependent participle also in v. 20. Therefore, translate as "Make Disciples" by means of going, baptizing, teaching.

The problem remains, that these are participles of means. Therefore, Make disciples BY MEANS OF going, Baptizing and teaching.

If you begin teaching your child to be a disciple, you must also baptize him to be a disciple.

Of course Adults would have to repent and be baptized. But that says nothing about children. They are dealt with in Matthew 28:19, and Acts 2:39, the household verses, etc...