Jump to content


Male Non denominational Married



Health Insurance is my day job.

My Details

Last visited
Relationship StatusMarried
DenominationNon denominational
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


davidtaylorjr last won the day on October 16

davidtaylorjr had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

436 Excellent

About davidtaylorjr

  • Rank


  • Denomination
    Non denominational
  • Gender
  • Relationship Status

Personal information

  • Occupation
    Health Insurance is my day job.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,438 profile views
  1. Oh I believe it. But I also know that has nothing to do with baptism in the new covenant. Or the passage in question.
  2. You realize that is the whole premise for infant baptism right?
  3. And as far as it is being simple, yes. It simply proves that the New Covenant is NOT a continuation of the old but completely new with new parameters. True. BUT we know from context everyone in the household believed before they were baptized. Therefore, that completely rules out infant baptism in the way Covenant Theology understands it and gives way to credo-baptism. And now you are insulting my intelligence. I have never said I don't care about the other position. There is just no biblical basis for the other position without reading things into the text and making "good" and "necessary" inferences that are neither good or necessary.
  4. 7:14 made holy … are holy. These are the same terms (Gk. hagiazō, hagios) used earlier for God’s separation of Corinthian Christians from their pagan environment as his special people (1:2; 3:17; 6:1, 2, 11). The unbelieving spouse and children in a family with a believing spouse are not saved by this association (7:16), but they do come under the believing spouse’s Christian influence and so, Paul notes, they are much more likely to be saved in due course through their own faith. Thus they are in a real sense “set apart” (the basic meaning of hagiazō and hagios) from other unbelievers and from the evil of the world. Thus the positive spiritual and moral influence of the believing parent outweighs the negative influence of the unbelieving parent. - ESV Study Bible AH! So you cannot have baptism being the direct correlation of circumcision. That is PRECISELY my point. The Covenants are NOT the same. We have an old covenant that is no longer in force because it was fulfilled, and we now have a NEW covenant with NEW parameters. Not a continuation of old parameters.
  5. Futile because you don't actually have an answer?
  6. Ok, what is your point? Did I ever say that? No I didn't. I said we don't know that they were included in those households and we know, from context, that the baptisms were based on the belief of everyone in the household. Therefore, we know it did not include infants because they do not have the capacity to believe. ??? You are dodging the argument. Your position, if taken to its logical conclusion, makes it so that if the head of house believes, everyone is saved regardless of whether they believe or not. And you still have yet to deal with the issue of female infants and circumcision/baptism. I have not made such an argument. If that is NOT the argument being made you need to explain your position because that is sure what it sounds like. What does?
  7. And there is no indication that they were infants. Also no indication that they were baptized because she was and they were without belief. So this does not support your claim. So if someone believes their whole house is automatically saved? Is that really how you read this? Correct, they obviously all believed based on the command from verse 31. Again, no indication that there were children and no indication that everyone did not believe. Ah so now people don't have to have faith in Christ to be saved? Wow. Just wow.
  8. The context is the reasoning I allow. Corinthians was written to the whole church which included women. Under the New Covenant? That is correct. There is no sign and seal except for belief. The Old Covenant is done. It no longer exists. There is now a new covenant. It is not an extension of the Old Covenant. That being said, you still did not address the major issue in your parallel of female infants. Household baptisms after belief. Not to mention you assume there were infants in these households. It doesn't state that. Also, specific covenants involved infants. Not all covenants. When it says in Acts 16:31 Belive and you will be saved, you and your household. Do you think that means that if the head of house believes, and is the only one that believes, that all in the household are now saved? NO. It is saying each person must believe. You do this, and also everyone in your household must do this to be saved.
  9. What reasoning did I abandon? You are trying to force a reasoning that I did not actually make. So I'm not abandoning anything. The context of baptism in the New Testament is always believer's baptism and therefore does not allow for infant baptism since they do not have the capacity to believe. I do have a question for you, same comment I posed to @Becky if this is supposed to be the continuation of circumcision in the New Covenant, why do you baptize infant girls?
  10. I dont even know what you are trying to say here. The context does not allow for infants because they do not have the capacity to believe.
  11. Yes, in the context that the context of the passage is clearly believer's baptism and not some covenant children symbolism replacing circumcision. Since infants have no capacity to believe it obviously is not including them in the passage. The instruction for baptism is clearly upon the basis that everyone in the household believed. So do you baptize infant girls? If so I guess that isn't biblical since girls couldn't be circumcised.
  12. William you can play word games all you want. But it is not infant baptism. It is believer's baptism. By the way, those children would have already been circumcised so obviously baptism wasn't a continuation with a new method of the Old Covenant. We are no longer under the Old Covenant.
  13. An infant isn't going to be believing so they wouldnt' be qualified anyway. Acts is dealing with new believers. Not some inference of a replacement of circumcision that is read into the text.
  14. So you can't interchange children and infants. The only example of baptism in the NT is believer's baptism.
  15. Actually there is an example of women taking communion. See Paul's letter to the Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 11:33 specifically addresses the entire church male and female. The Greek in that verse can also be rendered in English as brothers and sisters in the way it is used (see ESV footnote).
  • Create New...