Replies

I have posted what I think speaks to the issue. David saying he would go to his son in Heaven. Paul saying that without the knowledge of the law, sin is not imputed. None of you have answered that. Further, I have not claimed that unbelieving children (who can understand) are saved.

You have posted nothing BUT what you ~think~ and that proves nothing ..the child of David was elect ...so that means nothing. It is not a general statment of promise to infants..

I have never posted anything about some age of accountability. For one, I would have no way of knowing when a child could be at that stage. I think that God deals with people as individuals, not as some across the board "ok, age 7, you are going to Hell if you die now and I didn't choose you." I don't cling to ANY Roman traditions, including the dead work of infant baptism. You however do.

here is the problem Jael..If you say ALL infants are saved you have to have a cut off..when does a child STOP being a saved infant and become responsible? 2 or 4 or 6

On one day are they saved and the next damed if they die?

Jael you ignore scripture I do not . Calling me a Romanist may make you feel better but it does not answer my question to you

Was the cross a crap shoot (by the way you man choosing Christ is a Romnaist position..but I will not call you a Romanist:>)

I am not calling you a Romanist, I am saying , hmm, hey wait, you called me one first!

But I am saying that in all seriousness, you can't apply the traditions of Rome to me, which I don't follow, and not see the tradition of Rome that you do follow, the dead work of infant Baptism.