4 Answers for Toby

[@de5ertscorpion]

This is simply the best video that I've seen at succinctly stating the doctrines that I think scripture gives birth to. Thank you very much!

[@brandonadams07]

You're welcome. Thank you for letting me know it was useful.

[@the1der]

​@@brandonadams07removal of the tenants, for sure.

[@austinmclean9003]

Very careful answers, I especially appreciated the distinction you pointed out between paedobaptists starting with systematic theology and working toward Biblical theology and credobaptists reversing the order. I had never considered it in those terms, so thank you for your fine work.

[@RegeneratedRadio]

Great stuff Brandon. Would love to see more content engaging with the criticism of 1689 Federalism!

[@brandonadams07]

Send me links to the criticisms and I'll try to respond as I am able

[@VinceVideoHD1k995]

This video was a great blessing to me. I had no idea you had a KZbin channel. I can’t wait to see what other videos you have!

[@Leatherwoodoutdoors]

Great answers and video! Keep up the good work Brandon!

[@mathhelpbydan5051]

Fantastic!

[@ehudsdagger5619]

I concur, especially with the last little bit. Time for Toby and Brandon to sit down in studio for a few hours, with cameras on, and work through some of these details.

[@michealferrell1677]

This was great brother!! It would be helpful indeed to see a back and forth on the issues with otherwise like minded believers. I like your approach and the amount of respect you demonstrated in your answers.

[@willIV9962]

Well done, once again Brandon, in answering these questions. I hope Toby takes you up on your offer.

[@doomerquiet1909]

I hope you two meet up and discuss, God bless you i’ve learned a lot from this channel

[@jrise72]

Appreciate your work

[@jackcrow1204]

Absolutely fantastic I really hope u post more I really like your work and videos are easier to send to people rathen than articles U reach more people with podcasts and videos even if writing is better Really hope the convo goes down like, a lot

[@jozzen77]

Are you a movie director? I am studying film, and the videos on this channel are really well produced, specially the old ones explaining 1689 federalism. They goy me wanting a documentary about 1689 federalism.

[@brandonadams07]

At one point in my life I was moving in that direction, but not any longer. You can find some of my past work at brandonadams.com and some of the older videos on this channel

[@shawngillogly6873]

How did I not see this video sooner? Thank you for sharing.

[@dgh5391]

Very helpful. Thanks Brandon.

[@josiahbates7936]

Thanks for this! Very good stuff.

[@ReformedRookie]

great job Brandon!

[@TheFlyingDutchman85]

Answer 4: The controversy in the New Testament regarding circumcision is summarized as follows: "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." (Acts 15:1b). The issue regarding circumcision was not at all about the exclusion or inclusion of children. The issue was about justification. "I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace." (Gal. 5:3-4). "...we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified." (Gal. 2:16). Just because there was a controversy surrounding circumcision does not mean that there was a controversy surrounding the exclusion/inclusion of children. Toby's question remains unanswered.

[@brandonadams07]

Like I said, your paedobaptist lenses filter out the details. Yes, you're right, it was a controversy about justification, but more specifically how it relates to being an offspring of Abraham. The Judaizers believed that one must be circumcised (be an offspring of Abraham) in order to be justified in Christ. Paul clarifies that being a natural offspring of Abraham (represented by circumcision) was not a requirement for justification in Christ (though it was to inherit the land of Canaan, the other Abrahamic promise). One did not have to become a Jew (offspring of Abraham) because Christ was the offspring of Abraham concerning whom the third promise was made. One simply needs to be in Christ through faith. For more, see www.1689federalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/JIRBS_PromiseLawFaith.ReviewArticle.Adams_.pdf

[@TheFlyingDutchman85]

@@brandonadams07 The issue was not one of change, but of clarity. Being a true child of Abraham was always by faith. Jesus says as much. But this was never intended to be contradictory to the geneological principle established in the Old Testament. You're pitting them against each other, which adds something to the New Testament controversy that was never there. Thus, Toby's point about why we never see it mentioned. Your articles are great, but they don't answer the issues well.

[@jordancda]

The argument is that the genealogical principle applies to the temporal promises of the Abrahamic covenant, not the spiritual promises. It applies to his physical seed (the Israelites) not to his spiritual seed (Jesus and those with faith in Him). Of course there was overlap within the Hebrews - those who were both physical heirs and spiritual heirs of the promises to Abraham. So, the arguments are with the premises, not the conclusions. The Westminsterian view mashes the temporal and spiritual promises together and then creates two administrations (it has to and is logical based on the premises) So, the controversy in the NT is the fact that their Jewishness earned them nothing in the New Covenant of Christ which is why Paul spends so much time on it. There is no controversy about children being in the covenant because it's clear from the beginning: true faith gets you in the new covenant - not blood, not faithfulness of parents.

[@TheFlyingDutchman85]

@@jordancda "because it's clear from the beginning: true faith gets you into the covenant - not blood, not faithfulness of parents." True faith was required for true covenant membership. But this was the case all the way back with Abraham. And that was clear too. Nevertheless, there's still a controversy. Just as blood and faithfulness of parents never bestowed true covenant membership in the Old Covenant, so it does not in the New. Visible covenant membership, however, is a different story. And again, true covenant membership does not destroy visible categories, but does require true faith.

[@brandonadams07]

@@TheFlyingDutchman85 "The issue was not one of change, but of clarity. Being a true child of Abraham was always by faith." I am aware that is your opinion. I don't believe it is biblical. Abraham's two offspring are distinct and the promises made concerning them are distinct. Distinguishing them is not necessarily "pitting them against each other." For more, please read this www.1689federalism.com/1689-federalism-on-galatians-review-of-gordons-promise-law-faith/

[@michealferrell1677]

A few of us in the Reformed Baptist camp are asking the question about head coverings in 1cor 11 . We are not in any way dividing over this but I was wondering if you had any convictions on it and if 1689 federalism has anything to be considered.

[@brandonadams07]

Not sure that the covenant view of 1689 Federalism necessarily has any implications on the topic (don't think it does). Here is something I wrote about 14 years ago when I was working through it. I'd probably write it differently today with some minor adjustments, but it may be helpful as it works through the various interpretations. contrast2.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/watch-your-head/ Consider this (haven't had time to read through it all) reformedbooksonline.com/topics/topics-by-subject/worship/head-coverings-in-public-worship/ Consider this as well (again, haven't had time to read it, buts looks helpful) reformedbooksonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Fentiman-Travis-1-Corinthians-Head-Coverings-are-Not-Perpetual-and-they-were-Hair-Buns-with-or-without-Material-Proven.pdf

[@michealferrell1677]

@@brandonadams07 I’m 51 pages in on the last one you posted and there is teaching on natural/ positive laws . Thank you so much for sending this to me . RC Sproul had me almost convinced but now I have more to think about. We are currently working through Dr Sam Renihans book on covenant theology. I would have liked to see Dr White make his way to our side in the covenant stuff , I know you tried brother. Do you have any thoughts on confessional bibliology?

[@brandonadams07]

@@michealferrell1677 I have not had time to study bibliology, sorry

[@richardcox7178]

Please do more videos!

[@MHDoulos]

very good! thank you :) what would be some recommended reading on this topic? I would love some elaboration on your points

[@brandonadams07]

The written version of this includes some links to other posts that get into more detail contrast2.wordpress.com/2023/05/10/4-answers-for-toby-sumpter-1689-federalism/

[@josephbradberry4089]

Amen and amen.

[@wpuymac]

Nice answers especially number 4

[@churchhymnsandpsalms]

Great job. I hope he listens and responds.

[@hammerbarca6]

Any engagement from Toby?

[@brandonadams07]

No

[@hammerbarca6]

⁠@@brandonadams07dang. Side question, as I’ve been trying to study this topic and follow your reading list in the 1689 federalism website. How do you interpret Matthew 13:47-52 (parable of Dragnet) I have typically heard the parable of the wheat and tares used by presbys to defend the view that there are unregenerate people in the kingdom of God. That one is easy bc Jesus explains the parable and specifically says the field is the world (not the kingdom or church), and the wheat are the saved and Tares are not. But I just read this one and it seems to be saying the kingdom of heaven would be inclusive of all kinds of fish until the end of the age.

[@brandonadams07]

@@hammerbarca6 Here is James Currie: "Dr. Bannerman, confounding together, as is unhappily so com mon, the very distinct ideas of that which constitutes the Church, and the condition on earth of its militant portion, speaks of it as “described by our Lord under the expressive title of the kingdom of heaven,” adding, that “on one occasion He said that the kingdom of heaven” (that is, according to Dr. Bannerman, the visible Church) “is like unto a net that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind.” Daillé (Catéchisme des Eglises Réformées, tom. i. 543) affirms that “It is nowhere said in Scripture” (Note M) “that the Church is represented in these parables (Matt. xiii.), but simply its state in this world, where we allow that it is often mingled with hypocrites living in the same locality, or on the same threshing-floor, meeting in the same place of public worship, and making the same profession, but who are not on that account the Church. The chaff is indeed on the same floor with the good grain, but nevertheless is not the grain. The tares, though growing together with the wheat, are not wheat. The goats are sometimes penned in the same fold with the sheep, but who would be silly enough to say that hence they are sheep? It is thus as regards the wicked, who, in the same mass as the good, are not therefore themselves good. We say then that the threshing-floor spoken of in the Gospel signifies the present dispensation, during which hypo crites and profane persons mingle themselves with the faithful so speciously, that the Lord alone in many cases can separate them from it. The net we maintain to mean, not the Church” (if it do, what do the fishes signify),” “but the preaching of the Gospel, which attracts both the good and the wicked, but which transforms and brings into the Church the elect only, the rest remaining in their natural corruption. The field in which the tares and the wheat grow together is not the Church, but the world, as the Saviour explains it, whilst the room in which the hypocrite was found seated at the table with those invited, is each particular assembly, in which the wicked often deceive the eye of men, and pass for good and faithful, who, however, as St. John witnesses, are not such, for he says, “They are not of us, though they went out from us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us.” If, however, we believe our adversaries, they were of us, since they professed to be so, and since also, according to their” (the Romish) “teaching, profession suffices to make a man a true member of the Church. They have nothing else of moment on this subject to object to us, and we conclude, therefore, that the faithful are the mem- bers of the Church, and that the hypocrites and the profane, whatever they profess, are not of it, unless they are changed.”" contrast2.wordpress.com/2019/02/11/19th-century-scottish-presbyterian-criticism-of-bannermans-visible-invisible-churches/

[@brandonadams07]

Charles Hodge "[T]he parables in question were not intended to teach us the condition of membership in the kingdom of heaven, they cannot decide that point. In one place Christ asserts didactically, that regeneration by the Holy Spirit is essential to admission into his kingdom; shall we infer, in direct opposition to this assertion, that his kingdom includes both the regenerate and unregenerate, because he compares it to a net containing fishes, good and bad? Certainly not, because the comparison was not designed to teach us what is the condition of membership in his kingdom. This, however, is the precise point in dispute. What is the church? What is the condition of membership in the body of Christ? Does his body consist of all the baptized, or of all true believers ? As our Lord did not intend to answer these questions in those parables, they do not answer them. The design of each particular parable is to be learned from the occasion on which it was delivered, and from its contents. That respecting the tares and the wheat was evidently intended to teach, that as God has not given us the power to inspect the heart, or to discriminate between the sincere and insincere professors of religion, he has not imposed on us the obligation to do so. That is his work. We must allow both to grow on together until the harvest, when he will effect the separation. This surely does not teach that what the Scriptures say of the wheat is to be understood of the tares. Others of these parables are obviously designed to teach, that external profession or relations cannot secure the blessings of the kingdom of God. It is not every one who says, Lord, Lord, who is to be admitted into his presence. These parables teach that many of those who profess to be the disciples, and who, in the eyes of men, constitute his kingdom, are none of his. This is a very important lesson; but if we were to infer, from the figure in which it is inculcated, that mere profession does make men members of Christ’s kingdom, we should infer the very opposite from what he intended to teach. To learn the condition of membership in that kingdom, we must turn to those passages which are designed to teach us that point, --to those which professedly set forth the nature of that kingdom, and the terms of admission into it. This suggests a third remark in answer to the above objection. Whenever the kingdom of God means the same thing as the church, it is expressly taught that admission into it depends on saving faith, or an inward spiritual change, and not on external rites or profession." contrast2.wordpress.com/2019/03/07/hodges-baptist-understanding-of-the-visible-invisible-church/

[@brandonadams07]

Jean Claude "But for all this, we may and must say, that the true Church is visible, truly visible, in other senses and respects. For first of all; it cannot be denied that it is visible at least materially, as they say, because the true Believers that appear visibly in publick Assemblies, partake of the same Sacraments, and live in the same external Order: The faithful do not con­ceal themselves, nor decline the Holy Exercises of Religion, but on the contrary frequent them, and shew themselves more than other men, remembring that of St. Paul Heb. 10, 25., Not forsaking the assembling of our selves together. Besides, It is plain, that tho the true Church be mixt with wicked men in the same profession,Matt. 1 […]. yet is it visible in this very mixture, as the wheat is visible, tho in the same field with the tares, and the good fish in the same net with the bad, according to the parables in the Gospel; or as true Friends are vi­sible, tho mixt with dissemblers and flatterers. This mixture indeed hinders us from an exact distinction of persons, but still we may with great certainty distinguish and discern two sorts of persons. We are not sure which particular men are true Believers, and which Hypocrites, but we are sure that there are true Belivers as well as Hypocrites; and this is enough to prove the Church visible, according to the Scriptures, and St. Augustin’s Hypothesis… To talk of two true Churches even in Christ’s sight, one to which the Promises belong as such, viz. That of True Believers; and another to which they do not belong as such, viz. That, whose essence consists in the external profession; besides that it would be advancing a notion contrary to Scripture and Reason, which inform us but of one true Church; would be to argue to no purpose; for wherefore should we argue about a Church to which the Pro­mises of Jesus Christ have no relation? Why should we invest with such glorious and divine priviledges, a Church to which Christ hath promised nothing at all?... [T]he Ministry and the use of it is common both to good and bad, comes to pass only by accident, and from the treachery of the Enemy. Of right it belongs to true Believers only, and its genuine design was for them. Jesus Christ gave it for the assembling of the Saints, and instituted it to increase and cultivate his good Corn. If the Tares use it, or to speak more truly, abuse it, this is contrary to his intention. For his hand never sowed these, but the enemy’s, who rose by night for that purpose. It is sure then that the Ministry of it self does not make up a Church composed of good and bad men, because such only as it was intended to gather, are to be reckoned of his visi­ble Church. Now the Ministry is designed to gather the true Believers, and truly Righteous, not the worldlings and hypocrites in the least. If they thrust themselves into the Assemblies, it is not the Ministry that calls them, but the spirit of the world that sends them thither. An invincible argu­ment that there is no other visible Church, but what consists of true Believers, because they are the only persons call’d to Religious Assemblies; and it is not Jesus Christ, but Jesus Christ’s enemy that thrusts others into them… If you still desire an Argument of more strength, remember that the visi­bility attributed to the Church in Scripture, cannot possibly be any other than that we assign it. For as on the one hand we are taught there, that the true Church consists of true Believers only; so do we learn there also, that true Believers are mixt with wicked men and hypocrites: It is there we find the similitudes, of Chaff amongst the good Corn, of bad Fishes jumbled together with the good, of Tares sown among the good Wheat. Now whatever we deliver concerning the Churches visibility and invisibility, is grounded entirely upon these two principles" contrast2.wordpress.com/2019/03/05/the-french-reformed-understanding-of-the-visible-invisible-church/

[@doingthingscheap7911]

Thanks brother. In my comment to Toby I said he should ask you ! Thanks.

[@edmondhallas1911]

Al Go Rhythm🎉

[@TheFlyingDutchman85]

Answer 2: This one is similarly unsatisfactory. "Don't rest in...being part of this group of people called 'Christians'." This group of people is the visible church, the visible body of Christ into which people are baptized (1 Cor. 12:13). But Paul's frequent covenantal comparisons and parallels in chapter 10 show that he conceives of the visible church as the visible New Covenant community. That is, the New Covenant in terms of its visible administration. So, Paul is saying, "Don't rest in being a visible member of the New Covenant, that group of people called 'Christians'." Exactly right. And this is a point that Jesus also hammered: One cannot *merely* be a visible participant or member. He must *also* have the reality inside him. This is classic Reformed covenant theology. Just as it was possible for Old Covenant members to fall away despite their participation in the sacraments, so also might we when we neglect God's ordinary means of grace.

[@brandonadams07]

Thanks for re-iterating your position. I am familiar with it. For a more detailed look at this passage, see contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/04/23/1-cor-101-5-an-exposition/ and contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/04/23/1-cor-101-5-paedobaptist-false-inferences/

[@TheFlyingDutchman85]

@@brandonadams07 I've read it before, but your position doesn't adequately account for the covenantal language Paul employs here. Don't settle for your position just because your system demands it. Derive your system from the text.

[@brandonadams07]

@@TheFlyingDutchman85 likewise brother

[@Jonathan-jx3gb]

Answer 2: Old Covenant children of the flesh may fall away, but not the elect. The N.T covenant has a mixed covenant people similar to the old. But as Brandon pointed out, there are important and essential differences. The warning Paul gives is for the church as a whole including those who are unregenerate. For the regenerate, it is meant to remove pride, and cling to Christ. Reformed Theology distinguishes regenerate and unregenerate members. You seem to say that both regenerate and unregenerate can be lost or removed from the NT. However, those who are the elect will persevere to the end because the Triune God will finish the work.

[@TheFlyingDutchman85]

@@Jonathan-jx3gb I would re-read my reply, because I have the same position as you regarding New Covenant membership for both the regenerate and unregenerate. And no, I don't believe that the elect and regenerate will ever finally fall away.

[@TheFlyingDutchman85]

The answer to the first question isn't quite satisfying. To begin with, the grafting in Romans 11 is never said to be by faith. It is *standing fast* that is said to be through faith. In verse 23, the emphasis is not on one's coming to faith but on discontinuing rebellion, and further, on God's power to forgive a previously rebellious people, adopting them back into the olive tree...to stand fast through faith. Additionally, the warning about being cut off was made a hypothetical only, in order to preserve the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Diminishing the warning to a hypothetical is probably the most unsatisfactory part of the answer because something that can never be a reality cannot spur us on in steadfastness. For example, being told that if I fall away, I would turn into into a rock would not spur me on in my faith. These answers have been repeated frequently, but they never answer the question satisfactorily. The lack of answers to this question alone should cause one to question the system of credobaptist theology.

[@brandonadams07]

I'm sorry to hear you are unsatisfied. Please email your receipt to [e-mail] and we'll be happy to issue a refund.

[@wpuymac]

@@brandonadams07 😅

[@TheFlyingDutchman85]

@@brandonadams07 You need to do justice to the Biblical data. As it is, you're fitting your system into the text. But Romans 11 in particular doesn't provide the points you need it to, and it's not hard to see. So I'm encouraging you to take the text more seriously.

[@brandonadams07]

@@TheFlyingDutchman85 Thank you for the encouragement. I likewise encourage you take the Bible seriously.

[@TheFlyingDutchman85]

@@brandonadams07 For starters, you can't insist that grafting in is by faith when the text never asserts this. This point is pivotal to your position, and it's simply imported by your system. This is one example of how exactly you need to take the text more seriously. It can't be massaged into your position as you are doing.

[@TheFlyingDutchman85]

Answer 3: In John 6:36, Jesus describes the problem He goes on to address: "But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe." The passage continues, describing those who have tasted, and yet have not really eaten. The concept is described well in Hebrews 4:2 and 6:7-8: "For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because *they were not united by faith* with those who listened." "For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned." The problem Jesus identified is clear-it is possible to merely hear the teaching from God and yet continue on in unbelief. "Jesus answered them, 'This is the work of God, that you *believe* in Him whom He has sent.'" (John 6:29). "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who looks on the Son *and believes in Him* should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:40). It is not enough to look on the Son. Jesus is talking to those who have seen the Son and yet do not believe. Faith-a work of God-must accompany the reception of the message in order for there to be any eternal benefit. So now we can understand Jesus' commentary on the prophets. "It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.'" (John 6:45a). But as Jesus has made clear already, it is not enough to simply be taught by God. One must be taught *and then learn.* "Everyone who has heard *and learned* from the Father comes to Me." (John 6:45b). Again, Jesus emphasizes the vital importance of faith: "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever *believes* has eternal life." (John 6:47) This is in contrast to those who merely consume without faith: "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died." (John 6:49). They missed life, because they did not believe in Christ: "I am the bread of life." (John 6:48). Therefore, the "all" in Isaiah 54 and Jeremiah 31 does not refer to only regenerate people. All will be taught (administration), but eternal life is only for those who respond in faith (substance). "For many are called (administration), but few are chosen (substance)." (Matt. 22:14).

[@brandonadams07]

My dear Dutchman, I'm afraid you've misunderstood Jesus. As Calvin notes "this teaching of God is the inward illumination of the heart." And again “As to the word all, it must be limited to the elect… he fastens on the general phrase, all; because he argues from it, that all who are taught by God are effectually drawn, so as to come… Hence it follows, that there is not one of all the elect of God who shall not be a partaker of faith in Christ.” contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/08/08/jesus-on-all-shall-know-me/

[@TheFlyingDutchman85]

@@brandonadams07 I appreciate your change in tone from irenic in your public video to condescending in your private comments, but again, as has been the case, you need to deal with the actual text instead of imposing your system of credobaptism. For instance, Jesus clearly says, following His quotation from Isaiah 54, "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me..." Reading and understanding Jesus carefully here, we can see that He's not interested in mere hearing, but hearing accompanied by learning. One might try to ignore Jesus' point that He's been hammering home here, but doing justice to what Jesus says here does not lead one into a credobaptist interpretation.

[@Leatherwoodoutdoors]

@@TheFlyingDutchman85 Yeah, you sound very bitter. You're reading condescention into his reply. Brandon has made it clear that his credobaptism stems from the exegesis of the text in relation to context. In order to argue against brandon you must abandon context and exegesis.

[@brandonadams07]

@@TheFlyingDutchman85 Didn't realize Calvin was imposing his system of credobaptism on the text. Rutherford too: "But only the invisible Church hath right to the covenant. For God saith only of, and to the invisible Church. and not of the visible Church in his gratious purpose, Jerem. 32. 38. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people, Jer. 31. 33. I will put my Law in their inward parts, 34. They shall all know me (all within the covenant) I will forgive their iniquity… A church in covenant with God, and the Spouse of Christ, and his mysticall Body, and a church which he redeemed with the Blood of God, Acts 20. 28. Eph. 5. 25. 26. Col. 1. 18. 1 Cor. 12. 12. Is a church whereof all the members without exception are taught of God. Jerem. 31. 34. They shall all know me (saith the Lord) from the least, unto the greatest. Esa. 54. 13. All thy children shall be taught of the Lord. And therefore they all haveing heard and learned of the Father, come to Christ, John 6. 45. and therefore have all the anointing within them which teacheth them all things, 1 John 1. 27. And so they have all Eares to heare. Yea among such a company, Esai. 35. 9. 10. there is no Lyon, no ravenous beast, but the Redeemed and Ransom∣ed of the Lord. But so it is that no visible congregation on Earth, that are visible Professors of any competent number, is such a Church whereof all the members are taught of God, all ransomed and redeemed, and therefore no visible church, as such is a people or Church in covenant with God." contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/08/08/jesus-on-all-shall-know-me/_wp_link_placeholder

[@TheFlyingDutchman85]

@@Leatherwoodoutdoors You must not be very familiar with Brandon's online presence. Having read many of his interactions, it's become clear to me that he himself is bitter about paedobaptist theology. Romans 11 is just one area where the text is molded to a credobaptist system, rather than the system conforming to the text. Many have argued against Brandon, only to be met with links to his long articles that don't address the fullness of the points opposing him. He's not interested in seeing the soundness and truth of the paedobaptist argument. He's only interested in winning. Read his many interactions online to see what I mean. Theology isn't supposed to be about winning arguments, but about seeing and loving the truth. In this particular instance, I'd like to see if Brandon can identify that the Rutherford quotation he posted is saying the same thing I am. The fact that he posted it seems like he believes it to refute my point, but that's why it's clear to me that he is unable to remove his own credobaptist glasses, even when reading paedobaptist theologians.