Yes, supposed to be “semper”—let’s work on that; child of God; to the law and to the testimony; iron sharpens iron; ad rem, non ad hominem; Particular Baptist
USA
Joined April 2026
- Tweets1.8K
- Following157
- Followers130
- Likes420
Pinned Tweet
A list of questions Reformed paedobaptists can't answer substantively, without starting to unravel their own doctrine.
This. Much like the respective remembrances in Passover vs. the Lord’s Supper. Yes, it has always been about faith and the COG. But God took off our training wheels. Let’s leave them off.
Patterning one's baptismal practices after old shadowy types instead of the perfect New Jerusalem reality we're headed toward doesn't make much sense to me. Both practices will be imperfect, but only one is pointed in the right direction.
2
104
This is a useful meme format. Also I may have been a bit too hard on the PCA last time, so lets give them due credit here as an evangelical denomination that attempts to be consistently evangelical. (So close!)
"we shouldn't baptize unbelievers"
Implication: infants of a believing parent are regarded as believers, at least presumed such.
This is decidedly NOT the PCA view, however some Reformed paedobaptists do presume regeneration/seed of faith in this counter-evangelical fashion.
1
94
"we shouldn't baptize unbelievers"
Implication: infants of a believing parent are regarded as believers, at least presumed such.
This is decidedly NOT the PCA view, however some Reformed paedobaptists do presume regeneration/seed of faith in this counter-evangelical fashion.
This is apparently posted as an encouragement for all believers to apply this partial verse to themselves.
Why does it translate seed as children instead of descendants? Why does it chop off "the generations to come" in the verse?
Is it mis-applying words that were for Abraham?
Are children of a believing parent in, or outside the covenant? Are all such children covenant members? Or are they baptized in order to make them covenant members? Or are they mandated baptism because they are already members? 1/
Once again, because by his paganism he’s demonstrating himself to be currently outside of the covenant. We don’t put professed unbelievers in the covenant until they repent.
2
4
450
Now that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh as eschatological Israel, the faithful Son, it is foolish to claim covenantal identity by carnal descent, even descent from immediate parents who may be really great folks. Instead, covenantal identity under the NC is FAITH ONLY. 6/
1
1
52
There are Qs (not asked enough, IMO) that probe the foundations of Reformed p-baptism. And like Schrodinger's Cat, a comfortably vague reality becomes clarified—the cat is dead, sorry.
None of this is new—read Nehemiah Coxe, likely editor of the 1689—p-bs have just avoided it.
A list of questions Reformed paedobaptists can't answer substantively, without starting to unravel their own doctrine.
3
234
Everyone, if they are being honest, recognizes analogical similarity between circumcision and baptism as "initiation ordinances." Same as we see analogies between Passover/manna and communion.
But transcovenantal positive law is still a violation of Reformed CT. 1/
Zwingli was not the first to use a covenantal defense of infant baptism. More than a 1000 years earlier, Augustine argued for infant baptism from the parallel with circumcision.
Zwingli developed the Reformed formulation, but he did not invent the argument:
4
6
917
Zwingli's artifice was only necessary because the Reformed broadly rejected baptismal regeneration, yet were unwilling to give up the state church into which "Christian" citizens were born. It was political, and Zwingli's perverse theological artifice is admittedly clever. 4/
2
5
93