TiredDad96

@Last_crusader19 @RyanHurst171 Unfortunately some do, but they do not speak for the actual tradition.

@RyanHurst171 Yet prebys deny this

When I read the Westminster on Baptism I see it saying that Baptism regenerates by conferring the grace of regeneration per WCF 27.1, 27.2, 27.3 28.1, 28.5, and 28.6.

@BeardedPresby @RyanHurst171

@RyanHurst171 So no one baptized will ever see hell? Is that what you’re saying?? If so, thats wrong.

@jarsofKlay @RyanHurst171

@RyanHurst171 Would I agree that baptism regenerates? Absolutely not. Would I agree that all non-Baptists (specifically pedobaptists) affirm baptismal regeneration/salvation? Absolutely. I wrote a PhD seminar paper on baptismal salvation (better word, imo) and its history.

Baptists read it that way too.

American Presbyterianism has lost the plot. Say hello to ‘Presbapterianism.’

@ReformedArsenal @RyanHurst171 He quoted another expert in Puritan scholasticism. Take your low view of the sacraments somewhere else. It doesn’t belong in the Reformed tradition. Find a 1689 Church near you.

@dmullz_117 @RyanHurst171 Rich Lusk... enough said. Cheers bro.

Baptismal efficacy ≠ Baptismal regeneration

@ReformedArsenal @RyanHurst171 Are you even reading the quotes. Baptism is most often associated with regeneration.

@dmullz_117 @RyanHurst171 You are the one saying we should stick to the language of the Reformers and then posting quotes that do not contain the language that you are advocating we use.

@ReformedArsenal @RyanHurst171 Really? The explicit word concept fallacy? He, along with Calvin and Le Blanc, are speaking of BR. Historically, this is actually how regeneration used to be spoken of.

@dmullz_117 @RyanHurst171 I have zero problem with this quote. The problem is in calling this Baptismal Regeneration, which is a term not used in the quote, so yes... stick to the language present in the quote.

@ReformedArsenal @RyanHurst171 In scripture, baptism is quite literally the “paligenesia” or the ‘New Genesis.’ In baptism we are made new creatures and ingrafted into Christ; made to partake in his benefits. BR is completely fine and accurate to use.

@dmullz_117 @RyanHurst171 Also, I don't disagree with that quote. I just don't think it's wise or accurate to call that Baptismal Regeneration.

@ReformedArsenal @RyanHurst171 You should actually stick with how the Reformers speak on these things.

@dmullz_117 @RyanHurst171 Truly figured... not truly accomplished.

@ReformedArsenal @RyanHurst171 The language of signs and signification does not therefore negate the ontological reality that baptism communicates when subservient to faith, as Calvin says. Faith takes hold of what is truly figured in the sacraments.

@dmullz_117 @RyanHurst171 Sure. But even as early as this Calvin quote you see the language of signs and signification. That is not the language of Baptismal Regeneration, that is a tradition inventing new language, which takes time.

@ReformedArsenal @RyanHurst171 “Baptismal Efficacy” is a relatively novel term and so is “sacramental union.”

@RyanHurst171 Ryan, you are the one that is departing from the language of our confession. There is perfectly good language to describe our traditions position that doesn't introduce confusion. The only reason to do it is the same reason Wilson did it, 1) to obfuscate, 2) to drive controversy.

@ReformedArsenal @RyanHurst171

@RyanHurst171 That baptism conveys your resurrection? You are just wrong pal. WLC165 Baptism signifies 5 things and accomplishes 2 things. The signification is what is conveyed, not the thing itself.

To my fellow Presbyterians rejecting the idea that baptism confers regeneration like our confession teaches because faith is required for the sacrament's efficacy, how do you not find contradiction in the baptism of our infants then?

@ReformedArsenal @RyanHurst171 I’ll stick with Calvin, thanks.

@RyanHurst171 Look at WLC 165. Baptism does some things and signifies other things. If what you are saying is true, we could also affirm baptismal resurrection, adoption, remission of sins, and ingrafting.

@SaepeReformanda @RyanHurst171 Tertullian isn’t a Baptist, please don’t follow this line of argumentation.

@dmullz_117 @RyanHurst171 Why does Tertullian seem entirely unaware of the thought process of Ursinus in your meme quote?

Are you really reformed if you don't baptize your babies? 🤔

@SaepeReformanda @RyanHurst171 Tertullian doesn’t help the Baptist case. He certainly doesn’t outweigh the majority that affirmed it. youtu.be/cLN4cwoSJvQ?si…

@dmullz_117 @RyanHurst171 Yes, Infant baptism became a universal practice very early in church history. Your chart is strangely missing Tertullian, the oldest extant reference to paedobaptism. I wonder why?

@SaepeReformanda @RyanHurst171 I’ll stick with the Reformers and church history, thanks.

@RyanHurst171 Are you reformed? Has your camp rightly "reformed" the church's ancient traditions of paedobaptism, if you merely quietly eliminated the pretended personal profession of faith by the infant? Baptism has always been credobaptism in the Christian church until modern-ish times. 🤔

@CharlesTheLessr @RyanHurst171 How are you defining “automatic efficacy” and “ordinary efficacy?”

@RyanHurst171 Our confession denies an automatic efficacy while retaining an ordinary efficacy. This shouldn't be controversial.

@presbymemes @RyanHurst171 @reformedtexan

@RyanHurst171 @reformedtexan Incorrect. WCF 27.3 and 28.6 deny that the sacraments themselves confer grace, and clearly state that the Holy Ghost confers grace when the sacraments are used properly by faith.

The WCF does not teach baptismal regeneration. It may permit it, depending on what BR means, but it definitely doesn’t teach it.