It wouldn't have to address paedobaptism if it wasn't a thing in the first place...
-
-
Replying to @DateNowney @Biblecia and
Lol. So you have an argument from silence. I have Tertullian 100 years later expressing it as a universal practice (albeit in a negative light). I think you’re overestimating doctrinal development in the first two centuries, but I imagine that’s where we disagree.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @PresbyPolemics @Biblecia and
"argument from silence" says the paedobaptist. Where's that in Scripture btw? lol
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DateNowney @Biblecia and
As if the entire case against padeo isn’t an argument from silence

But the Bible never says specifically to do it! Don’t mind those households, covenant theology, Acts 2, etc!!
Now you’re clowning.2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @PresbyPolemics @Biblecia and
Credo is an argument from silence? I want to know what you're smoking
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DateNowney @Biblecia and
Now you’re just hearing what you want to hear. Excluding children from the covenant community over and against all available evidence is an argument from silence. Yes. “It doesn’t explicity say baptize this baby, so you can’t.”
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @PresbyPolemics @Biblecia and
You're assuming children belong in the New covenant community in the first place. John 1, Gal 3, Rom 8 go against you.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DateNowney @Biblecia and
Yes, I am based upon Scripture. And you’d have to be more specific and give some exegesis as to how those chapters “go against me.”
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @PresbyPolemics @Biblecia and
John 1:12: all who *believed were granted the right to be children of God Rom 8: w/o the Spirit of Christ you do not belong to Him Gal 3: children of Abe by faith just read it man
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DateNowney @Biblecia and
Tbh, I know a lot of this is Presbys and RB talking past each other, but I do find it funny that you think these passages are relevant. In the OT, people were saved by faith alone. Children were still members of the visible covenant community and received the sign.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
I think you're assuming that we hold your same presuppositions (New Covenant not really new, circumcision = baptism, etc.) as yourself? We don't, as ours are different.
-
-
Replying to @RRuiz1689 @DateNowney and
Haha. I get it. Yes, the NC “not really being new” is basically a line out of Strawbridge’s book, and I’d more or less agree with that chapter (if that’s what’s you’re referring to). He has his own issues, but I don’t think that was one of his chapters. (1
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PresbyPolemics @DateNowney and
Not familiar with him? My point is you speak sometimes as we we both hold same presupps, but then deny a result (infant baptism). We don't, as ours are different.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.