Reformed Christianity

334 readers

1 users here now

[email protected] exists to be a place where reformed believers, in a broader understanding of the term, can come together, unified by a clear Gospel witness, to exhort one another, spur one another on intellectually in reformed theology, and discuss doctrine.

Rules (draft)

We probably don't need as many rules as on reddit just yet. But some important ones will carry over.

Rule #1 Deal with Each Other in Love
Rule #2 Keep Content Charitable
Rule #3 Keep Content Clean
Rule #5 Maintain the Integrity of the Gospel and Gospel ethics.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Baptismal Regeneration (lemm.ee)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I've heard a lot of people on twitter, reddit, and YouTube arguing for baptismal regeneration. What's shocking is that many of these people call themselves Protestant, even Reformed. I've even heard claims that baptismal regeneration is part of Reformed Theology.

This doesn't make any sense, however. Reformed theology sees baptism as the new circumcision. But circumcision wasn't how people were saved, because if that were the case, then there would be no women who died under the old covenant in heaven. But the Bible distinguishes between circumcision of the flesh and circumcision of the heart. Remember that Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised, just like someone like me who wasn't baptized as a child is saved before their baptism. Water doesn't save you, it points to what saves you, which is God's grace given to us through faith in Jesus Christ.

If baptismal regeneration is true, then covenant theology makes no sense at all, not to mention that it contradicts Sola Fide.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Neither Westminster nor London supports baptismal regeneration, I'm not very familiar with the other creeds and confessions.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My experience until very recently has been with churches in the believers' baptism (Baptist) tradition. I am not sure that I fully understand the thinking of denominations that practice infant baptism. It seems to me that in those denominations infant baptism essentially is the same as what a baby dedication would be in a Baptist church. But how do they square that with the verses that relate to making disciples and baptizing them and baptism being symbolic of sins being washed away, dying to sin, and being raised in new life?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They justify infant baptism by saying that it's the new circumcision, and circumcision was done on infants.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It seems to me that they cannot square that with the verses I referenced. You can tell lies if you omit context. The Bible says the fool says there is no God but if you only say what the fool said, claiming that the Bible teaches that there is not God, without noting that the fool said it, you are communicating a lie.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You uh, didn't reference any verses. What are you talking about?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I referenced the verses by description in my reply above to @[email protected]. If you need chapter and verse: [Mat 28:19-20 ESV] 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." [Rom 6:3-4 ESV] 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.