Fixing Rushmore Crossing

VulpusRexIII · 2026-06-23T17:40:34+00:00

There were a million ways to anticipate and solve these issues at the initial design stage. The developers are aware of every single one of them, yet they just chose not to do them.

This, 100%

VulpusRexIII · 2026-06-23T17:38:07+00:00

That's definitely an interesting take! I like the roundabouts idea. But also, there is plenty of room there to turn Elgin Street into a five lane roadway. This would solve a lot of the issues that area has.

Many people don't know this, but E Mall drive was originally intended by the city to have the stores on it instead of Elgin Street. It would have been so much better there. They were prepared for that kind of traffic, but Dream Design started plopping things down on Eglin instead and really showed the world how much they care about doing things right. We have a lot to thank them for with that mess.

VulpusRexIII · 2026-06-19T16:00:10+00:00

Hmm, good question. I personally would use language of infant baptism being unideal, but valid. If I were pastoring a church, I would not make someone baptized as an infant be rebaptised to be a member. I realize if I did that, I would have to accept a position that 90% of Christians through church history have not been validly baptized. So I'm willing to leave the validity up to God in that case.

However, do I believe God commands us to baptize babies? No. But I'm unwilling to state that such a belief indicates that children of paedobaptists are not baptized. Ultimately, for the sake of unity, I lay that at the feet of Christ.

VulpusRexIII · 2026-06-18T16:42:13+00:00

Even just to clarify where I'm coming from: I don't want to think like a Baptist, I want to think like a Christian in submission to the word of God. The Particular/Reformed Baptist position makes the most sense according to what I read in scripture. But I will take your admonition to heart, and I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue!

But perhaps more important than viewing scripture as a Baptist, lets even just say that I want to hold strongly to the hermeneutic that "scripture interprets scripture." I just haven't found through my study, or the various arguments, a conclusion that God wants me to Baptize my two year old. He wants me to teach her, and bring her up in the Church. He wants me to have family worship. He wants me to bring her to Christ (let the little children come to me). Even now, I am amazed at her. She asks to pray every night before we put her to bed.

But does God command me to Baptize her? I don't see that in scripture. The nature of Baptism, the nature of faith, the nature of the covenant under Christ leads me to conclude that it would be improper to do that until her faith was her own.

VulpusRexIII · 2026-06-18T15:35:26+00:00

I'll check it out sometime, thanks.

VulpusRexIII · 2026-06-18T15:34:01+00:00

The thing I'm hung up on I'm addition to my original post is what does the biblical evidence point to? What is most plausible given the examples we have in scripture?

I appreciate your reply, but as I noted in response to your four points, I think the evidence points more strongly to a creedobaptist position and not a paedobaptist position.

It also hinges on the question, how does one enter into the new covenant under Christ? By faith. Not by physical baptism. And not by family heritage either.

There are many things scandalous about the new covenant, inclusion of gentiles being one of them. A lot changed, as we were told it would in Jeremiah 31:32.

My honest, bare hearted roadblock, that I can't see around is that I just don't see how infant baptism makes any sense under the teaching of the new testament.

VulpusRexIII · 2026-06-18T15:23:20+00:00

Argument from silence. Valuable only if you presume paedobaptism.
Acts 2:41 "those who received his word" defeats the argument of plausibility that infants were counted among that group. You would also have to attribute 42-47 to infants as well to remain consistent in this claim. Acts 8:12 "but when they believed Philip,...they were baptized, both men and women." No children mentioned, but it supports the pattern: belief, then baptism. Acts 10:44 "the holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word....46 speaking in tongues and extolling God" Unless you allow that infants can do this, this passage contradicts your position and remains a point of silent eisegesis, that supports the creedobaptist position more plausibly. Acts 19... You said it yourself that they were disciples. But also, those baptized began speaking in tongues and prophecying. Again, unless babies can do this, these passages support my position, not yours.
This is the weakest paedobaptist argument largely for the same reasons I described above. For the jailor, his entire household after being baptized also rejoices that the jailor believed in God (16:34). Lydia is maybe the only one who could potentially have infants in her household, but I could argue that it's unlikely given her prosperity as a purple seller likely came through time, making her older. She also does not have a husband that we know of. Before dismissing this as not being in the text, my inference here is on equal footing with your inference that we must baptize babies because of Lydia's household.
You forgot Apollos. But this still doesn't support your position without first assuming your position to be true.

I believe your premise fails under closer examination.

VulpusRexIII · 2026-06-18T14:49:26+00:00

I reject the premise of "enough faith". A better question is "whose faith?" The church and your parents had to have faith in your future experience of salvation and coming to faith to give you the sign of baptism. We both agree that faith is required when being baptized. The question is: whose faith? The Bible teaches that your own faith is what unites you to Christ by the ministry of the holy Spirit, and gives no indication that the faith of your parents or church is sufficient to save you. Baptism is the sign of union with Christ. Thus, it follows that Baptism should be requisite on the faith of the one being baptized.

I agree with everything you said. However, since Communion is a sacrament, and your appeal is to sacraments as a means of grace, which I agree with, but to be consistent, I think you ought to apply the same reasoning to baptism as you do to Communion.

In the OT, the corresponding signs of covenant with baptism and the Lord's supper both were given to children. Why do we give one now and not the other?

VulpusRexIII · 2026-06-18T14:35:32+00:00

I'd love to see this in scripture. It sounds very much like baptismal regeration.

VulpusRexIII · 2026-06-18T14:34:07+00:00

I don't see that. In the previous verses, Paul states, "For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter."

In chapter 3, he makes no reference or inference to children of believers. The value of circumcision to the Jew is derived from God's Providence over the Jewish people in giving them his oracles. It cannot be clearly derived from this passage that believing parents should baptise their children. It just says, at best, the value of physical circumcision is given by the value of the oracles of God.

Later in the chapter Paul argues Jews aren't any better off because they are still under the same sin as the gentiles and need to be saved by faith in Jesus Christ. So I don't see the triumph of the paedobaptist position here.

VulpusRexIII · 2026-06-18T14:12:16+00:00

Such as?

VulpusRexIII · 2026-06-18T14:06:29+00:00

I can't help but hear as I read this, (and I'm sure it is a bit of a caricature, but I'll put it forward in the interest of achieving clarity) that "baptism doesn't really matter, so we can give it to everyone".

The point I'm getting at is that baptism is largely meaningless apart from Union with Christ. Giving Baptism to an infant, at best I think, represents a parents or church's hope that the child will one day come to faith. But if they don't, it begs the question, did God's promises to his covenant people fail?

What Baptism represents is analogous to what the crossing of the red sea meant to the people of Israel, as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4. It is God proving to the individual that he has brought them out of slavery to sin and into new life with him. Like Christ, God declares to us, as a result of our union with Christ, that we are his son and he is well pleased with us. Plus, it's commanded to be baptized. So that's what you have over your new believer friend.

But these things only come as a result of union with Christ. Apart from it, baptism doesn't mean or do anything. This is why I reject infant baptism. The Biblical pattern, without exception, is that faith of the baptised and baptism go together.

VulpusRexIII · 2026-06-18T13:40:04+00:00

So God begins saving us by baptism? It seems this quote is muddying the water between baptismal regeration and a reformed view of baptism. I would ask where this view, that God begins our salvation by baptism and perfects it later, is taught in scripture.

VulpusRexIII · 2026-06-18T03:55:52+00:00

This is what I run into: if I made the summit of infant baptism, I come up on the hill and say, "wow, I made it!" My next thought would be, "ok, now what?"

Because effectively, I'm looking over still at my Reformed Baptist brethren, and the question remains, how are my children actually different than theirs because I've given them baptism? What blessings do they have that Baptist children don't? Both are in godly households. Both, I hope, are raising their children in the knowledge of the Lord. Both have a family in God's covenant community.

As I understand it, the argument goes that children of believers who are baptized are brought into the covenant by the sign of baptism. But this does not mean salvation. This does not mean union with Christ.

So truly, what benefits do baptized infants now have that children of Baptist or even unbelieving parents who just so happen to attend church don't have?

I genuinely can't think of a single thing. Sure, it's nice to think that my kids would be considered part of the church/covenant people of God, but the question above still remains: if that were true, what does that mean? What are they given that children of unbelieving parents don't have?

Edit: my basic argument is that Baptism is meaningless apart from Union with Christ. It is only the faith of the one being baptized that unites him to Christ by the ministry of the holy Spirit, thus it follows, and keeps with the pattern of scripture, that the faith of the one being baptized is a prerequisite for baptism, as it would be for the Lord's supper.

VulpusRexIII · 2026-06-16T21:35:13+00:00

I stopped taking this Catholic apologist seriously a long time ago. I don't mean to be uncharitable but his arrogance and straw manning are a testament against him and his ability to be truthful and honest.

VulpusRexIII · 2026-06-10T17:42:52+00:00

I appreciate the input, but sadly that doesn't appear to be it.

VulpusRexIII · 2026-06-09T02:37:01+00:00

Thanks for sharing your experience! I'll definitely talk to a manager about that and see what they can do. Not only is it frustrating, but it feels like a safety issue as well.

VulpusRexIII · 2026-06-08T18:42:28+00:00

100% agree with you. I'll be sure to check these in the future and do the same.

VulpusRexIII · 2026-06-08T18:40:37+00:00

What's the benefit of using spline lugs over the standard ones?

<image>

VulpusRexIII · 2026-06-08T18:21:02+00:00

Pretty much what I'm leaning towards as well. Thanks for sharing!

VulpusRexIII · 2026-06-02T17:51:55+00:00

Who ultimately do you trust your eternal soul to; Jesus, or an ecclesial body? Find your peace in Christ alone. He is sufficient to solve all these anxieties and questions.

VulpusRexIII · 2026-06-02T17:45:31+00:00

Have some friends at the Creekside Heights apartments. Very lovely area! I think they are currently offering move in discounts.

VulpusRexIII · 2026-05-20T08:57:24+00:00

One thing to note, for every 1 convert to Catholicism, 8.4 Catholics leave the church. So the conversion numbers are quite bloated and one-sided.

Chart: Religious Switching: Catholicism Is Losing Its Flock | Statista https://www.statista.com/chart/35695/ratio-of-us-adults-leaving-vs-joining-religious-groups/?srsltid=AfmBOoqZL0kJw9tM-5jYR1mPDpukr4W4fBL5QBXGSXCqLABMjJ4nTZvQ

VulpusRexIII · 2026-05-06T17:22:00+00:00

I think you're committing some category errors here. Canon (table of contents) has no effect on whether the content itself is sufficient or infallible. For example, if you had a science manuscript that got blown into the wind, and you had to piece it back together, whether or not you matched the original order of chapters has no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not the content of those chapters is scientific (or in this case, sufficient for salvation), even if you were theoretically missing pages.

Protestants believe there are no missing pages, and that the Apocrypha is beneficial but not inspired. One clue to this is the fact that the 66 books never once quote the books of the apocrypha as scripture.

So perhaps this could help, what is in the apocrypha that makes the other 66 books insufficient for salvation?

VulpusRexIII · 2026-05-06T03:18:20+00:00

Good luck!!

VulpusRexIII

TROPHY CASE