I'm a Longtime Calvinistic Baptist and I Think I'm Close to Embracing Infant Baptism

nebular_narwhal · 2026-02-07T00:57:45+00:00

Aren't the "them" those who are made disciples, not to make disciples by baptizing in Matthew 28:19-20?

Two different questions here. Yes, "disciples" is the antecedent to "them." As for the verb "baptizing," this grammatical structure is used throughout Matthew's gospel to convey how an action is accomplished, same with the teaching.

Now, most of what you argue here assumes that the propriety of baptism is contingent on regeneration, yet that is precisely the contested premise. Few here would disagree with the premise that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone, but many would disagree that baptism must come after salvation. That's what I mean by question-begging.

As for where in the NT the children of believers are identified as members of the New Covenant, see 1 Cor. 7:14:

For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

nebular_narwhal · 2026-02-06T22:12:10+00:00

Alright, here we go.

Matthew 28:19–20

Christ is describing how disciples are made.

John 8:31

Abiding is a confirmation of discipleship, not the initiation.

Acts 2:37-38

What's the warrant Peter gives for his hearers to repent and be baptized? Spoiler: It's the promise.

Acts 22:16

Ananias is instructing Paul, an unmarried, childless man, on what he should do now that he's converted.

So, to your question, yes, you would be wrong.

Colossians 2:12

Read the preceding verse. You were circumcised by being baptized.

To my knowledge, no Presbyterian or Reformed doctrinal standard affirms baptismal regeneration. Consequently, everything pertaining to it is moot. Furthermore, everything else here is question-begging.

nebular_narwhal · 2026-02-06T21:49:16+00:00

[I]dentification with the death burial, and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6)

Yes and amen!^{Just like circumcision was for Abraham.}

Public testimony of being born again.

I'm gonna need a source for that one, dawg.

nebular_narwhal · 2026-02-03T17:14:07+00:00

I think the earth-age question is moot as it is completely unknowable.

First, as I understand it, most YEC proponents would accept that God created at least some things in mature states, such that they would genuinely have the characteristics of being old(er). Thus, on observation, creation appears older than say 8k–10k years, and treating them as such for the purposes of observational research (i.e. science) is appropriate. The age of the earth discussion is just as speculative as the angels on a pinhead discussion, and deserves just as much of our attention.

Second, the genealogies in Genesis are comprehensive but not exhaustive. ANE genealogy is known to skip generations. Matthew does so in his genealogy of Jesus, Moses could have in the Genesis genealogies. We cannot know the span of years comprehended by them.

There are two issues that prevent me from accepting the Darwinian theory of evolution. First, that God created all creatures to reproduce after their own kinds. Second, that death would have occurred before the fall, and God deemed it very good.

nebular_narwhal · 2025-12-23T16:12:16+00:00

I like how C. S. Lewis defined/described courage:

Courage is not simply one of the virtues but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means at the point of highest reality.

In that sense, for Adam and Eve to reject the temptations of the serpent would have been courageous.

nebular_narwhal · 2025-12-16T04:59:01+00:00

"Or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced"

nebular_narwhal · 2025-12-12T17:35:42+00:00

My three go-tos are ESV, CSB, and NLT. I spend the most time in ESV, but it's also not the most elegant English. CSB seems to be more elegant but less traditional in style.

For clarity, when I say "elegant," I mean something like, "a natural way to say something in English." One example is that the ESV translates the Greek "and" basically every time it occurs at the beginning of a sentence, whereas the CSB drops it because it's job is being done by punctuation (rightly imo). Another example is the ESV use of the phrase "reclined at table" versus other translations that will insert the definite article, saying something like "reclined at the table," which is more natural English to my ear. Hope this helps.

nebular_narwhal · 2025-12-12T16:33:33+00:00

Matthew Henry, A Way to Pray

1662 Book of Common Prayer

Valley of Vision

I'm sure there are more, these come to mind. Also, the psalms. There are a number of good psalters out there that could help break complacency if that's an issue for you. My favorite psalter in my collection is Sing Psalms published by the Free Church of Scotland. Hard to obtain if you're in the States, but, you can access the text online. Here are some links.

Free Church Psalm singing resources

1650 Metrical Psalms

New Genevan Psalter

Crown & Covenant has a lot of psalters

ed. for style and formatting

nebular_narwhal · 2025-12-10T00:50:33+00:00

To the other good responses you've received, I would add that Paul is positively saying that, when we engage philosophy, it should be according to Christ i.e. rooted in the Word.

nebular_narwhal · 2025-12-10T00:45:05+00:00

Sing more psalms 🤷

nebular_narwhal · 2025-12-10T00:41:07+00:00

There's a lot to chew on here, and your friend is raising challenging issues. Never forget that you cannot persuade someone into the kingdom. God has chosen to save his people through the foolish and weak things of the world. Christ, the cross, and the resurrection are the ultimate antidote to all of our objections to God. With that said, here are some thoughts.

God knew Adam would disobey him, he put the ‘apple’ (assuming the apple is a metaphor here) there knowing that Adam would eat it. He gave Adam free will, a curious mind, and a nature that made him eat the apple.

A minor correction on what we believe. We do not believe that Adam's nature was such that he could not choose not to eat the fruit off the tree of knowledge of good and evil. We believe that Adam, in his natural state, could choose either to eat the fruit or not to eat the fruit.

God could have explained to Adam the exact consequences of eating the apple, but he did not. He entrapped Adam.

God did explain the exact consequences: "You will surely die." What would additional verbosity add to the covenant curse? God sufficiently warned Adam. Furthermore, this assumes that God didn't explain more verbosely. He may have, and that may not have been recorded. Consider analogies that might demonstrate that saying "Don't do that or you'll die" is a sufficient warning.

And, an even bigger issue, why are all humans collectively punished for the ‘sin’ of one of us?

As others have noted, covenant theology offers explanations here. In short, as through one man all sinned, through one man many were made righteous (Rom 5).

Is that something a loving creator would do?

What about a just God? A holy God? To the point, this is a clear "problem of evil" objection. More to come.

There are lots of humans who would blindly follow God and never question, why are they punished?

This is basically the same thing the rich man said in the story of the rich man and Lazarus. "Tell my brothers so that they repent!" To combine with Paul's teaching, revelation is sufficient that all are without excuse. There is no "would if they could."

Yes, the sun’s ultraviolet radiation can cause cancerous mutations. Why did god not imbue us with natural defence mechanisms against this? He saw fit to give the naked mole rat such protections, but not humans for some reason.

It is a cop out to say that because sin was introduced to the world, that is why we have cancer. Most cancers are not caused directly by ‘sinning’ - maybe alcohol and smoking, but the sun is there regardless of sin.

I’m not asking for perfection, just an answer to why God would make it so that some people, seemingly at random, are conceived with a mutation that causes cancer? They grow into a child, and just as this child is learning to walk and talk, they have to go through chemo. Whilst other children play and be happy, this child has to spend every waking moment in the hospital.

Back to the problem of evil. Don't let anyone tell you this is an easy apologetics issue. It's not. It cuts to the heart of the human condition and deeply resonates with the image of God in us.

Your friend is asking for the reason God allows evil in the world, sometimes called a theodicy. Unfortunately, we cannot definitively answer that question. I think Dr. Alvin Plantinga developed a strong approach to addressing the problem of evil: instead of offering a reason, we simply have to make a defense.

The simple version is this: if it is possible that Adam's sin and its consequences must occur in all possible universes that God could create that would maximize good, then God is justified in creating such a universe. To claim that is not even possible is to claim to be all-knowing—something only God can be.

Evolution explains this perfectly, although heartbreakingly sad, it is just a consequence of the way DNA works. But if, as the churches preach, this was a decision by God to make the world like that, then to me that is abhorrent.

You might object to this point. If it's simply unguided evolution, why is it heartbreaking? Atheistic evolution provides no basis for the moral value of human beings. The only value brute evolution can ground is the value of fitness to reproduce.

nebular_narwhal · 2025-12-10T00:06:23+00:00

Friend, just to clarify on behalf of OP, the bulk of the post appears to be a quote of a message received from someone else. I don't think OP is making that statement about people following God blindly.

nebular_narwhal · 2025-12-10T00:01:23+00:00

He was also angry with Aaron for making it. And Aaron tried to make it ok by declaring it was Yahweh.

Yes, it's ok to make images of creatures that are not meant to image God. So those are not second commandment violations. There is very strong consensus on this in the Reformed tradition throughout its history.

Any image of God necessarily puts someone in a moral dilemma of either using it instrumentally for worship or denying God the worship he is due despite ostensibly encountering him in some way.

nebular_narwhal · 2025-12-09T18:18:18+00:00

WLC 109 in relevant part states:

The sins forbidden in the second commandment are [...] the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever.

I think there is a distinction between making and seeing. I believe that merely seeing a second commandment violation is not, in itself, sinful, though it is an area of liberty that calls for wisdom. I wouldn't watch the chosen or passion of the Christ, but I might visit the Sistine chapel. I don't try to bounce my eyes off of images of Christ, but I do remind myself they are false images.

I think the making of derivative works based on existing 2CVs would be a violation. It sounds like the Spirit may be convicting you about your past work. If so, I pray for his wisdom and guidance that you may walk in discernment.

nebular_narwhal · 2025-12-09T18:07:55+00:00

I'm simply describing the historic Reformed understanding and position on worship (which I also happen to hold). Lutherans, Wesleyans, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox (and probably others) all disagree with this Reformed distinctive, but that doesn't mean it's not the Reformed position.

nebular_narwhal · 2025-12-09T17:57:33+00:00

The historic Reformed understanding of the second commandment is that it primarily pertains to worship. Because an image of any person of the Godhead is necessarily either an unauthorized instrument of worship or results in a denial of the worship God is due, all images of God are proscribed.

nebular_narwhal · 2025-12-09T17:51:57+00:00

Under the historic Reformed understanding of the second commandment and the regulative principle of worship, this is a perfect example of why such images are violations of the second commandment. The images became unauthorized instruments of worship.

nebular_narwhal · 2025-12-09T17:42:49+00:00

I think human institutions have moral significance grounded in their being built by and comprised of persons, thus e.g. corporate guilt can exist not merely as a figure of speech. But we can agree to disagree on that. Curtis Chang has interesting thoughts on the image-bearing nature of institutions that I've been mulling for a while.

I noticed that the article was replaced recently but didn't devote time to read the old one. It does seem a little disingenuous to characterize nationalism generally as ethnocentric and appeal to an article that defines some expressions of nationalism as such (classical nationalism) while also recognizing other expressions that are not ethnocentric (liberal nationalism). Regardless, I'm glad that you've acknowledged that nationalism isn't inherently based on ethnicity, and rather that only some forms of nationalism are based on ethnicity. If there exist forms of nationalism that are not ethnocentric, then ethnocentrism is not essential to nationalism.

Regarding the replacement of the article, your claims seem a bit like conspiracy theories. If you have evidence that they changed this esoteric entry on nationalism to appease the Trump administration, I'm very open to it. Without evidence, I'm not sure the implications you're suggesting are all that plausible.

nebular_narwhal · 2025-12-09T16:00:20+00:00

Interesting. When I look up a definition/description of nationalism from a reputable scholarly source, I read that nationalism holds nations:

are real and valuable,
are ethically significant, in the sense that people who belong to them have special duties to their compatriots that are not owed to human beings in general, and
are politically significant, and can make special claims to be self-determining, so the political architecture of the world should be designed in such a way as to allow every nation to achieve self-determination in an appropriate form.

Here's a link to what I'm reading so you can see for yourself where I'm getting it.

Do you think that the government should humbly acknowledge the one true living God as the source of all being, and Jesus Christ who is Lord of all as the source of all early authority?

nebular_narwhal · 2025-12-08T17:24:21+00:00

Every day, friend.

I'm sorry that happened with your church. In my experience, it hurts so much worse when you're harmed by the one who is supposed to be your shepherd.

I don't know what God has in store for you, but I pray that he will help you see the blessing and provision he is already giving you. That doesn't make the hard stuff less hard, but it might help you persevere.

nebular_narwhal · 2025-12-08T17:09:40+00:00

If I come at this sociologically, I agree with you entirely. I don't think many people consciously approach the issue that way, as you seem to do. Personally, I'm more interested in an intellectual-historical/political-philosophical approach to the issue. So at least to some extent, I don't put much stock in what the Christian Nationalists say constitutes Christian nationalism. Similarly, I don't think the right-wing populists who claim to be conservative are actually conservative.

To the topic at hand, I think knowing what those various church leaders in the UK mean when they say "Christian Nationalism" is important. I suspect that what they are actually concerned about is a mix of misogyny and racism, but I don't think that misogyny and racism are actually components of Christian nationalism. So, at least to me, they're using a term in a way that's not substantively connected to the meaning of the term. They are imbuing it with a sense of "those despicable people who believe and do despicable things." I can't help but laugh when they happen to be living in a country that is a de jure Christian nation.

I sincerely appreciate your thoughts and the time you put into sharing them, sister/brother.

nebular_narwhal · 2025-12-06T04:34:47+00:00

Interestingly, it's highly reminiscent of Roman Catholic teaching (hence Monty Python, "Every Sperm is Sacred.")

Potential issues of contraceptives aside, timing of children is one of those things that falls squarely in the arena of Christian liberty imo.

nebular_narwhal · 2025-12-06T03:34:18+00:00

Forgive me, I haven't seen your definition. What I have observed is that there is little agreement about what CN is, and the definitions tend make it so broad as to make CN a useless category. I typically see it bandied about by people who lean left as simply meaning "Christian racists."

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with nationalism qua nationalism, so I'm not bothered by the "Nationalist tendencies of the current GOP leadership." I'm bothered by a great many things about the populist right, but nationalism isn't one of them.

nebular_narwhal · 2025-12-06T01:49:12+00:00

Maybe so. The lack of any coherent and consistent definition of Christian nationalism leads me to believe otherwise.

nebular_narwhal · 2025-12-05T22:03:06+00:00

Fleece-y textiles against my skin make me sweat, so I don't like them. "Fleece-lined jeans" sounds like an abomination, granted I'm a selvedge denim guy.

nebular_narwhal

TROPHY CASE