The question is charged, because if someone says, “yes,” they can easily be accused of following a heathen philosopher rather than the Bible.
This article is a response to Landmarkism. The tone is irenic. I am indebted to men who espouse Landmarkism for much doctrinal fellowship, friendship, and sound counsel.
I appreciate this argument since its core concern is to preserve the sameness of the gospel under both Old and New Covenants, a concern both Baptists and paedobaptists ought to share.
There’s hardly a discernible consensus on the age of baptismal candidates in the extant literature of the early church. Full stop.
It is often supposed by our paedobaptist friends that Baptists outrightly reject the notion of covenant-holiness with regard to children of believing parents…
John Lightfoot was a 17th century paedobaptist theologian. He was a member of the Westminster Assembly and vice chancellor of Cambridge.
I believe Aquinas can help us sort out this difficulty by making the proper distinctions. In ST, 93.4, Thomas “steel mans” the following objection…
The “no creed but the Bible” mindset has given us charismania, Beth Moore, and digital church. It needs to go.
Extreme nationalism neuters human reason and dashes to pieces the judgment of conscience, the very faculties responsible for distinguishing man from beast, and instead demands that he accept tradition apart from discerning its truth or goodness.
Did Charles Darwin really destroy natural law, and make it nothing more than a basis for constant ethical change?