Ironicalism

I find it ironic that just as I was getting tired enough of certain 0f my more learned and respectable paedo-baptist brothers refusing to allow Baptists to use the terms "Reformed" or "Covenant Theology" or even "Calvinist" to describe themselves and differentiate themselves from more mainline and popular Baptist churches (which are semi-pelagian and mostly dispensationalist), and just as I was pondering why they are not being challenged by anybody other than a few guys in the comments sections on the pertinent blogs, and just as I was about to (boy this sentence is becoming long, I feel like John Owen) start my own research as I believe from my limited knowledge that the phrase "Reformed Baptist" is a perfectly legitimate and historically accurate use of the word "Reformed" (I selected the address of this blog (thesectarian) in honor of what I believe to be an erroneous assertion)---

Just as all this was going on in my head, and just I was really feeling uncomfortable with paedo-baptism and the more I consider this the more I realize this is a serious divider between Credos and Paedos that has to do not only with mode and method but a really serious error concerning the Abrahamic covenant among the sprinkling elect brethren, and just as I was thinking that these things need to be addressed well with resources and footnotes and wondering how I do superscripts with this blog---

Then Mark Dever over at 9 Marks does a little blog post that seems to have really taken many Paedos aback. I mean, here we Reformed Baptists are wanting to be associated with their tradition, and being called "sectarian" and told that we cannot be "Reformed" or "Covenantal" or "Calvinist" and being called ugly names like "dispensationalist" because we believe what the New Testament says about the Abrahamic Covenant, and we lie down and no one says a word. But how dare Dr. Dever fence the table when celebrating the Lord's supper against non-baptised believers as per our own Baptist confession, not to mention the bible? How dare he say that to refuse to be baptised as a believer is a sin? How ironic considering how we have been so often shunned as second class citizens and told that to refuse to baptise infants is a sin. And is dispensationalist.

Read some of the backlash to Mark Dever's comments here, here, here, & here. Wow. You can dish it out but you can't take it? At least Dr. Scott Clark, who is a chief offender in belittling Reformed Baptists, understands that this is what Baptists believe and always have and accepts that this will always be a divider; we will not find a middle ground on this.

So let me clear this up so you infant baptising types won't be surprised again. We Calvinistic Sectarians believe that infant baptism is sinful and is not baptism at all, and as many as refuse to be immersed in water as believers united to Christ by faith are in disobedience to the biblical command. Just as you confessing Paedos believe that we are in sin in withholding the covenant sign and seal to our "covenant children", we confessing Baptists believe that you are in sin by including people in the covenant who are not united to Christ by faith.

I don't intend to throw away any of my books written by godly paedo baptist men who have heralded the gospel mightily throughout the ages. And although we are in serious disagreement, I don't want to overstate this disagreement and break fellowship with my Paedo baptist teachers and brethren.