| Author | Message | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 4771 Registered: 9-2006  |
Is Richard messing with the computer again, I got brown and yellow,He probably spilled coffee on his keyboard again. River | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 9814 Registered: 12-2003  |
Ha! Yes, Richard has been hard at work this afternoon. Hope you enjoy it... Colleen | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 135 Registered: 3-2009 |
I noticed the new colors too and thought that maybe my PC was acting funny. Thanks, Richard for all the work you do. Hec | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 6896 Registered: 3-2004  |
I tried to log on earlier this evening and could not. The colors will take some getting used to for me because I like blue and white. Diana L | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 1926 Registered: 10-2002  |
The new colors are nice, methinks. Matches my own "former" blog, and I KNOW of course you were doing it to keep in step with ME, lol! Colleen, what you mentioned about infant baptism really whittled things down to basics, but in a deep and true way I had not thought of before -- thank you! What strikes me now after reading your post, is that infant baptism sort of re-negotiates the New Testament, you know? John said that to those who "believed" on His name, God gave them the right to become children of God. And in Romans 10, Paul said we are saved by believing with our hearts and confessing with our mouths. Yet he asked how people could believe who have not heard His word? And Peter said that baptism was the pledge of one's conscience. Hearing, believing, confessing, pledging one's conscience. | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 375 Registered: 2-2003  |
It's interesting that the three most significant Reformers, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, all hung onto infant baptism in their systems, and all ended up persecuting the Anabaptists. In the Middle Ages in Europe, becoming a member of the Church via infant baptism was equivalent to becoming a citizen of the state, and getting rid of infant baptism would have meant separation of Church and State, and Luther realised this could lead to chaos - i.e. the Peasants' Revolt - so he "compromised" Sola Scriptura on this point. Obviously these were difficult times, and certainly bad decisions were made. But baptising a baby does not make it a Christian, and infant baptism cannot be supported from Scripture. Adrian | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 376 Registered: 2-2003 |
Incidentally, back to the original thread, I enjoyed the testimony too - thanks 8thday! | ||
| 8thday Registered user Username: 8thday Post Number: 900 Registered: 11-2007  |
I was enjoying all that!! LOVE the new colors btw. | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 140 Registered: 3-2009 |
Colors remind me of caramel mocha. Yum, I'm hungry now.... | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 4774 Registered: 9-2006 |
Leave it too us men to fix something that don't need fixing. Them colors dang near knock my eyeballs out. leave it too women to want to repaint. River | ||
| Gcfrankie Registered user Username: Gcfrankie Post Number: 426 Registered: 1-2007 |
Wow, I like the change. We bought a new color printer by epson and I installed it late last night so that when I logged in my first thought was maybe the instillation changed my computer colors, so I am glad to know it was Richard who changed the color and not some stupid mistake I may have made, haha. I always thought of baby baptisms as dedicating your child to the Lord. Gail | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1669 Registered: 4-2000  |
Gail, Although I don't personally embrace infant baptism, it is akin to circumcism under the Old Covenant. To become a part of the community of faith, the Jewish baby boy certainly wasn't a believer on the eighth day of his life. Interestingly, the first 1500 years of Christian history is silent about baptism by immersion. Baptism by immersion was introduced by the Anabaptists. Unfortunately, the Anabaptists also believed in some rather strange, unbiblical teachings. They actively participated in the physical destruction of city offices in many locations. This activity and others did not endear them to the law-abiding citizens of their day. Infant baptism was not contested during the first 1500 years of Christianity. The Bible also repeatedly refers to "entire households" being baptized in the early Christian church. It would seem strange to argue that these were all childless households. God really does have an interest in the family unit. Yes, I just witnessed an infant baptism last Sunday in a church I was visiting and they made it very clear that the waters of infant baptism did not assure their salvation. Like you indicated, it is alot like child dedication. Oh yes, by the way, there is no biblical prohibition against infant baptism. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Brian3 Registered user Username: Brian3 Post Number: 213 Registered: 8-2005 |
Dennis, I'd be interested in your source for this: "Interestingly, the first 1500 years of Christian history is silent about baptism by immersion. Baptism by immersion was introduced by the Anabaptists." Isn't this showing Baptism by Immersion? Act 8:36-39 HCSB As they were traveling down the road, they came to some water. The eunuch said, "Look, there's water! What would keep me from being baptized?" (37) [And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart you may." And he replied, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] (38) Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. (39) When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him any longer. But he went on his way rejoicing. Why would they have needed a body of water for Baptism if a handful of water from their canteen would have been the norm? | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 305 Registered: 8-2008 |
There are archaelogical digs that show ancient baptistries were conducive to immersion (they were large and built into the floor). But on the other hand, we have no building that was constructed and used specifically as a "church building" until probably the late 3rd or early 4th century. Until then churches almost universally met in believers' homes. Three centuries is enough time for a lot of things to change. However, I think one of the problems some Christians get into is dragging Old Covenant concepts into New Covenant reality. The New Covenant is not based in ritual. God does not say, "You have to do this exactly this way or else I'm not going to accept it." This is an Old Covenant way of looking at it. The point is not the exact mechanics, but what it symbolizes and proclaims: the Death and Resurrection of Jesus. I say immersion is more conducive to this imagery, but I would never say those who have only been sprinkled are not legitimate Christians. Just like there is no recipe for communion bread, there is no clear recipe for how one has to be baptized. And if we thought every practice of the NT church was normative, every church would have to use real wine in their communion services (a lot of other stuff would have to go too - actually, some of it probably should, but that's another discussion). | ||
| Brian3 Registered user Username: Brian3 Post Number: 214 Registered: 8-2005 |
I'm not saying that Baptism by Immersion is required or that sprinkling is wrong. Or for that matter, that Baptism by water in any form is required. IMO the only required Baptism is done by the Holy Spirit! I had just never heard that "Baptism by Immersion was introduced by the Anabaptists". In Christ, Brian | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 306 Registered: 8-2008 |
I agree with you. It wasn't. I think maybe Dennis can enlighten us on what he meant. | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 378 Registered: 2-2003 |
Dear Dennis, and other friends, In Hungary it is quite normal to use real wine and unleavened bread for communion. That is one thing I do actually approve of. (Not that other forms are not valid, I hasten to add!!! The symbolism is the important thing). As to baptism, according to my lexicon, the root meaning of the Greek word baptizó, as well as the related word baptó, is dip or immerse. So "baptism by immersion" is actually tautological, meaning "immersion by dipping". The church fathers actually talk quite a lot about baptism, but it would have been quite unnecessary to add "by immersion" as the meaning of the Greek word was known. When the Bible was translated into other languages, it was often just transliterated, for instance as "baptizo" into Latin, and "baptise" into English. It had probably come to have a ritual meaning by then. This is a little unfortunate, as the meaning is thus obscured. "Repent and be immersed..." would be a perfectly accurate translation. Yes, there were certain Anabaptists who were totally off the rails and did some extreme things, but that was not true of all of them. It is unfair to generalise. Some were just trying to live quiet lives in accordance with Biblical principles. And of course, when church historians claim that they were all "heretics", this is according to the assessment of the official church, i.e. Roman Catholicism. If Catholics say someone has heretical beliefs, it means that they reject Catholic dogma in favour of something else. This is, in my view, not always a bad thing. Also, baptism is certainly paralleled with circumcision in the NT, e.g. Col 2:11-12, but I do not think this justified infant baptism. Circumcision was one of the signs of the old covenant - the entry sign (the continuing sign being the Sabbath, as I am sure we all know). As a baby born into a Jewish family under the Old Covenant was automatically a member of God's chosen people, he was circumcised as a sign of such. This does not mean all Jews were "saved", of course, but they were all members of God's elect - but that is yet another issue. Under the New Covenant, however, no-one is born a Christian, he has to come to faith in Christ to become one. Therefore, circumcision followed physical birth in the OC, and baptism follows the new birth in the NC. At least, that is how I would explain it. Unfortunately, infant baptism was not seen as "just like dedication" in the mediaeval church, or even by the Reformers. Both Luther and Calvin believed in (infant) baptismal regeneration. Another symbolic parallel with baptism is, of course, death, burial and resurrection (Romans 6). This really does work best if immersion is in view. And another interesting fact is that handling poisonous snakes in church meetings is not forbidden in the Bible either, and some groups do in fact practice this (based on Mark 16:18). Personally, I wouldn't recommend it... Adrian | ||
| Helovesme2 Registered user Username: Helovesme2 Post Number: 1996 Registered: 8-2004  |
Speaking of 'taking up the serpent' - that was actually fairly common in eastern Kentucky (or at least reports of it were fairly common). Here's one person's account about it: The Rattlesnake Story Enjoy! | ||
| 8thday Registered user Username: 8thday Post Number: 904 Registered: 11-2007 |
When John the Baptist came on the scene, it's my understanding that the Jewish people were very familiar with this practice already. They baptized their own converts to Judaism and still do. It's called a mikvah. A mikvah is definitely full immersion. I got the history of that second hand, so take it for what it's worth. Don't think it's a sin to do it another way-- just really lose the symbolism of being "buried" as Paul puts it, with Christ in his death, and being raised to new life. Sondra | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 6898 Registered: 3-2004 |
One of my brothers was baptized in the Messianic Jewish church. He dipped himself under the water 3 times. I was told by the rabbi that this was how it was done in the times of the apostles. He mentioned the many thousands baptized at Pentecost. He said that was how it was done. Then there is the example of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. Diana L |
