do not stop them

[Cassia]

In retrospect (as far as my immersion is concerned) I wonder why the Baptists call themselves Baptists considering how symbolic but not effective their theology of baptism is.

The Baptist church I went to for awhile had very biblical teaching verse by verse thru the bible. But I can't remember what their theology on baptism was. I found their structure of living quite Amishlike for some reason.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Baptist church I went to for awhile had very biblical teaching verse by verse thru the bible. But I can't remember what their theology on baptism was. I found their structure of living quite Amishlike for some reason.

I think of my time with the Baptists as good on the whole.

 

[pinacled]

Mmhm
Tell me.
When did you confess Jesus is Lord?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Mmhm
Tell me.
When did you confess Jesus is Lord?

As a little kid, I even got my mother to mail in for a free new testament for me

 

[Cassia]

Mmhm
Tell me.
When did you confess Jesus is Lord?

I don't think anyone can confess to calling Jesus Lord until He has first become the savior and then teacher. Because if He isn't savior because we realize we need saving, then His teachings are unrealized ideals. His teachings need to have the ability to transform. He can only be called Lord when we're found in obedience to His applied word in our lives.

Well, you asked...

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don't think anyone can confess to calling Jesus Lord until He has first become the savior and then teacher. Because if He isn't savior because we realize we need saving, then His teachings are unrealized ideals. His teachings need to have the ability to transform. He can only be called Lord when we're found in obedience to His applied word in our lives.

Well, you asked...

Sounds like a high hurdle to jump.

 

[Cassia]

Sounds like a high hurdle to jump.

why?

 

[MoreCoffee]

why?

Can't grace save without knowledge, teaching, obedience and all that?

 

[Romanos]

There is no need to be disrespectful to others, even if you disagree. Stay on topic please and avoid being rude to others or this topic will be closed.

 

[MoreCoffee]

There is no need to be disrespectful to others, even if you disagree. Stay on topic please and avoid being rude to others or this topic will be closed.

Not the topic, please. It's a good topic. Just remove offending posts. That is better I think

 

[atpollard]

In retrospect (as far as my immersion is concerned) I wonder why the Baptists call themselves Baptists considering how symbolic but not effective their theology of baptism is.

[Begin Humor]

John the Baptist BAPTIZED.
Paul BAPTIZED.
Even Jesus was BAPTIZED.

... So real manly men Baptize through immersion ... burried and raised ... just like Christ!
None of this girly man sprinkling like women and babies do.

Remember that Baptists are distantly related to 'those mean Calvinists'.
Whereas Catholics are more like 'those nice Arminians'.

[End Humor]

 

[MoreCoffee]

[Begin Humor]

John the Baptist BAPTIZED.
Paul BAPTIZED.
Even Jesus was BAPTIZED.

... So real manly men Baptize through immersion ... burried and raised ... just like Christ!
None of this girly man sprinkling like women and babies do.

Remember that Baptists are distantly related to 'those mean Calvinists'.
Whereas Catholics are more like 'those nice Arminians'.

[End Humor]

On a not entirely humorous note. I knew the Verger at a local Free Reformed Church and his family. They told me about their church's bookshop - it was called Pro Ecclesia - and I went to visit it, bought some books, and read them. One of the books I bought was a part of a set called The Triple Knowledge and another was called We and our Children. Both books maintained that "Reformed Baptist" as a denomination designation was an absurdity (something of an oxymoron) because to be Reformed one had to accept Covenant Theology and that meant accepting Covenant baptism. Naturally no Reformed Baptist I've met since then has accepted the argument made in the books I mentioned. But I think that their argument was sound. ... but out of good manners I never refuse to call folk Reformed who happen to be Baptist in their ecclesiology.

 

[Cassia]

What I find about classifying people whether to denomination or whatever the question to ask oneself is "is this a personal attack about preconcieved ideas about _______ or is it an attack on the word of God that they have conveyed?"

Because personal attacks are not christian nor allowed on christian forums. And if it's to do with christianity someone are talking about then it should be countered by one's own beliefs and not those of whatever affiliation one is connected to.

 

[atpollard]

What I find about classifying people whether to denomination or whatever the question to ask oneself is "is this a personal attack about preconcieved ideas about _______ or is it an attack on the word of God that they have conveyed?"
Because personal attacks are not christian nor allowed on christian forums. And if it's to do with christianity someone are talking about then it should be countered by one's own beliefs and not those of whatever affiliation one is connected to.

There are lots of scripture verses that talk about just how soverign God is.
There are also lots of verses that command people to do (or warn people not to do) all sorts of things.

At some point, those two realities are going to bump and grind against each other. Affiliations tend to just define historic answers given to explain how these grinding gears mesh together.
I find the key is found in the motto of the Moravian Church ... "In Essentials Unity, In non-essentials Liberty, and in all things Charity."

 

[MoreCoffee]

What I find about classifying people whether to denomination or whatever the question to ask oneself is "is this a personal attack about preconcieved ideas about _______ or is it an attack on the word of God that they have conveyed?"

Because personal attacks are not christian nor allowed on christian forums. And if it's to do with christianity someone are talking about then it should be countered by one's own beliefs and not those of whatever affiliation one is connected to.

It is a bad thing when one person attacks another. But ideas can be discussed and debated without attacking a person. I think that healthy discussion and healthy disputes are good for people to experience because they teach that one can discuss an idea without making it personal and without harming another person. In politics today most 'debate' is about alleged faults in one's opponent rather than being about ideas and policies. In religion that is true too. Many discussions about the faith becomes discussions about the alleged faults in other people. It should not be so. I wish it were not so. So my advice is make conversations healthy stick to ideas while avoiding allegations against this person or that person or this group or that group. If the discussion remains about ideas then there is less room for sin.

 

[NewCreation435]

People were bringing little children to Jesus, for him to touch them. The disciples turned them away, but when Jesus saw this he was indignant and said to them, ‘Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. I tell you solemnly, anyone who does not welcome the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.’ Then he put his arms round them, laid his hands on them and gave them his blessing.
Mark 10:13-16

I'm not sure what the question is in this post? I think this is about the need for us to have childlike faith to come to him.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm not sure what the question is in this post? I think this is about the need for us to have childlike faith to come to him.

I do not think that the quote from the holy scriptures is intended as a question. It looks like a statement. It teaches something about who God accepts and about what we ought to be like when we approach God.

 

[TurtleHare]

I do not think that the quote from the holy scriptures is intended as a question. It looks like a statement. It teaches something about who God accepts and about what we ought to be like when we approach God.

anyone who does not welcome the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it

How does a little child welcome heaven and what are little children like that they can get to heaven easier than an adult because what do adults do but mistrust God and what he says and then try to turn it around by rationalization saying God didn't say that exactly. Oh yeah he did! How does a child welcome heaven then except by trusting without skepticism because that's what the little children do until they get older and then the questions come, Mommy why can't I have another cookie, but Daddy I am not sleepy so why do I have to go to bed?

 

[MoreCoffee]

anyone who does not welcome the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it

How does a little child welcome heaven and what are little children like that they can get to heaven easier than an adult because what do adults do but mistrust God and what he says and then try to turn it around by rationalization saying God didn't say that exactly. Oh yeah he did! How does a child welcome heaven then except by trusting without skepticism because that's what the little children do until they get older and then the questions come, Mommy why can't I have another cookie, but Daddy I am not sleepy so why do I have to go to bed?

I think that passage is good as a reminder that God dictates who has access to him rather than people doing it but it is also a reminder (because of its incidental character - it's not a sermon or doctrinal presentation it's an incident from day to day life in the apostolic band during Christ's earthly teaching period) that making doctrine on a passage that is an incident from the life of Christ can be fraught with difficulty. I know that some use the passage as evidence in debates about infant baptism but it is not so easy to make a direct link between this incident and baptism.