Jump to content

Baptist News

Sign in to follow this  

RSS Feed from http://www.bpnews.net/


Baptist News Feed

The news listed in this forum is taken automatically from Baptist Press. The information and links posted here is for reference purpose only. Online Baptist may or may not agree with the content posted in this forum. If you find any OBjectionable material here, please report it and the staff at Online Baptist will look into it.

404 topics in this forum

    • 0 replies
    • 300 views
    • 0 replies
    • 318 views
    • 0 replies
    • 379 views
    • 0 replies
    • 289 views
    • 0 replies
    • 407 views
    • 1 reply
    • 445 views
    • 0 replies
    • 375 views
    • 0 replies
    • 564 views
    • 0 replies
    • 370 views
    • 0 replies
    • 323 views
    • 0 replies
    • 342 views
    • 0 replies
    • 375 views
    • 0 replies
    • 242 views
    • 0 replies
    • 362 views
    • 0 replies
    • 307 views
    • 0 replies
    • 380 views
    • 1 reply
    • 491 views
    • 0 replies
    • 374 views
    • 0 replies
    • 280 views
    • 0 replies
    • 339 views
    • 0 replies
    • 397 views
    • 0 replies
    • 343 views
    • 0 replies
    • 378 views
    • 0 replies
    • 284 views
    • 0 replies
    • 376 views
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Recent Topics

  • Recent Posts

    • I didn't call you stupid, I said your proposition was stupid.
    • hey calling me stupid is a bit much.  But I can see I am too dumb for this group. Sorry to have bothered y'all.
    • I didn't post in this thread until now because I was not interested in the straw man proposition at the very start. I finally stuck my nose in when the OP proposed a clearly unbiblical form of baptism, but now that my nose is "in here" I am going to waggle it around a little. The original post is so full of false premise that it simply isn't funny.   Who cares what the Gospel Coalition says (whoever they are...)? I know from my own experience that when I was saved 30+ years ago, and then a few month later baptised, people were already having the discussions about children with false professions "getting saved" again as an adult. I will note to you that the discussion was NEVER about those people getting baptised at a young age, but about whether or not they got saved at that age. I have spoken to many people older than I who made a profession of faith for salvation at ages as young as three, but mostly around the ages of 6-10, who then doubted their salvation and later "tried again". That means that this "trend" you propose has been stable for at least the last 50 or more years. I gotta say that I have never heard this in an IFB church - about salvation yes, but not about baptisms, and the way you word this appears to be suggesting that baptism is a part of salvation...…. Maybe that is simply sloppy wording on your part, but that is the way it looks......   So what? What has this to do with "emotional maturity"? It is about understanding your position as a sinner, and understanding the offer of salvation through Christ.  It is not about emotional anything...... This is utter stupidity. The difference between baptism in a catholic church and baptism in an Independent Baptist Church is nothing to do with age, and everything to do with doctrine. Catholics baptise as a part of their salvation ritual process, IFB baptise as a testimony of what the Lord HAS ALREADY done in a saved person's life. You either have ZERO understanding of what baptism means or...…. no that's it...…. And your proposal means that the position of an IFB church would have to change with every baptism. A couple of baptisms ago, our church baptised two 13 year old, a 14 year old, and a 73 year old. Do we average them to find out how close to a Catholic church we are? So we were 28.25 years away from being a Catholic church. But the last baptism was a mother of about 38. So now we are 38 years away from being Catholic? See, it is a stupid proposition.....   Who cares what Presbyterians do? But here again you display a lack of understanding about baptism. It takes very little Bible research to see that the order is set out in a plain way - salvation then baptism. Find one instance of a man in the Bible being baptised before being saved..... (I assume Judas was baptised but he never was saved......so he doesn't count.) And yes it is worse than baptising a ten year old, because in every IFB church that I have ever been associated with, the ten year old would only be baptised AFTER he has professed Christ as his Saviour. No baby who cannot even speak the words, is of sufficient understanding to be able to be saved.   So in short, your proposition of a trend towards baptising younger is not true over the last 50+ years anyway, so your beginning premise is wrong. Your attempt to associate baptism with "emotional maturity" is simply unbiblical. You appear to be associating baptism to salvation in an essential way, which is unbiblical. Your attempt to make the difference between Catholicism and Baptist churches into one of "age of baptism" is ridiculous, unbiblical, and quite frankly, stupid.  And your attempt to minimise the "process" difference between the Presbyterians and the IFB indicates that your purpose here is not just for a good discussion, but to gently spread dissent and false teaching.
    • Romans 6 4  Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.  5  For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Likeness of his death....... Don't ya hate it when the Bible disagrees with you?  
    • Just to be clear, my 'full immersion requirement' is not based on consensus. It's based on Scriptural example and the Biblical explanation for the picture that baptism is to provide. Are you able to provide a Scriptural reason to back up your idea of not-fully-dunking? I don't see why they would have needed tanks in their houses...  considering the early examples for baptism (John the Baptist, Philip) utilized external bodies of water, I would have expected the early churches to continue with the same example.  Hey, i know a church that still uses a lake for baptism, since they haven't got a tank in their rented building. They're located in the Canadian mountains, so it's a tad cold (even in July), but it's very Biblical! 😄 That being said, it was not uncommon in the era for villas to have their own private baths (which included several large water basins), so it wouldn't have been out of the question for a wealthy Roman (like Cornelius) to actually have his own thermae. This isn't directly related, but it's a picture I love. This shows the baptismal font in a Catholic building in Rome, San Giovanni in Laterno, commissioned by Constantine. The current font is on a platform in what was original the baptismal pool... back when the building was originally built and they still practiced baptism by immersion! 😄  (Not intending to open a debate on catholic doctrine and what's wrong with it/how it's different/Constantine. I just love how this picture shows so clearly that they used to immerse - their little bitty font (okay, it's kind of a big font) is literally located in a swimming pool!)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...