Faithful Remnant wrote: There is more to the word baptize than meets the eye...i.e. more than just immerse. If somebody prefers pouring or sprinkling over immersion, I see no reason to burden their conscience with a different opinion(immersion only) as being the only valid baptism.
The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words.
Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.
local viewer wrote: Apparently these verses teach that we are never to disagree with the saintly Jeremiah???
Jeremiah, if I may be so bold, humility and erudite pride never did mix. God be with you.
You misunderstood my application of the text to this situation.
I am being judged as a heretic on a secondary issue that is not the basis of Orthodoxy (basic doctrines of the Christians faith).
Now you add your judgment that I have erudite pride. I hope for your sakes that your judgment is based on truth when you answer at the Bema. As for me I judged no one or condemned them for disagreeing with me on non-fundamental issues (Romans 14).
Cotton wrote: This is anti-orthodox. Ergo by your own admission heresy. You set yourself up as the quote "correctly state in english" - know better than you do translator. The other posts were not judgment but simply a correction to the Biblical facts.
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Matthew 7:1-2
For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned." Matthew 12:37
In my study of Christianity...the mode of baptism was never a measure of orthodoxy. Look at the [URL=http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/history/creed.apost.proofs.html]]]Apostolic Creed[/URL], [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas]]]The Five Sola's[/URL] or the [URL=http://www.martygrant.com/christian/fundamentals.htm]]]Five Fundamental's[/URL] [URL=http://www.logosresourcepages.org/Positions/timothy_5.htm]]]and beyond this.[/URL]
Baptismal Regerationist add to the gospel of God's grace this rite as part of receiving God's grace. Those who hold to this "other gospel" (Galatians 1:6-10) regard those who teach and practice Believer's Baptism (regardless of mode) as heretics....and have murdered such Christians
P. Resby wrote: It is commonly known that cults need to establish their own version of the Bible to make their case. AKA heresy. Sad ain't it!!
A heretic is a person who expresses or acts on opinions considered to be heresy...which is an introduced change to some system of belief, especially a religion, that conflicts with the previously established canon of that belief. [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy]]]Wiki[/URL]
Modes of baptism is not a doctrine of orthodoxy.....nor does the Bible forbid Christians to translate the scriptures from the Hebrew and Greek. (2 Timothy 3:15)
Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. Each of us will give an account of himself to God. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of (modes of baptism), but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Romans 14
IamwhatIam wrote: "Armenian" is a person from Armenia. Whats wrong with them? Did they upset you too Jeremiah? Quote; "Armenia is a mountainous, landlocked country, on the southeastern edge of Europe, and at the gateway to the Middle East, and all of Asia."
Nathan wrote: St Jeremiah I hope you don't place salvation by grace through faith in the cultural context of 1st Century Middle East like you do Leviticus 19:18?
The gospel occured in history in another culture. Yet the message transcends time and culture. God saved by faith after the fall....after Noah....after Abraham...onward.
Nathan wrote: I mean how far does cultural context operate? It's up to the bias of the individual to which many ministers in churches today do not even believe in God ... probably because it isn't culturally relevant to do so today. It isn't culturally relevant to be against homosexuality. What you are proposing is that changing standards of a society can change what is relevant in scripture. I like that you state the scripture yet you voted no. That takes a lot of mental gymnastics. None the less at least you still come to the same conclusion that it defiles the temple of God. Just watch out cultural context does not supersede scripture.
I follow the literal, historical grammatical interpretation of the Bible. A lot of poor hermeneutics is a result of ignorance of the history and culture that the Bible was written in. They do not know where to divide the O.T. from the N.T.
Amillennialism wrote: This implies that eternal life promised in Scripture is only 1000 years. That is not true. But Christ promised......... John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28. And I give unto them ETERNAL LIFE; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Not at all. Eternal life is a gift (Romans 6:23)....the Millennium is a historical event that will follow after the second coming of Jesus to fulfill God's promise to Israel in His covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Land, Davidic, and the New and Everlasting Covenant).
So it was out of his study of Ecclesiology that lead J.N. Darby to systemize Dispensationalism...which in turn lead to his systemization of Eschatology, using the literal historical grammatical method.
"John Nelson Darby did not formally declare his separation from the Church of Ireland until 1832, at the Powerscourt Conference, an annual meeting of Bible students organized by his friend, the wealthy widow Lady Powerscourt (Theodosia Wingfield Powerscourt). That conference was also where he first described his discovery of the "secret rapture." [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Darby_(evangelist)]]]Wiki[/URL]
The fact that those preacher's who attended and received what he taught...meant that they were seeing the same doctrine from their own study of the Pauline epistles. J.N. Darby only systemized what was already was being taught among the minority of Preachers in the late 1700's to early 1800's.
The bottomline on this "timing" issue is whether you are looking for the Lord Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13) or for the "man of sin" (2 Thess. 2:3-4). I believe Jesus is coming to redeem me first. (1 Thess 4:13-5:11).
Person wrote: There isn't going to be a "Rapture" This is just an invention of that poor overindulged girl Margaret MacDonald in 1830.
The pre-tribulational timing of the rapture never had its source in Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), Emmanuel Lacunza (1731-1801), Reverend Edward Irving (1792-1834), Margaret McDonald (fifteen years old in 1830) or John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). The study of prophecy, using the literal method of interpretation, did not begin in ernest until after the 1600's. The dominate Protestant interpretation of prophecy was using the allegorical method. The doctrine was being developed...but no one theologian or preacher systemized the doctrine. John Darby, was not studying or teaching prophecy when he was an Anglican clergyman in Ireland. "In October 1827, he fell from a horse and was seriously injured. He later stated that it was during this time that he recognized that the "kingdom" described in the Book of Isaiah and elsewhere in the Old Testament was entirely different from the Christian church." [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Darby_(evangelist)]]]Wiki[/URL]
I liked how Ben brought it down to the brass tacks that this is a battle over worldviews...not science. Depending on what worldview you start with...determines on which side of the wall you are on. This in turn affects your view of orgin...that determines your belief system. When you apply this to science....will lead to how you interpret the evidence. If you hold to evolution...random changes over long periods of time...and the evidence shows design and information that challenges your belief....then you have two choices;
Either ignore it, explain it away or reject it. You will be hostle any conclusion that state otherwise.
Admit the evidence that intelligence is the cause of the design or information you are finding. This means changing what you believe about evolution as blind random chance over long periods of time.
This puts an atheist who denies the existance of God in a diffcult spot. If there is a wztch...there must be a watch maker.
Romans 8:29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
This is the entire scope of the Christian life....after we are saved....we are to be conformed to the image of Christ. Or as Paul said it another way;
He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. Php 1:6
Predestination is concerned with sanctification....not with soeteriology.
There is a lack of clarification on this issue. Part of the problem is translation:
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 1 Timothy 2:12-13
The problem with this translation is that it ignores the context. Adam and Eve were husband and wife....they were married. After the fall...the wife was commanded "Your desire will be for your husband (authority), and he will rule over you." Genesis 3:16 The sin nature in the wife fights against the rule of her husband.
So the text from verse 8 to here is men = husband (aner) and woman = wife (gune).
I do not permit a wife to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 1 Timothy 2:12-13
This would place her over her husband to teach him God's word. This is not the proper order (1 Cor. 6:3). Paul never says anything about the role of single women in the Church. They are under the direct rule of Christ. In the mission field it is proper for single women to plant churches. When a man...who is married...is trained and qualify to Pastor should take over the leadership of his local Church. Where established Churches are...she can teach Sunday School.
I voted "No" because it does not "clearly teach" against it. We have to ignore the cultural context of Leviticus 19:28 to make it fit our own. This is not correctly handling the word of truth.
Part of this message to us today is that what our culture thinks and how they perceive things is important. If some clothing or jewelry or body decoration would associate us with the pagan world, it should not be done. This is a difficult line to draw, because the standards of culture are always changing. Some modern examples of changing standards are hair length and earrings for men.
At Jordan Valley Baptist...we can have up to 20 on a high for Sunday. Our evangelism does bring in some families. But we cannot keep new members for long since the larger Churches with more programs tend to draw them away. We are glad that the members we loose is going to some Church somewhere. Our focus is [URL=http://www.jordanvalleybaptist.org/]]]"We Teach the Bible"[/URL].
[URL=http://www.baptist411.com/churches/details/623/]]]Heritage Baptist Church [/URL] has no website. They run on Sunday morning between 50-100 on regular services. The Spanish Heritage Baptist is between 25-50 who attend. Though the numbers are high....few have committed themselves to be members who support the work of ministry.
CCM is a broad catagory. Jordan Valley Baptist uses [URL=http://www.majestymusic.com/]]]Majesty Hymns[/URL] with songs ranging from classical to contemporary hymns. Many are by Ron Hamilton. I like the Hymn "Faithful Men" based on 2 Timothy 2:2 or "My Quite Time." We concern ourself with the content of the lyrics and whether it is sacred...that is...not following the world for beat and rythm. Our young couple,Kyle with the violin and Amber on the piano...are greatly used by the Lord in setting the tone of our worship that we are focused on God and His word....not on themselves as muscians.
You were in Eden, the garden of God; your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. So I threw you to the earth; Ezekiel 28:13 & 17
We do not know how long after creation that Satan's pride lead to his fall. However...sometime passed because Genesis 3:8 "the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day" this means it was His habit for some time.