I’ll admit it, I’m a conservative – both politically and theologically. I long ago gave up writing about politics. It’s a morass regardless of which side of the aisle you come down on.
Read more
Censored
I recently posted something very like the following on a “just for fun” forum at work.
Whatever happened to Evelyn Beatrice Hall and Voltaire? “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
… except in the U.S., or online.
Apparently advocating for free speech for everyone is wrong. Some people apparently don’t want others to speak at all.
Did they reach out to me directly about what I posted? No. They were apparently too triggered by this simple statement to do that. Instead they complained to someone else and I was asked to remove what I wrote.
I am very unhappy about this.
An Argument For Believer’s Baptism Rather Than Infant Baptism – Conclusion
I will be returning to my “Bad News” series in the near future. For now though, this is on my heart, and I think it needs to be said. Please note, I am NOT educated in theology, church history, or doctrine. I am a Christian though, and believe that God’s word is clear and understandable. I am willing to be taught, and to have my opinions refuted, but for now I strongly hold to what I write here below.
Last time we left off while discussing the analogy between baptism and circumcision, particularly as found in Colossians 2:11-12. I mentioned that baptism should follow the new birth of the believer. I want to continue with that here for a moment.
An Argument For Believer’s Baptism Rather Than Infant Baptism – Part 4
I will be returning to my “Bad News” series in the near future. For now though, this is on my heart, and I think it needs to be said. Please note, I am NOT educated in theology, church history, or doctrine. I am a Christian though, and believe that God’s word is clear and understandable. I am willing to be taught, and to have my opinions refuted, but for now I strongly hold to what I write here below.
Last time, I left off with this statement, which I believe is supported by a careful reading of 1 Peter 3:18-22, Mark 16:16 along with the rest of scripture: “it is faith which saves us, and that without that faith, even if we are baptized, we are condemned.”
An Argument For Believer’s Baptism Rather Than Infant Baptism – Part 3
I will be returning to my “Bad News” series in the near future. For now though, this is on my heart, and I think it needs to be said. Please note, I am NOT educated in theology, church history, or doctrine. I am a Christian though, and believe that God’s word is clear and understandable. I am willing to be taught, and to have my opinions refuted, but for now I strongly hold to what I write here below.
This is part three of a series of articles I am writing on the topic of believer’s baptism and infant baptism. Based on how far I’ve gotten into my notes so far, you can probably expect another two or three articles after this before I’m done. This time, we’re starting with a side trip into a couple of other scripture passages because I believe that they are relevant to how we are saved, and how we should approach a scriptural discussion of baptism. We’re going to begin by looking at parts of 1 Timothy 2, and at 1 Peter 3.
An Argument For Believer’s Baptism Rather Than Infant Baptism – Part 2
I will be returning to my “Bad News” series in the near future. For now though, this is on my heart, and I think it needs to be said. Please note, I am NOT educated in theology, church history, or doctrine. I am a Christian though, and believe that God’s word is clear and understandable. I am willing to be taught, and to have my opinions refuted, but for now I strongly hold to what I write here below.
Yesterday I began a discussion of a newspaper clipping and a tract that I received between the pages of “The Book of Concord”. In particular I addressed the statement, “Even to raise the question about the age at which children can make some kind of rational personal commitment to Christ is to reveal the questioner as the product of a much later Western mindset guided by individualistic and rationalistic models.” Today, I want to continue the discussion by addressing some of the content of the tract. Later on I will address the other claims in that short little newspaper clipping as well.
An Argument For Believer’s Baptism Rather Than Infant Baptism – Part 1
I will be returning to my “Bad News” series in the near future. For now though, this is on my heart, and I think it needs to be said. Please note, I am NOT educated in theology, church history, or doctrine. I am a Christian though, and believe that God’s word is clear and understandable. I am willing to be taught, and to have my opinions refuted, but for now I strongly hold to what I write here below.
Glenn Chatfield is a Christian Blogger who pretty regularly gives away books from his library. He recently sent me a copy of “The Book of Concord”. I had requested it because I am interested in church history and the various denominations, and thought that this would be a great opportunity to look into the Lutheran Church. Inside the book were two newspaper clippings and a short tract. One of the clippings was about “proper” forms of contraception. It is an argument that while we are commanded to be fruitful and multiply, certain forms of contraception, those that prevent conception in the first place rather than preventing the implantation of a fertilized ovum into the uterus, are acceptable and not inherently sinful to use. The other clipping and the tract were on the subject of baptizing children. When I asked Glenn about it his response was that he hadn’t even realized that the clippings and tract were in the book, or he would have removed them, but that he thought that they were refutations of the Lutheran church’s stance on contraception and infant baptism.