On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:47:47 GMT, Alwyn put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>
>I think Jeff's interpretation has rather more going for it from a 
>conservative point of view than most will admit. Why are there 
>choirboys? They are a remnant of the time when women were not allowed to 
>sing in church. And until about fifty years ago, it would be exceptional 
>to find a woman bareheaded in church. Even today there are Catholic 
>women who turn up to church in mantillas.

I think Jeff's interpretation has quite a lot of support, both
historically and from Scripture. But, on the other hand, it also has
quite a lot ranged against it. The big difference between Jeff and
those of us who disagree with him on this point isn't simply that we
have different opinions on it, it's that those of us who disagree with
him have looked at both sides of the argument and concluded that the
arguments on one side are stronger than the other. Jeff, by contrast,
cannot even admit that the other side might even have an argument at
all, no matter how weak.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

Mark Goodge stated:

> I think Jeff's interpretation has quite a lot of support, both
> historically and from Scripture. But, on the other hand, it also has
> quite a lot ranged against it. The big difference between Jeff and those
> of us who disagree with him on this point isn't simply that we have
> different opinions on it, it's that those of us who disagree with him
> have looked at both sides of the argument and concluded that the
> arguments on one side are stronger than the other. Jeff, by contrast,
> cannot even admit that the other side might even have an argument at
> all, no matter how weak.

I will admit there appear to be a few very weak and feeble arguments for not 
getting baptised by water immersion after coming to a belief in Christ, but 
I they are so easily explained and there is so much overwhelming evidence 
backed up  by incredibly strong commands from both Christ and Peter for 
doing so,  that only the naively foolish and Scripture dummies will ignore 
them, and that, at their own eternal peril.
__
Veff...

"Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
news:dfpoe557ome1c68t768v8i1q0815spn8la@news.markshouse.net...
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:47:47 GMT, Alwyn put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>>
>>I think Jeff's interpretation has rather more going for it from a
>>conservative point of view than most will admit. Why are there
>>choirboys? They are a remnant of the time when women were not allowed to
>>sing in church. And until about fifty years ago, it would be exceptional
>>to find a woman bareheaded in church. Even today there are Catholic
>>women who turn up to church in mantillas.
>
> I think Jeff's interpretation has quite a lot of support, both
> historically and from Scripture.

If not, I wouldn't be foolish enough and take so much stick and people 
hassle, in keeping on preaching what the NT teaches about the importance of 
being baptised [and the reasons why including being born again of water a 
second time which is imperative according to Christ]  after coming to a 
knowledge of the Truth.
__
Veff...

1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
> Mark Goodge stated:
>
>> I think Jeff's interpretation has quite a lot of support, both
>> historically and from Scripture. But, on the other hand, it also has
>> quite a lot ranged against it. The big difference between Jeff and
>> those of us who disagree with him on this point isn't simply that we
>> have different opinions on it, it's that those of us who disagree
>> with him have looked at both sides of the argument and concluded
>> that the arguments on one side are stronger than the other. Jeff, by
>> contrast, cannot even admit that the other side might even have an
>> argument at all, no matter how weak.
>
> I will admit there appear to be a few very weak and feeble arguments
> for not getting baptised by water immersion after coming to a belief
> in Christ, but I they are so easily explained and there is so much
> overwhelming evidence backed up  by incredibly strong commands from
> both Christ and Peter for doing so,  that only the naively foolish
> and Scripture dummies will ignore them, and that, at their own
> eternal peril. __
> Veff...

I hold the view that those who believe in full immersion believer's baptism 
and were Christened as infants can have a 'renewal of baptismal vows' 
ceremony (in the Anglican churches, possibly even in the RCC) and this can 
be done with a full immersion dunking.  (I've seen this done).  Although the 
church won't call it a 'baptism', the individual him or herself could 
prayerfully consider it such between themselves and God.  The same vows are 
taken, and if the individual wants to view it as a baptism, surely if it is 
right, God would accept it as such?

Tim.

"- .. -- Tim .-."  wrote in message 
news:eNGdnXoInOP-RHHXnZ2dnUVZ8uWdnZ2d@bt.com...
> 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
>> Mark Goodge stated:
>>
>>> I think Jeff's interpretation has quite a lot of support, both
>>> historically and from Scripture. But, on the other hand, it also has
>>> quite a lot ranged against it. The big difference between Jeff and
>>> those of us who disagree with him on this point isn't simply that we
>>> have different opinions on it, it's that those of us who disagree
>>> with him have looked at both sides of the argument and concluded
>>> that the arguments on one side are stronger than the other. Jeff, by
>>> contrast, cannot even admit that the other side might even have an
>>> argument at all, no matter how weak.
>>
>> I will admit there appear to be a few very weak and feeble arguments
>> for not getting baptised by water immersion after coming to a belief
>> in Christ, but I they are so easily explained and there is so much
>> overwhelming evidence backed up  by incredibly strong commands from
>> both Christ and Peter for doing so,  that only the naively foolish
>> and Scripture dummies will ignore them, and that, at their own
>> eternal peril. __
>> Veff...
>
> I hold the view that those who believe in full immersion believer's 
> baptism and were Christened as infants can have a 'renewal of baptismal 
> vows' ceremony (in the Anglican churches, possibly even in the RCC) and 
> this can be done with a full immersion dunking.  (I've seen this done). 
> Although the church won't call it a 'baptism', the individual him or 
> herself could prayerfully consider it such between themselves and God. 
> The same vows are taken, and if the individual wants to view it as a 
> baptism, surely if it is right, God would accept it as such?

It's the only baptism Christ & the Apostles preached and therefore the only 
one God will accept.
christening unbelieving babies was not practised in the days of the 
Apostles, that is a RC heretical connivance at placating parents who had 
lost their babies or infants before growing up to become a believer, for 
only such who believed  were commanded to be baptised.
If one doesn't believe it is pointless exercise as millions of unbaptised 
Anglicans and Catholics etc, will find out to their horror when it's too 
late for them.

In the Daily Bible Readings [anyone following them?] for yesterday, I 
noticed once Paul believed in Christ he was promptly baptised, he didn't 
have to be shown another  dozen passages confirming the instructions, or 
spend time contending that  the thief didn't appear to have been baptised.

He like Christ, obeyed without question  as soon as they became aware of 
what God wanted them to do as part of the essentials of becoming an 
authentic  believer and an obedient servant of the Most High God.

If the unbaptised after belief in here took such a lesson to heart...it 
could save them from the coming disastrous consequences of their lack of 
respect for Christ's teaching..
__
Veff...

1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
> "- .. -- Tim .-."  wrote in message
> news:eNGdnXoInOP-RHHXnZ2dnUVZ8uWdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
>>> Mark Goodge stated:
>>>
>>>> I think Jeff's interpretation has quite a lot of support, both
>>>> historically and from Scripture. But, on the other hand, it also
>>>> has quite a lot ranged against it. The big difference between Jeff
>>>> and those of us who disagree with him on this point isn't simply
>>>> that we have different opinions on it, it's that those of us who
>>>> disagree with him have looked at both sides of the argument and
>>>> concluded that the arguments on one side are stronger than the
>>>> other. Jeff, by contrast, cannot even admit that the other side
>>>> might even have an argument at all, no matter how weak.
>>>
>>> I will admit there appear to be a few very weak and feeble arguments
>>> for not getting baptised by water immersion after coming to a belief
>>> in Christ, but I they are so easily explained and there is so much
>>> overwhelming evidence backed up  by incredibly strong commands from
>>> both Christ and Peter for doing so,  that only the naively foolish
>>> and Scripture dummies will ignore them, and that, at their own
>>> eternal peril. __
>>> Veff...
>>
>> I hold the view that those who believe in full immersion believer's
>> baptism and were Christened as infants can have a 'renewal of
>> baptismal vows' ceremony (in the Anglican churches, possibly even in
>> the RCC) and this can be done with a full immersion dunking.  (I've
>> seen this done). Although the church won't call it a 'baptism', the
>> individual him or herself could prayerfully consider it such between
>> themselves and God. The same vows are taken, and if the individual
>> wants to view it as a baptism, surely if it is right, God would
>> accept it as such?
>
> It's the only baptism Christ & the Apostles preached and therefore
> the only one God will accept.
> christening unbelieving babies was not practised in the days of the
> Apostles, that is a RC heretical connivance at placating parents who
> had lost their babies or infants before growing up to become a
> believer, for only such who believed  were commanded to be baptised.
> If one doesn't believe it is pointless exercise as millions of
> unbaptised Anglicans and Catholics etc, will find out to their horror
> when it's too late for them.
>
> In the Daily Bible Readings [anyone following them?] for yesterday, I
> noticed once Paul believed in Christ he was promptly baptised, he
> didn't have to be shown another  dozen passages confirming the
> instructions, or spend time contending that  the thief didn't appear
> to have been baptised.
> He like Christ, obeyed without question  as soon as they became aware
> of what God wanted them to do as part of the essentials of becoming an
> authentic  believer and an obedient servant of the Most High God.
>
> If the unbaptised after belief in here took such a lesson to
> heart...it could save them from the coming disastrous consequences of
> their lack of respect for Christ's teaching..
> __
> Veff...

I have read posts that claim evidence for 1st Century (or at least very 
early) baptisms by pouring, and infant baptisms.  That said, I can 
understand both points of view, (and as you know from my previous posts I 
did have a full immersion believer's baptism in the Baptist Church).  IMO 
from the believer's point of view it is the vows that are important, rather 
than how the Sacrament is performed, since the ceremony is only the outward 
sign of the Sacrament, which itself depends on the action of God.  In our 
church the congregation is regularly encouraged to renew their baptismal 
vows.

Tim.