Posted on 03/15/2009 12:55:16 PM PDT by delacoert
Ron McDowell clunks open a metal drawer, one of many at the Sacramento Family History Center, to reveal stacks and stacks of microfilm.
"Those are the census records from 1880," he said, pointing down the line of drawers. "They just go on and on."
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
I am not anti ldser I am however anti people going to hell.
The perfect storm.
The Internet
The Truth
And the activist Mormons ready to drive everyone deeper into the fray further exposing their “issues”...
Hoist with their own petard indeed...
At this rate I give 'em 50 years...
Oh this guy is going to be fun....
“We are the Morg”...
He violated 3 or 4 of his own rules in the process.
OK, knowing that the Lutheran link delacoert provided in posts #16 and #20 would be the most distinctive position on baptism among Evangelicals -- since the LDs apparent "goal of the day" -- based upon this and another thread -- seems to be, "Let's go in and point out all the distinctive positions on baptism and we'll pit one against another...etc. etc." ...
...anyway I clicked on Delacoert's link. Then I put the word "baptism" in the search box and up came this URL on "baptism" http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2590.
There is no unity among Christian sects. Some say it is essential to be baptized while others say it isn’t. Some say sprinkling is OK while others say that immersion is the only proper biblical way to baptize.
Well, what I was doing when I noticed you said this only served to answer these misbent claims of yours...Upon reviewing delacoert's first link and then 2nd hit @ that Web site, I scrolled down, and sure enough I found the exact verses (Mark 16:15-16) I was looking for listed toward the bottom.
...essential to be baptized while others say it isn't...
I know the Lutherans tend to be gun-ho on baptism, yet even they point to this unifying verse of Scripture for Christians on how to see baptism in response to this laim claim of yours. See the link I found: http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2590 Here, read Mark 16:15-16 for yourself:
He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
OK, did you pay particular attention to what Jesus said in Mark 16:16??? Was baptism important to Jesus? (Yup). But did Jesus say: "...whoever does NOT believe and is not baptized will be condemned." [Nope. It ain't there. I added the non-italic part about "and is not baptized." On the + side, Jesus highlighted both belief and baptism. O the - side (on who will be condemned), He only pointed to lack of belief -- NOT lack of baptism.]
(I'm sure even the gun-ho baptism-minded Lutherans realized that Jesus wasn't able to reach out & baptism the thief on the cross...so there ya, go...your utter failure to know the Bible enough leaves you "flunked out" on that instigation attempt of yours).
What is the Greek word for "baptized" in Mark 16:15-16? What does the word mean?
Some say it is essential to be baptized while others say it isn’t. Some say sprinkling is OK while others say that immersion is the only proper biblical way to baptize. Some baptize infants.
Ah, more instigation efforts on your part, eh? Well, I stuck with the same gameplan -- knowing full well that Lutherans don't fully dunk -- I clicked on Mark 16:15-16 and it took me to another page http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=4407
Here's a cut & paste from that page -- I'll highlight the most relevant aspect:
Meaning of 'Baptize'
Q. What is the Greek word for "baptized" in Mark 16:15-16? What does the word mean?
A. The Greek word for "baptized" in Mark 16:15-16 (transliterated into English alphabet characters) is "baptistheis," the aorist passive participle of the Greek verb "baptizo," the meaning of which (according to Greek language lexicons) can include (depending on the context), "to dip, wash, pour, or immerse" (in/with water). Since the Greek word itself is open to a variety of meanings with regard to the mode of applying water, and since there is no specific mandate in the Scriptures regarding the "necessary mode" of applying water in baptism, Lutherans have always regarded the mode of baptism (immersion, dipping, pouring, sprinkling, etc.) to be a matter of Christian freedom that has no effect on the validity of the baptism itself (the power of baptism comes from God's Word and promise, not from the type or amount of water or the way in which it is applied).
So there ya go. Even sprinkle-minded Lutherans say it's OK to FULLY dunk!!! And I found other places where Lutherans highlight Romans 6:4 as making it sound like drowning in baptism: We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (You usually don't drown via sprinkling) So, attempt at disunity instigation failure #2 for you!!!
Now, what did the Lutherans have to say about baptizing infants (as to why they do it?). Well, one of the things they mentioned was the Philippian jailer's household and another household having their entire household baptized all at once. Since it doesn't mention the ages of kids or babies baptized in those households, they say that leaves the door open for distinct ages. (Can you tell us the ages of those kids or babies in those households? Oh, no? We thought not)
Now, can you even answer some of my questions -- or questions as a take off of one of your own??
You said: Again, you’re evading the point. The four questions on baptism are:
1. Is baptism essential to salvation?
2. Who can perform baptism?
3. How is baptism to be performed.
4. At what age is baptism a requirement.
Let's start w/#4, shall we? Where in the Bible or the Book of Mormon does it say that age 8 is the "magical" age of accountability? What? Do Mormons believe kids are 100% innocent at age 7 and 364 days, and then inherit sin on their 8th birthday? Do they mourn their kids' loss of innocence on those birthdays? Does not Ps. 51:5 and 58:3 say kids are sinful from birth & conception? Why do LDS ignore those Scriptures? What? Do LDS parents have NO discipline problems prior to age 8 because of perfect kids up until then?
Another Question: If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct entities why does both the JST version of Matthew 28:20 and even LDS standard works say they are to baptize in the "NAME" [singular] of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Why doesn't it use the plural, NameS(Oh, LDS also thereby reinforce the Trinity in baptism rituals by baptizing folks in a single divine NAME??? Wow! That's interesting!!!)
Oh, and since LDS have no genealogical records for most of history. Isn't what they teach as a "fairness" matter of having all people being able to accept the Mormon gospel in the afterlife upon a proxy baptism this side of the veil negated for them, after all? I mean, Gee, how fair is that?
Oh, and whose going to go & preach the gospel to these necro-baptized folks? (We thought families are forever and that families wouldn't have to forever be sending out LDS missionaries to No-Man's Land???)
Oh, and if you don't answer of these questions, are you going to continue to expect us to answer yours? Because I would say that LDS FREEPERS for the most part have a "crickets" batting average in even trying to address my questions.
Exactly. [You can (hand) shake on that!}
Spamlds is trolling the site to get others to go to his blog. A search shows him popping up on various counter-cult message boards trying to get people to go to his blog site. His own blog show he came where with the intent to draw others there in an unmoderated format.
I have no problem with Mormons until they try to tell us they’re Christians. Uh, no, that’s not true. Good people for sure, but Christians? If they’d stick to what the Bible teaches about Jesus and stop reading Joseph Smith’s phony bible, then they’d have a chance.
i.e., the Presbyterian Church does not accept the profession of faith from a Mormon. Mormon baptism and salvation are rejected by the Presbyterian Church and a new profession is required.
That’s two for two.
****
The PC(USA) Inches Closer to Ordination of Homosexuals
Posted by Thabiti AnyabwileShareThisFrom the Charlotte Observer:
In a close vote that reflected deep division, Presbyterian church leaders representing the Charlotte area signaled their support Saturday for ending their denomination’s longstanding ban on gays and lesbians becoming pastors and elders.
In past years, the Charlotte Presbytery - the fourth largest in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) - had backed the prohibition. But after a spirited, civil debate in the chapel at Johnson C. Smith University, the presbytery voted 133-124, with one abstention, to reverse itself.
That means that the seven-county Charlotte Presbytery is now on record as backing a proposed amendment to the denomination’s constitution that would open the door to - though not automatically guarantee - ordination of homosexuals.
and their link acknowledges other religions of the world
I also noticed that none of the usual anti-mormons could post their methods of baptism for their own religions. Sad, isn’t it? These folks always dodge legitimate questions with their little shotgun attacks and bogus posts.
****
You never know who you are shodow boxing with...
Some of them their religion might not condone the way they conduct themselves!
Nonsense..
That about sums it up right there...
Good work..
I am Methodist, and we normally Baptize by sprinkling. My preacher who drives the Buick you think is a Mercedes has a particularly good technique.
I have also seen a few of our churches with immersion pools.
One of the most beautiful things I have witnessed in the Methodist Church though was a service at a Church camp where the Baptisms were in the lake surrounded by the faithful.
Also I was in the Orthodox faith for a time and while I was never baptized myself (they accepted my Methodist Baptism, amazing huh?) They sprinkle mainly.
Next...
Looks like his trolling days are done...
I predicted it in a post last night so now I am a Prophet...
Looks like his trolling days are done...
I predicted it in a post last night so now I am a Prophet...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.