Infant Baptism

I don't get your point. What exactly are you trying to say Jeff?

 

And I could provide you with that very long list of Anglican denominations that I mentioned in a previous post. Shall we continue with this?

And, btw, I have been a member of only three denominations. I said that I had worshiped in a great many denominational churches, not that I had been a member in them.

I don't know what you're getting at with the list you posted, but most of those are good, solid, evangelical, growing churches with committed members. You don't impress me by trying to disparage them.

 

Celtic, how did you get kicked off of the Baptist forum with hate filled ideas like those? Did you vote for blue carpet instead of red?

Celtic tried to imply the doctrinal/dogmatic issues I mentioned were from "one narrow, exclusive expression", and I gave a list that just touched the tip of the iceberg.

Jeff

 

Here is the quote that I replied to, and that apparently puzzled a few people. My later reply with the long list of churches was simply an example of the number of churches that have chaotic and ignorant dogmatic dress codes, some that require baptism in their water only for salvation, some who believe that tongues must follow after baptism or it will be repeated, some who believe in a second blessing after baptism, and some that refuse to acknowledge any other church or denomination other than their own. This is not private or guarded information, and anyone who has spent a modicum of time in this arena is painfully aware of their behavior traits.

"I do want to clarify something though, we often mistake the frequent meetings and fire/brimstone as a good and holy thing. I've been in that arena for the last 8 years, and this is the crowd that also says women must wear dresses and men must wear suit and tie in church, and that God reads the King James Bible ( a well known baptist tract). They also mandate that you be baptized in their water for salvation, gifts, etc, and that all other differing denominations are apostate."

 

but isn't that his point? you only presented a "piece" of the iceberg, the part that most accurately demonstrates the point you're trying to make when there is a whole other view that refutes your point that lies under the surface. I think Celtic wants truth to be presents, as do we all, and he's afraid your not showing the whole picture. Trying to box in Baptists, Quakers, and Anabaptists is a little like trying to herd cats. They are all so different and independent.

 

15 denominations representing literally millions of people and most of the modern american seminaries is hardly just the tip of the iceberg in my opinion. The ironic thing is that most, if not all, those I mentioned would not recognize nor support Celtics ordination in the AMiA, nor would they accept him into their fold. I've always laughed at the Unitarian's as they claim to embrace Christianity, Judaism, Islam , and Agnostics/Atheists, but all of those groups reject the Unitarians.:think:

Jeff

 

Tip of the iceberg was your phrase.

 

And I find it amazing that considering the extremely broad diversity of doctrine in the Anglican Communion, to include apostate doctrines and practices in the TEC, that you could point to the aberrant doctrine or practice of anyone else.

I have a question for you that I have been wondering about, which may be somewhat off topic but relevant to you and TEC: What if, as a result of your conservative stance, that got you in trouble with the liberal establishment of TEC and they came after you like they have other conservatives. What would you do?

 

Exactly. Thank you!

And the main bodies of Baptists, Quakers, and Mennonites, for instance, cannot be characterized by the extreme stuff that Jeff posted.

 

You are partially right. The Assemblies of God, Church of God, Southern Baptist, General Baptist, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, Salvation Army, Quakers, Mennonites, United Methodists would all accept me, but they would not recognize my Old Catholic ordination or AMIA affiliation -- and neither would TEC.

 

First, I think you have doctrine and dogma confused. Secondly, my initial comment was in response to statements made giving a favorable light to the fundamentalists for having multiple services and loud, fist pounding sermons, which I don't necessarily see as a good thing. The modern day external holiness practiced and demanded by some of these churches is simply a resurrection of Pharisee ideology. In regards to your question, as I've stated here publicly numerous times, I will remain true to my conservative values no matter the consequence, and I will engage any opponents with loving, scriptural rebuttal. I've been honest and open with everyone from my Vestry Committee to my Bishop, and I've had nothing but loving acceptance. If I were asked to step down from an official leadership position, that would only free me to have a much louder voice without consequence.

Jeff

 

Here's another interesting article from the Lutheran perspective dealing with the problems of infants dying prior to baptism: http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.cicero.html

Also on the same sight is an article featuring Luther quotes linking his born again experience with baptism. Pretty interesting:
http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.bornagain.html