Unprofitable Servant wrote: Baptist (those who practice baptism by immersion of believers only) date all the way back to Acts 1
Not true!
"The ancient Greeks used the word baptizo in a variety of ways that did not mean immersion. For example, brushing dye into the hair was called baptism. Most Baptists would admit that Homer new his Greek pretty well. In “The Battle of the Frogs and Mice”, Homer describes a frog named Crombophagus who was stabbed in the chest. After being stabbed, the frog hopped all over the lake with blood spurting out of his chest into the water. Homer said that the lake was thus baptized by the blood of the frog. (See Holy Baptism by Duane E. Spencer page 66-68) The application was clearly made by sprinkling."
"As to your assertions that “baptize” always means to immerse, you are misinformed. In the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, the root of baptizw, baptw, is used to describe the morning condensation of dew upon the body of Nebuchadnezzar as he lay in the open field. (Daniel 4) This is hardly an immersion." [URL=http://reformedlayman.com/Baptism/BaptismConversation.htm]]]A Conversation[/URL]
Observer wrote: "Only from about 350 A.D. onward, did the deformation of sprinkling as the Biblical mode of baptism - increasingly take root. This was the result of the influx into the Church - of paganizing heresies in general, and of the submersionistic heathen 'mystery religions' in particular." Not quite 1521 then?
Let me help you with your english comprehension. F.N.Lee's quote above, - "This was the result of the influx into the Church - of paganizing heresies in general, and of the submersionistic heathen 'mystery religions' in particular."
These "paganizing heresies"he refers to are the Baptists today those who immerse rather than do the Biblical mode of sprinkle/effuse.
If then you are using this to support your Baptist cause - invented AS A DENOMINATION IN 1521 - Then fine you can add paganizing heresies to your current church practices if that is what you desire.
Observer wrote: Really? Is that why the Presbys/Reformed are so ignorant of the Bible? Spare me your cut and paste responses. ________________________ Like Mamma, like child!
The Baptists - A newly invented religion from the year 1521 and from a source which is heretical the Anabaptists are jealous of the true Reformed Biblical Christian doctrines that they turn to expletives and cursing and the rewrite of historic facts to make their sad little points. This explains a great deal for example - who are the true Christians and thus Christ minded.
John UK wrote: It's just nice to know that one can be a polygamist, an adulterer, murder a man, and still have/keep the Holy Spirit. Phew! That's a relief, eh? Or where would YOU be?
So there is no real difference between the saved and the reprobate. They are all a bunch of dirty rotten degenerates worthy only of hell and damnation.
"The Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament renders all thirty-nine instances of the Hebrew word for "anointed" (Mašía?) as (Khristós). The New Testament records the Greek transliteration Messias twice in John." [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah]]]Wiki[/URL]
_______________
SteveR wrote: Does it remind you a bit of the Protestant rejection of the RCC?
No! The Reformation was ordained of God to bring His people back to the Bible and away from idolatry and all the other heretical ideas of Rome.
John UK wrote: So you regard David as elect then? With his track record?
Do the 'elect' have/keep the (indwelling) Spirit of the Lord?
1Sam 16:13 .... and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah. 14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.
5/9/13 4:38 PM
