tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13639235.post113414966732601576..comments2024-02-15T12:08:49.940-05:00Comments on Sojourner: More Discussion on the IMB and BaptismBrad Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00197301845256854051noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13639235.post-1134676556267654742005-12-15T14:55:00.000-05:002005-12-15T14:55:00.000-05:00They mean that one cannot see baptism are inherent...They mean that one cannot see baptism are inherently changing the nature of the soul. However, their use of the word sacrament here is too loose for their own good.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13639235.post-1134249898273748432005-12-10T16:24:00.000-05:002005-12-10T16:24:00.000-05:00I'm definitely going to over-read into that quote ...I'm definitely going to over-read into that quote about sacraments when I say this, but it leads me to ask...<BR/><BR/>Who, in particular, do they want to "not view" the baptism as sacramental or regenerative?<BR/><BR/>If it's the candidate, that's not going to be a problem, because he or she is already a Southern Baptist and has agreed to the BFM. It's highly unlikely they even passed the paperwork part if they did. And even more unlikely that if they lied up to that point, they'd admit it in front of the committees.<BR/><BR/>But if it's the people who baptized that person, or were present, when the baptism was viewed as sacramental or regenerative, then, I can see why they would want a re-baptism. That re-baptism would be a signal of "good" theology to those who originally baptized. That almost sounds like saying, "our baptism is right, and we're going to make you renounce publicly those who baptized you before."<BR/><BR/>And yeah, I'm just anti-establishment to consider that thought, but I'm not so paranoid to seriously believe it, yet. I told you I was going to read WAY into it.Joe Kennedyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04837417789252091570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13639235.post-1134159848157131512005-12-09T15:24:00.000-05:002005-12-09T15:24:00.000-05:00I commented on this at another blog, but I can't f...I commented on this at another blog, but I can't find where to requote myself. Let me try to say it again.<BR/><BR/>The sentence in question is this:<BR/><BR/>Also, the baptism must not be viewed as sacramental or regenrative, and the church must embrace the doctrine of the security of believer.<BR/><BR/>On the second half of the quote, I was trying to give the IMB the benefit of the doubt. I read it as meaning that the church that they were coming from must believe in the doctrine of the security of the believer. That is, their current church. If it means that, it is poorly, poorly worded. The reason I read it like the first time is because I cannot imagine someone's baptism being invalidated because the administering church believed that one could lose their salvation. This whole thing seems to be ad hoc and just unwisely done. I am extremely dissappointed.Brad Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00197301845256854051noreply@blogger.com