Jump to content
  • Sarcasm Mondays!
  • Please beware that on Mondays CF's theme is humorous sarcasm. Start the new week with a laugh!


Male Pentecostal Married



Architect/Civil Engineer

My Details

Last visited
Relationship StatusMarried
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


atpollard last won the day on September 12

atpollard had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,699 Excellent

About atpollard

  • Rank
    Senior Member


  • Denomination
  • Gender
  • Relationship Status

Personal informations

  • Occupation
    Architect/Civil Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

1,237 profile views
  1. "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." - Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 - 1821) ... a fancy way of saying "Sometimes people just say and do dumb things without meaning any harm, so at least consider the possibility that you were wronged out of stupidity rather than mean-spirited intentions."
  2. You could ask them, and wait until they ask to be baptized ... after all, the ELECT will still be elect and the REPROBATE will still be reprobate. [just kidding] 🙂
  3. For a "Baptist", baptism in water grants admission into the Visible Church which is comprised of the Invisible Church and "wolves in sheep clothing". We do not willing admit any that do not PROFESS to be Christian. Only God knows who is part of the Invisible Church and who is not (Baptist or Reformed), so we have that in common. A Hebrew girl was under the old covenant without personal circumcision because she was BORN into a covenant household. Why is God's arm shorter now that admission into the covenant is granted with a baptism not of human hands (but of the Spirit). Should the children of the new covenant not be born into a spiritual baptism just as the daughter was born into a spiritual circumcision under the old covenant? From my P.O.V. it is ALL in the hands of God with no need for our help ... just a call for our repentance. [PS: I acknowledge that mine is the historic heterodox view and Paedobaptism is the historic orthodox view, but I must obey my conscience and not 'eat the meat sacrificed to idols' even as I refrain from judging others for obeying their conscience.]
  4. Independent Baptist just means that they are Credobaptist ... ... I acknowledge that beyond that anything goes. From KJVO to Snake handlers to HyperCalvinism to Ultra-Liberal to solidly Orthodox. However you spoke of Ana-baptists (which I am ignorant of in detail other than as the early Mennonite/Amish Church) and "classic Baptists" (which can't get much more 'classic' than the 1689 Baptist Confession). The 1689 Confession, like the later Southern Baptist Faith and Message, was founded from "Reformed" roots with the goal of removing the last vestiges of 'Romanism' (Sacraments became Ordinances and Paedo became Credo). I don't know if they were right or wrong, but you would agree with MOST of the 1689 Confession rather than disagree (I am thinking). So the Reformed Baptists, General Baptists and Southern Baptists all trace back to Anglican or Reformed Church roots with the Credo-baptist/Ordinance distinctive grafted on. All power is in God rather than elements (bread, wine or water) and the Church is made of "believers". Those are the original "Baptist Distinctives".
  5. Are you prepared to argue that all infants without exception that die outside the covenant are hell bound? I prefer "cognitive dissonance" ... just keep those thoughts in their respective boxes and let God worry about the details. Peter said "Repent and be baptized" and you will receive the Holy Spirit ... that is the "promise" that is for all generations, all tribes, all tongues and all nations. "I BELIEVE" (Credo) that everyone that repents should be baptized because "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved." [Romans 10:9-10]
  6. If only you didn't call it "Baptism". 🤗 Rather than speaking for any denomination, let me just speak for myself. I like the covenant imagery and I can see the Biblical support. Where "Paedobaptism" rubs against the fur goes back to the Gospels and Acts 2. John the Baptist called the people to a clear "Baptism of Repentance" that was for adults (those able to repent). Jesus started His earthly ministry with the exact same message and the exact same baptism. When Jesus welcomed the "little ones" to himself, he did not make a point of baptizing them. When Peter spoke again in Acts 2, he seems (to me) to call the repenting crowd to a baptism of repentance just like that of John and Jesus as a precursor to receiving the Holy Spirit. We know from later in Acts that God can save people by having them hear, then receive the Spirit and then get baptized with water when He wants to make a point. So everything about the OT seems to be about man being obedient in a physical ritual to a future God given reality (the coming of Jesus) and everything in the New Covenant seems to rest on a God initiated Spiritual reality that man echoes in a physical remembrance of what God has done. Applying this to SALVATION, Baptism (the water) appears to be linked with man repenting (the Baptism of Repentance from John, Jesus and Peter) and Baptism (Spirit) appears to be the God initiated "one Baptism" that changes us. You are the expert on the Ordo salutis ... which comes first, the work of man or the work of God? Making the water baptism the "one baptism" that saves appears to flip the Ordo salutis. Can a child be under the new covenant but not a Child of God (Elect)? That is a question too hard for me and one I am not sure I want to know the answer to. I sleep better thinking that all children go to heaven and just trust God to do whatever is PERFECT.
  7. Which part? Nicene Creed We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made; of the same essence as the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven; he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and was made human. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried. The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures. He ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will never end. And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life. He proceeds from the Father and the Son, and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified. He spoke through the prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church. We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and to life in the world to come. Amen. ... I know of no Baptists (General or Particular) that reject the Nicene Creed as a "Baptist Distinctive". 1689 BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH, CHAPTER 29, PARAGRAPH 1: Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him;1 of remission of sins;2 and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.3 1 Rom. 6:3–5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27 2 Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16 3 Rom. 6:4
  8. You should probably let GOD know he has an error in one of His Proverbs, so that He can fix it on the next edit cycle. 😉 On a serious note, how critical can this question be when God seems to have gone so far out of his way to support BOTH views (and neither view). In the same breath that God proclaims that the ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD was "baptized" God makes sure to also tell us that the entire household either "HEARD" or "BELIEVED". So where does that leave us poor honest 'aspirants' that are just trying to rightly divide the WORD? If there were 'babies' in those households that were 'baptized', then those babies heard and believed? If only those able to hear and believe are baptized, then there were no 'babies' in those particular households? God had every opportunity to settle the question when He was inspiring the written acounts, but God seems to have deliberately avoided doing so. Like my Moravian brothers say ... "In essentials unity. In non-essentials liberty. In all things charity." God seems to have sovereign declared with His Holy Word that Credo/Paedo-baptism is a "non-essential". YMMV.
  9. John the Baptist came to prepare the way for the Christ (Messiah) by calling the people to "Repent for the Kingdom of God is near" and as a Prophet (in the OT sense) performed a "baptism of repentance" in the Jordan River. Jesus (the Christ/Messiah) began His ministry with the message "Repent for the Kingdom of God is here" and his Apostles performed a "baptism of repentance" for Him. Following the outpouring of the Holy Spirit prophesied by Joel, in Acts 2, Peter called the people who were pierced to the heart by the Gospel message to "Repent and be baptized". Throughout the Gospels, the OT imagery of repenting and being washed clean by "living water" (running water as distinct from a stationary well) is employed as a precursor for preparation to receive the cleansing by God and His Holy Spirit. It always seemed to me that being born of "water and the spirit" is a reference to "Water Baptism and the Holy Spirit", but both are a symbolic "rebirth". Water Baptism (the birth by water needed to see the Kingdom) is "repentance" and there is no forgiveness of sin without repentance. The Spirit rebirth is an act of God involving the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that transforms you from one of the people doing things in Jesus name who hear "I never knew you" to a genuine "child of God". There is no Kingdom without both Repentance and the Holy Spirit ... born of Water and the Spirit The thief on the cross repented and was forgiven by God ... Just like the rest of us.
  10. From the look on it's face, I think that baby came out BELIEVING IN GOD and shouting like a PENTECOSTAL! I don't think I'd let him baptize MY daughter ... but I'd like to meet the Priest that baptizes their adult converts! That baptism is a test of manhood.
  11. I think you are wrong ... not to get re-baptized (that is a personal matter of the heart between you and God) but I think that your count is off. I was baptized as an infant in a Lutheran Church as a compromise between Catholic grandparents that demanded that the baby be baptized and Methodist grandparents that insisted that the child be raised Protestant rather than Catholic. So following that compromise to keep the peace, I was immediately raised to be an atheist. That was my FIRST baptism. Fast forward almost two decades and God held a personal intervention in the life of a violent nihilist that shook my world to its very foundations. Jesus Christ chose, for reasons that are still incomprehensible to me, to radically transform me from the inside out by the indwelling of His Holy Spirit. That was my SECOND baptism. Fast forward another decade and a half and I am attending a small “Church of God of Anderson Indiana” and watching a baptism of a new believer. I made the passing comment that I was never really baptized (the First seemed like a sham or a con and I knew too little scripture to understand about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit being the ONE BAPTISM that really counts). They were horrified. I just took it all in stride. Since obeying the command to “repent and be baptized” seemed like a generally good idea (nothing there to really object to), I agreed to be baptized to fulfill the ordnance’s of Christ as I then understood them. That was my THIRD baptism. Having read a LOT more scripture since then, I am convinced that it is the BAPTISM performed by the hand of God that really matters. I have no idea if my infant baptism was of any value or not ... not because paedobaptism is wrong, but because baptism for atheists seems wrong. On the matter of adult baptisms, it seems a matter of the heart ... like eating of meat. One man gets rebaptized to the Glory of God and another trusts in their infant baptism to the Glory of God ... Let each man follow their heart and let God get the glory from both.
  12. Sorry, but everyone has their role to fulfill in the BODY and mine is to give people a hard time about paedobaptism. 1. Scripture doesn’t actually say that baptism replaced circumcision, that is something that must be inferred based on a theological predisposition. (Just like Credobaptism) 2. Circumcision was not necessary for everyone, only males, so as a replacement only males should need baptism. 3. Circumcision only marked you as part of the covenant people, it never indicated any personal holiness ... does baptism represent nothing more than Church membership irrespective of salvation or the grace of God? Is that the Biblical description of baptism? Thank you for your patience. The semi-Official Christforums Heterodox (Calvinist Credobaptist Continuationist)
  13. I know a seminary student who had a page from an original manuscript in Greek tattooed on his forearm because that particular section of scripture holds some very deep and personal meaning for him and having it opens the door to conversations with other people with tattoos that ask about the strange writing on his arm. He can read it to them and explain why it matters to him. Let's examine his tattoo and these quotes: Is it a sacrifice with flesh and to who? ... perhaps (I do not know enough details about tattooing), but it is clearly a sacrifice to God. Literally writing the word upon his "forehead" (so to speak) so it is always before him. Is it rebellion against God? ... I don't think so, and I doubt that God would look at his heart and think so. Does it indicate insecurity? Attention seeking? Decoration? Probably some of those and probably not others. Since it is written in a language few can read, it is probably more personal than what others think. God is indeed looking at his heart and God will judge for his heart ... not based on bondage to a Law that Christ has set us free from. Sorry I missed Sarcastic Monday. 😉 Context does indeed matter. The worldly eat and drink, and eat and drink in the flesh and to their destruction. The godly eat and drink, giving thanks to God, and they eat and drink to the glory of God. Eating and drinking is neither innately holy nor evil ... good and evil are in the heart and spirit and mind. So, too, with the Laws and the things of the world ... movies, radio, books, tattoos ... are good or evil based on the heart of man and the glory of God. "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery." [Galatians 5:1]
  14. Have you ever read how the Lutherans dealt with out of control drinking in the midwest?
  15. [2Ki 23:14-15 NIV] 14 Josiah smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles and covered the sites with human bones. 15 Even the altar at Bethel, the high place made by Jeroboam son of Nebat, who had caused Israel to sin--even that altar and high place he demolished. He burned the high place and ground it to powder, and burned the Asherah pole also. ... Just a thought. 😉
  • Create New...