Common Christian practices that are not taught in scripture

[Josh]

It seems to me that your argument is based on re-defining and restricting the meaning of the Greek words referring to baptism and make them all say "temporarily immerse." And then also re-defining the words used to condemn divorce and remarriage in order to pretend that they don't mean what they say.

We are getting wildly offtopic here, but the standard conservative Anabaptist position also redefines the meaning of Greek works referring to sexual immorality to make it actually mean "only what happens during a period of betrothal before an actual marriage".

I think you're right (well, not sure how standard that redefinition is), but I'm not exactly sure what you want me to do about it. I think it's more likely that the verse means exactly what it says; that if the wife is already involved in immorality a divorce isn't going to cause her to commit adultery - she has already done so.

Right, but in that case, Jesus didn’t even speak a prohibition against remarriage. It was confined to people who divorced their wives without any immorality being involved.

[ken_sylvania]

We are getting wildly offtopic here, but the standard conservative Anabaptist position also redefines the meaning of Greek works referring to sexual immorality to make it actually mean "only what happens during a period of betrothal before an actual marriage".

I think you're right (well, not sure how standard that redefinition is), but I'm not exactly sure what you want me to do about it. I think it's more likely that the verse means exactly what it says; that if the wife is already involved in immorality a divorce isn't going to cause her to commit adultery - she has already done so.

Right, but in that case, Jesus didn’t even speak a prohibition against remarriage. It was confined to people who divorced their wives without any immorality being involved.

... and to those who married divorcees.

[Josh]

I think you're right (well, not sure how standard that redefinition is), but I'm not exactly sure what you want me to do about it. I think it's more likely that the verse means exactly what it says; that if the wife is already involved in immorality a divorce isn't going to cause her to commit adultery - she has already done so.

Right, but in that case, Jesus didn’t even speak a prohibition against remarriage. It was confined to people who divorced their wives without any immorality being involved.

... and to those who married divorcees.

Yes, good point, although a literal reading of the text would confine that to divorcées.

[mike]

Tithing

[Ken]

Tithing

Seriously?

There are many scriptures related to tithing in both the Old and New Testaments.

[mike]

Tithing

Seriously?

There are many scriptures related to tithing in both the Old and New Testaments.

I'm stirring the waters with that one. I'm well familiar with tithing being taught in the Old Testament. But I'd like to see where tithing is taught in the New Testament.

[Ernie]

If D&R is a state of perpetual adultery then so is not being baptised by immersion living in a state of perpetual disobedience. What if God says, at judgment day, why did you not follow the NT practise of water baptism as it originally was performed and you never even asked for forgiveness for changing the practise ?

I am in no way promoting D&R as this is not God's original intent yet to believe this puts anyone in a state of perpetual adultery I believe is incorrect. I am very grateful for the mercy of God and am trusting His mercy will endure forever.

Others can believe what they chose and this is my last post regarding this topic.

The difference between D&R and not being immersed is so different I don't know how to respond.

People who are familiar with the Bible but do not immerse generally do not understand the text. It is a problem of ignorance.
People who are familiar with the Bible but divorce and remarry generally do understand the text. This is not a problem of ignorance. These people understand what they are doing but hope for mercy. This is not the case with non-immersionists.

I'm very glad for mercy but mercy is not promised to those who know what God said about certain behaviors but do it anyway and hope everything will be ok.

[Josh]

People who are familiar with the Bible but do not immerse generally do not understand the text. It is a problem of ignorance.

Lots of people who understand the text very well don’t agree it means “immerse”. My Bible does not say “immerse”; it says “baptise”.

We need to be careful not to add our own opinions to scripture.

[Sudsy]

People who are familiar with the Bible but do not immerse generally do not understand the text. It is a problem of ignorance.

Lots of people who understand the text very well don’t agree it means “immerse”. My Bible does not say “immerse”; it says “baptise”.

We need to be careful not to add our own opinions to scripture.

The meaning of the word baptizo in Greek is essentially "dip" or "immerse," not sprinkle and the descriptions of baptisms in the New Testament suggest that people went down into the water to be immersed rather than having water brought to them in a container to be poured or sprinkled.

I don't accept that this is an opinion but rather a fact, a method with many NT examples and none of these suggest a sprinkling or pouring. And lots of Christians, including some Anabaptists, understand what did occur in the NT was immersion basptism and follow this mode.

There simply is no proof, biblical or otherwise, that the original Christians — under the leadership of inspired men — practiced sprinkling as a form of baptism.

Consider this - https://christiancourier.com/articles/d ... sprinkling

[Soloist]

The meaning of the word baptizo in Greek is essentially "dip" or "immerse," not sprinkle and the descriptions of baptisms in the New Testament suggest that people went down into the water to be immersed rather than having water brought to them in a container to be poured or sprinkled.

And who told us that what the Greek meant?