<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Southern Baptists to reject some Baptist baptisms</title>
	<atom:link href="http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/southern-baptists-to-reject-some-baptist-baptisms/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/southern-baptists-to-reject-some-baptist-baptisms</link>
	<description>Religion editor Frank Lockwood's spirituality blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:06:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Caleb Powers</title>
		<link>http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/southern-baptists-to-reject-some-baptist-baptisms/comment-page-1#comment-5956</link>
		<dc:creator>Caleb Powers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:09:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/southern-baptists-to-reject-some-baptist-baptisms#comment-5956</guid>
		<description>The Southern Baptists have always been more interested in racial exclusion than proper religious doctrine anyway. Remember, these are the guys who formed their own church to avoid those pesky northern baptists who opposed slavery, and were greatly strenghtened during the &#039;50s and &#039;60s by their firm pro-segregationist stand, suitably backed up by inerrant scripture. Now that it&#039;s no longer acceptable to race-bait in public, they&#039;ve moved on to gay bashing. One wonders who they will go after next after that avenue becomes taboo as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Southern Baptists have always been more interested in racial exclusion than proper religious doctrine anyway. Remember, these are the guys who formed their own church to avoid those pesky northern baptists who opposed slavery, and were greatly strenghtened during the &#8217;50s and &#8217;60s by their firm pro-segregationist stand, suitably backed up by inerrant scripture. Now that it&#8217;s no longer acceptable to race-bait in public, they&#8217;ve moved on to gay bashing. One wonders who they will go after next after that avenue becomes taboo as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: peach</title>
		<link>http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/southern-baptists-to-reject-some-baptist-baptisms/comment-page-1#comment-5933</link>
		<dc:creator>peach</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2008 19:47:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/southern-baptists-to-reject-some-baptist-baptisms#comment-5933</guid>
		<description>I believe he might have baptized them with the holy spirit</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe he might have baptized them with the holy spirit</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Asinus Gravis</title>
		<link>http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/southern-baptists-to-reject-some-baptist-baptisms/comment-page-1#comment-5930</link>
		<dc:creator>Asinus Gravis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2008 18:13:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/southern-baptists-to-reject-some-baptist-baptisms#comment-5930</guid>
		<description>If adult baptism of &quot;believers&quot; is so all fired important, it is curious that Jesus, according to what we find in the gospels, baptized NO ONE.  

Apparently he didn&#039;t get the Baptist memo.  

If he had waited around for another 16 centuries--until it got invented--he could have found out the truth of the essentials of the Baptist gospel.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If adult baptism of &#8220;believers&#8221; is so all fired important, it is curious that Jesus, according to what we find in the gospels, baptized NO ONE.  </p>
<p>Apparently he didn&#8217;t get the Baptist memo.  </p>
<p>If he had waited around for another 16 centuries&#8211;until it got invented&#8211;he could have found out the truth of the essentials of the Baptist gospel.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jack Brooks</title>
		<link>http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/southern-baptists-to-reject-some-baptist-baptisms/comment-page-1#comment-5888</link>
		<dc:creator>Jack Brooks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:29:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/southern-baptists-to-reject-some-baptist-baptisms#comment-5888</guid>
		<description>Frank:  Eternal security doctrine isn&#039;t so joined at the hip to John Calvin as your review suggests, though your short summary of Calvinism is good. A lot of Southern Baptists believe in eternal security doctrine, but are anti-Calvinist at the same time.  Adrian Rogers would have been an example of that sort of SBC preacher. 

It&#039;s weird to disallow Baptist baptisms on the basis of a doctrine like &quot;once saved always saved.&quot; The sole basis of Christian baptism is a credible, orthodox confession of faith in Jesus Christ. While it makes consistent sense to reject non-Christian baptisms (such as Mormon baptism, since Mormonism denies all the basics of Christianity), you can be a believer in Christ and have no idea what you think about &quot;eternal security.&quot; No one ever had their sins forgiven by a Gracious God by believing in eternal security.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Frank:  Eternal security doctrine isn&#8217;t so joined at the hip to John Calvin as your review suggests, though your short summary of Calvinism is good. A lot of Southern Baptists believe in eternal security doctrine, but are anti-Calvinist at the same time.  Adrian Rogers would have been an example of that sort of SBC preacher. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s weird to disallow Baptist baptisms on the basis of a doctrine like &#8220;once saved always saved.&#8221; The sole basis of Christian baptism is a credible, orthodox confession of faith in Jesus Christ. While it makes consistent sense to reject non-Christian baptisms (such as Mormon baptism, since Mormonism denies all the basics of Christianity), you can be a believer in Christ and have no idea what you think about &#8220;eternal security.&#8221; No one ever had their sins forgiven by a Gracious God by believing in eternal security.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

