Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
The unbiblical practice of infant baptism: Why I won't baptize babies
Some hold infant baptism as a non-issue and a matter of conscience, but I hold that the practice is not only unscriptural, but has brought great harm to God’s people. Amazingly, some Baptist are not finding the practice as appalling as our forefathers did, and will stand in ecumenical unity with those who practice infant baptism. There are, no doubt, good brothers who are deceived about this issue, and some not so good wolves as well. As for me, this chapter is the reason why I do not baptize babies, and why I believe it to be not only unscriptural, but dangerous, and why I cannot fellowship, in church capacity with false churches or recognize their baptism. Baptist were called Ana-Baptist long ago, or RE-Baptizers, but actually they truly never “re”bapized anyone. We believe those who have false baptism were not really baptized to start with.
First of all, the premise that the infant baptizers hold to, is flawed. Baptism and circumcision are not the same thing. No reasonable person could say that the intention of circumcision was to make the way for baptism. Not even the Judiazers in the New Testament believed that. The difficulty with discussing baby baptism with someone who holds to that teaching is it’s not just a matter of the way they look at baptism, but the way they read the bible.
Those that hold to covenant theology read the bible through the glasses of their theology. Notice the following points made by J.I Packer concerning covenant theology.
Those that read the bible and believe what it says are flawed, apparently, due to their lack of understanding the ‘covenantal frame’. Anyone can clearly see that baptism and circumcision are not the same thing. The only similarity that they share is the fact that they are tokens. They are different in their manner, candidates, purpose and meaning. Baptism is an act of obedience, whereas circumcision was required by the law. Baptism was given only to professed believers whereas circumcision was given to male Jews and Jewish citizens. Baptism is the answer to a good conscience given to one who is a child of God whereas circumcision was given so the boy may gain inheritance as a Jewish citizen, and not be cut off from their family. All believers are required to be baptized, but only males can be circumcised. Baptism signifies what God DID do for that person, being buried with Christ and raising in newness of life, to which an infant cannot declare, while circumcision shows what a Jew MUST be to be saved, circumcised in heart, which could be given to an infant in symbol. It is not necessary to be baptized to be saved, but it was necessary for one to be circumcised to be a citizen of Israel. So just a brief look at the two tokens, it is plain to anyone who wants to see it that baptism and circumcision are not the same thing, and anyone who tries is attempting to justify their belief by wresting the scripture. If baptism is a seal, and took the place of circumcision for the same purpose, then circumcision was a picture of a picture or a sign of a sign. God didn’t give a picture of a picture of the work of Christ. Circumcision was a token, so is baptism, but one didn’t replace the other. As J.R Graves stated “A SHADOW DOES NOT CAST A SHADOW!”
Another problem with baby baptism view of combining circumcision with baptism is not only does it contradict the bible, but you either have to believe in baptismal regeration, or contradict yourself. Notice the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 28 of Baptism.
Do you see the contradiction? First it is a sign and seal of regeneration and the remission of sins, but then it is given to infants. A walk in newness of life in his church, but then given to babies? There is one meaning of baptism for the baby, another meaning for the adult, which makes two baptism.
The efficacy (Power to produce effects; production to the effect intended definition inserted by author, dpn)of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited (shown, displayed, when AT THE TIME OF BAPTISM, dpn) and conferred (Given; imparted; bestowed, dpn) by the Holy Ghost, to such whether of age or infants as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.
There is really no way around this contradiction. Those that hold to baby baptism and this confession say, in their own words, there is grace imparted and shown to the recipient of that baptism and that by baptizing, God will save them, but then go on to speak of justification by faith.
Douglas Newell IV
First of all, the premise that the infant baptizers hold to, is flawed. Baptism and circumcision are not the same thing. No reasonable person could say that the intention of circumcision was to make the way for baptism. Not even the Judiazers in the New Testament believed that. The difficulty with discussing baby baptism with someone who holds to that teaching is it’s not just a matter of the way they look at baptism, but the way they read the bible.
Those that hold to covenant theology read the bible through the glasses of their theology. Notice the following points made by J.I Packer concerning covenant theology.
“First, the gospel of God is not properly understood till it is viewed within a covenantal frame. Second, the Word of God is not properly understood till it is viewed within a covenantal frame. Third, the reality of God is not properly understood till it is viewed within a covenantal frame.”In other words, if you do not first understand this theological system, you can’t properly know God, His word, or the gospel.
Those that read the bible and believe what it says are flawed, apparently, due to their lack of understanding the ‘covenantal frame’. Anyone can clearly see that baptism and circumcision are not the same thing. The only similarity that they share is the fact that they are tokens. They are different in their manner, candidates, purpose and meaning. Baptism is an act of obedience, whereas circumcision was required by the law. Baptism was given only to professed believers whereas circumcision was given to male Jews and Jewish citizens. Baptism is the answer to a good conscience given to one who is a child of God whereas circumcision was given so the boy may gain inheritance as a Jewish citizen, and not be cut off from their family. All believers are required to be baptized, but only males can be circumcised. Baptism signifies what God DID do for that person, being buried with Christ and raising in newness of life, to which an infant cannot declare, while circumcision shows what a Jew MUST be to be saved, circumcised in heart, which could be given to an infant in symbol. It is not necessary to be baptized to be saved, but it was necessary for one to be circumcised to be a citizen of Israel. So just a brief look at the two tokens, it is plain to anyone who wants to see it that baptism and circumcision are not the same thing, and anyone who tries is attempting to justify their belief by wresting the scripture. If baptism is a seal, and took the place of circumcision for the same purpose, then circumcision was a picture of a picture or a sign of a sign. God didn’t give a picture of a picture of the work of Christ. Circumcision was a token, so is baptism, but one didn’t replace the other. As J.R Graves stated “A SHADOW DOES NOT CAST A SHADOW!”
Another problem with baby baptism view of combining circumcision with baptism is not only does it contradict the bible, but you either have to believe in baptismal regeration, or contradict yourself. Notice the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 28 of Baptism.
1. Baptism is a sacrament of the NT, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world. 3. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.5. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
Do you see the contradiction? First it is a sign and seal of regeneration and the remission of sins, but then it is given to infants. A walk in newness of life in his church, but then given to babies? There is one meaning of baptism for the baby, another meaning for the adult, which makes two baptism.
The efficacy (Power to produce effects; production to the effect intended definition inserted by author, dpn)of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited (shown, displayed, when AT THE TIME OF BAPTISM, dpn) and conferred (Given; imparted; bestowed, dpn) by the Holy Ghost, to such whether of age or infants as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.
There is really no way around this contradiction. Those that hold to baby baptism and this confession say, in their own words, there is grace imparted and shown to the recipient of that baptism and that by baptizing, God will save them, but then go on to speak of justification by faith.
Douglas Newell IV
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Baptism by Baptism
Among those that profess Christianity and throughout the different denominations there has been, for hundreds of years, constant strife and debate throughout the different denominations over what mode of baptism is acceptable and proper. Some baptize by immersion, some by sprinkling and some by pouring. The bible declares that there is “one faith, one Lord and one baptism” so only one of these ways can be correct. Some time ago, a popular cliché was oft repeated amongst Christians “what would Jesus do?” The idea was that by imagining what Jesus would do in a certain situation, we could better guide our lives. It sounds good, but not really very helpful. The question should not be “what would Jesus do?” but rather “what DID Jesus do?” How do we know? By the authority and sufficiency of scripture. I people asked the question “how WAS Jesus baptized?” they would know the answer to the question “what would Jesus do.” But don’t stop there, search the Word of God and ask how were the apostles baptized and how did the apostles baptize? What was the New Testament understanding of baptism? Once you have answered these questions, you will know for a fact the proper mode of baptism.
Baptism doesn’t save, and baptism doesn’t wash away sins, but it is important. It is the first command after salvation for the believer to follow; repent and be baptized. There is specificity in baptism, yet the religious world differs so widely on baptism and false teachers have “muddied” the waters of baptism for many, obscuring the plain teaching, making the simple complex. Some sprinkle water, some pour water, some dip under the water. There are some for baptisms given for salvation, others only for believers, while some baptisms are given to confer privilege; some to adults only, some to newborn infants. So who is right?
When we come to this subject, and all subjects, we should go to the Word, and go to our Lord. Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Christ was baptized, we are exhorted in scriptures to be baptized, Christ commanded baptism, so it only stands to reason that we should be baptized just as He was baptized. The imperative to be baptized is meaningless if we do not know HOW we are to be baptized. We should follow our Lord, as commanded, in the baptismal waters. By following the example of Jesus Christ and by examining the baptism of Jesus Christ, we will know what is the proper mode Christians are to be baptized, the pictures that baptism illustrate and the importance of the baptism of John and his authority to baptize.
Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him. The mode of baptism has been a long discussed topic for churchmen. The idea was absurd in the days of the apostles. The idea of a mode of baptism itself is a misnomer because Jesus was baptized by baptism. I once heard a wonderful sermon by Joe Wilson he entitled baptism by baptism. This may seem illogical; however, few things can be so clear. John was baptized by baptism because the word baptize is a transliteration. It is an English word that was made to reflect the Greek word in the original text, not a translation of the word. The word βαπτίζω (baptizō) was transliterated “baptism” instead of translated. If baptizō was translated there would not even be a debate. Baptizō means to dip, to immerse, to submerge or to fully whelm. That is what I mean when I say that He was baptized by baptism, Jesus was immersed by immersion. The word itself means to go all the way under. Christ was not sprinkled, He was not poured upon but was put under the water.
“The Greek word baptize, which we borrow, was of very common use, as is seen in every period of Greek literature and was applied to a great variety of matters, including the most familiar acts of everyday life. It was thus a word which every Greek speaking hearer and reader in apostolic times would at once and clearly understand. It meant what we express by ‘immerse’ and kindred terms, and no on e could then have thought of attributing to it a wholly different sense, such as ‘sprinkle’ or ‘pour’ without distinct explanation to that effect…..Luther and Calvin both explicitly declared that the primitive baptism was immersion and the former said it ought to be restored; but they allowed the existing practice to remain undisturbed. In the course of time many Protestants came to perceive that it was very awkward to rest their practice in this respect on the authority of the Church of Rome, and being accustomed and attacked to the practice they very naturally sought countenance for it in scripture. Such are the unavoidable defects of language, that strongly biased and ingenious minds can always cast some apparent doubt over the mean of the plainest words.” John Broadus
There would have been no question in New Testament times what baptizo meant, dipping, immersing. JR Graves, in his study of the Greek word baptizo in his book John’s Baptism found that “sixty-two standard Greek Lexicons giving only to dip, to immerse, as the literal primary meaning, which is the real meaning, of the work in Greek, corroborating the declaration of Dr. Charles Anton (Episcopalian), [then] President of Columbia ‘The primary meaning of the word [baptizo] is to dip, to immerse; and its secondary meaning, if it ever had any, refers to the same leading idea. Sprinkling and pouring are entirely out of the question.” As Oscar Mink well said in his book The Baptist Bride
You do not have to be a Greek scholar to understand this; you don’t even have to know that the word baptize means immersion to understand this. Reading your Bible makes it abundantly clear. First, Jesus went into the water to be baptized in the river. Jesus was not baptized of the river Jordan, by the river Jordan but IN the river Jordan. Secondly, Jesus went up straight way out of the water. Christ was in the water and when He was baptized, He had to come up out of the water. This is baptism and if you did not go into the water, and if you did not come up out of the water, you were not baptized. Or, as J.R. Graves illustrated in John’s Baptism, you could replace the word baptism with your mode and see which one is even possible. “And Jesus, when He was Baptized” is the text, so let us put the modes to the test. And Jesus, when He was sprinkled. Was Jesus sprinkled? How can you sprinkle a man? If you sprinkle salt on your food, you take the salt and distribute it all over, the salt is sprinkled out. How can you “sprinkle a man?” No, if baptism were by sprinkling, he would have to had water sprinkled upon Him. And Jesus, when He was poured. Was Jesus poured out in the river? No, the river would have had to been poured upon Him. So the word poor cannot be synonymous with baptism. And Jesus, “when He was immersed” is the only possibility. Sprinkling and pouring are things you do upon a person; only immersion is something that you can do to someone.
Baptism can be understood to be by immersion by what it pictures. Christ’s baptism was a picture, and New Testament baptism is a picture. The baptism of Jesus was not for salvation, for He was the Saviour; nor was it to wash away sin, for He was sinless. It was to “fulfill all righteousness” Matthew 3:15, Jesus submitted to baptism because it was to do the Father’s will. Afterward, all God’s people are to be baptized upon repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Acts 8:36-37). Had the eunuch needed baptism for salvation, Phillip erred in not sending him straight to the water. Examine every case of baptism in the New Testament, and you will find believers baptism.
Christ fulfilled all righteousness in type. Christ fulfilled the necessary work of salvation on the cross, He died and rose from the tomb, thus He showed what He would do on the cross and from the tomb in the water. Baptism pictures the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (Romans 6:3-5). What great importance the mode of baptism brings picturing the death of Christ. Baptism by immersion shows the burial, under the water, and shows the resurrection, out of the water. For us, it shows and symbolizes our death to sin and our rising to walk in newness of life. Baptism is a burial (Romans 6:3-5) and it wound not take long for a funeral home to go out of business if they were in the practice of burying by sprinkling.
SO, I believe in baptism by baptism, since the word means immersion.
Douglas Newell IV
Baptism doesn’t save, and baptism doesn’t wash away sins, but it is important. It is the first command after salvation for the believer to follow; repent and be baptized. There is specificity in baptism, yet the religious world differs so widely on baptism and false teachers have “muddied” the waters of baptism for many, obscuring the plain teaching, making the simple complex. Some sprinkle water, some pour water, some dip under the water. There are some for baptisms given for salvation, others only for believers, while some baptisms are given to confer privilege; some to adults only, some to newborn infants. So who is right?
When we come to this subject, and all subjects, we should go to the Word, and go to our Lord. Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Christ was baptized, we are exhorted in scriptures to be baptized, Christ commanded baptism, so it only stands to reason that we should be baptized just as He was baptized. The imperative to be baptized is meaningless if we do not know HOW we are to be baptized. We should follow our Lord, as commanded, in the baptismal waters. By following the example of Jesus Christ and by examining the baptism of Jesus Christ, we will know what is the proper mode Christians are to be baptized, the pictures that baptism illustrate and the importance of the baptism of John and his authority to baptize.
Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him. The mode of baptism has been a long discussed topic for churchmen. The idea was absurd in the days of the apostles. The idea of a mode of baptism itself is a misnomer because Jesus was baptized by baptism. I once heard a wonderful sermon by Joe Wilson he entitled baptism by baptism. This may seem illogical; however, few things can be so clear. John was baptized by baptism because the word baptize is a transliteration. It is an English word that was made to reflect the Greek word in the original text, not a translation of the word. The word βαπτίζω (baptizō) was transliterated “baptism” instead of translated. If baptizō was translated there would not even be a debate. Baptizō means to dip, to immerse, to submerge or to fully whelm. That is what I mean when I say that He was baptized by baptism, Jesus was immersed by immersion. The word itself means to go all the way under. Christ was not sprinkled, He was not poured upon but was put under the water.
“The Greek word baptize, which we borrow, was of very common use, as is seen in every period of Greek literature and was applied to a great variety of matters, including the most familiar acts of everyday life. It was thus a word which every Greek speaking hearer and reader in apostolic times would at once and clearly understand. It meant what we express by ‘immerse’ and kindred terms, and no on e could then have thought of attributing to it a wholly different sense, such as ‘sprinkle’ or ‘pour’ without distinct explanation to that effect…..Luther and Calvin both explicitly declared that the primitive baptism was immersion and the former said it ought to be restored; but they allowed the existing practice to remain undisturbed. In the course of time many Protestants came to perceive that it was very awkward to rest their practice in this respect on the authority of the Church of Rome, and being accustomed and attacked to the practice they very naturally sought countenance for it in scripture. Such are the unavoidable defects of language, that strongly biased and ingenious minds can always cast some apparent doubt over the mean of the plainest words.” John Broadus
There would have been no question in New Testament times what baptizo meant, dipping, immersing. JR Graves, in his study of the Greek word baptizo in his book John’s Baptism found that “sixty-two standard Greek Lexicons giving only to dip, to immerse, as the literal primary meaning, which is the real meaning, of the work in Greek, corroborating the declaration of Dr. Charles Anton (Episcopalian), [then] President of Columbia ‘The primary meaning of the word [baptizo] is to dip, to immerse; and its secondary meaning, if it ever had any, refers to the same leading idea. Sprinkling and pouring are entirely out of the question.” As Oscar Mink well said in his book The Baptist Bride
“Sprinkling is sprinkling, no matter how many people call it baptism. It is still what it was, and that is sprinkling. Rantizio (Greek word for sprinkling) will never become baptizio in any language.”
You do not have to be a Greek scholar to understand this; you don’t even have to know that the word baptize means immersion to understand this. Reading your Bible makes it abundantly clear. First, Jesus went into the water to be baptized in the river. Jesus was not baptized of the river Jordan, by the river Jordan but IN the river Jordan. Secondly, Jesus went up straight way out of the water. Christ was in the water and when He was baptized, He had to come up out of the water. This is baptism and if you did not go into the water, and if you did not come up out of the water, you were not baptized. Or, as J.R. Graves illustrated in John’s Baptism, you could replace the word baptism with your mode and see which one is even possible. “And Jesus, when He was Baptized” is the text, so let us put the modes to the test. And Jesus, when He was sprinkled. Was Jesus sprinkled? How can you sprinkle a man? If you sprinkle salt on your food, you take the salt and distribute it all over, the salt is sprinkled out. How can you “sprinkle a man?” No, if baptism were by sprinkling, he would have to had water sprinkled upon Him. And Jesus, when He was poured. Was Jesus poured out in the river? No, the river would have had to been poured upon Him. So the word poor cannot be synonymous with baptism. And Jesus, “when He was immersed” is the only possibility. Sprinkling and pouring are things you do upon a person; only immersion is something that you can do to someone.
Baptism can be understood to be by immersion by what it pictures. Christ’s baptism was a picture, and New Testament baptism is a picture. The baptism of Jesus was not for salvation, for He was the Saviour; nor was it to wash away sin, for He was sinless. It was to “fulfill all righteousness” Matthew 3:15, Jesus submitted to baptism because it was to do the Father’s will. Afterward, all God’s people are to be baptized upon repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Acts 8:36-37). Had the eunuch needed baptism for salvation, Phillip erred in not sending him straight to the water. Examine every case of baptism in the New Testament, and you will find believers baptism.
Christ fulfilled all righteousness in type. Christ fulfilled the necessary work of salvation on the cross, He died and rose from the tomb, thus He showed what He would do on the cross and from the tomb in the water. Baptism pictures the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (Romans 6:3-5). What great importance the mode of baptism brings picturing the death of Christ. Baptism by immersion shows the burial, under the water, and shows the resurrection, out of the water. For us, it shows and symbolizes our death to sin and our rising to walk in newness of life. Baptism is a burial (Romans 6:3-5) and it wound not take long for a funeral home to go out of business if they were in the practice of burying by sprinkling.
SO, I believe in baptism by baptism, since the word means immersion.
Douglas Newell IV
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Monday Morning QB
- Now I'm conflicted. First President Obama. And then Oprah too?
- On the sports scene, on Thursday, the Boston Celtics beat the Miami Heat; again. I think it is interesting that will all the hype around Lebron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh, they still can't beat the Celtics. The Celtics are an older, veteran team that plays good team basketball. Sometimes it is better to have a good cohesive group than to have several talented individuals.
- If you are going to say something controversial, and say it in a combative way, don't be surprised if people get upset.
- I received a book in the mail this week, but I don't know who bought it for me. So if you are reading it, thanks!
- After a lot of thought, I deactivated my Twitter account this week. I had really gotten into using it and I did find a lot of redeeming value in the applications when it came to businesses and ministries sending out devotional links. But I felt like there were more problems than benefits. One, too much snark. I like a good one-liner as well as the next guy, but there is only so many snide comments you can take before it starts to affect you. Secondly, I didn't really know most of the people I was following and who were following me. Those are not real relationships and it doesn't make a good substitute. Finally, I was getting SO MUCH information, links, news, updates, but at the end of the day, when I thought about what I read, it was all pretty much useless information and I would have been better served reading a book than a poorly phrased quote in 140 characters or less.
- A couple of albums to be excited about if you are a Bluegrass fan. Two digitally remastered albums by Del McCoury and the Country Gentlemen. You can read about it here.
Sunday morning I preached from II Kings 5:1-5 on "A little girl who saved a general." She was a godly little heroine. We studied her faith, her compassion and her influence. I believed the Lord blessed.
Sunday evening I preached on day 5 and 6 of creation. It is a awe-inspiring study considering the Biblical account of creation.
Lord willing, we will continue our study Wednesday night on "Things Paul was thankful for."
And to sing us home, a beautiful Stephen Foster song sang by Allison Krauss with some classical accompaniment.
Douglas Newell IV
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Monday Morning QB
Here we go, our first addition of the Monday Morning QB, and on Sunday night to boot! An look at the past week, some random thoughts and a look to the week to come.
- Isaiah 3:4 And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. I am not sure if we are being governed by the naive, the childish, or just the arrogant. I told someone this week, that by suffering through poor governments now, we will better appreciate the rule of Jesus in the millennial reign. But, we still live in the greatest nation on Earth, and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.
- Speaking of being ruled by the childish, election coverage has become ridiculously absurd reporting elections as if it were a sporting event. I can't remember now which station (I was watching the networks) but if memory serves, it was an ABC pundit who, said "As Shakespeare said, 'it rains on the just and the unjust alike." Shakespeare? Really? Then the 'smart people' on the panel chuckled is an air of intellectual superiority. Shakespeare did say it, but he was QUOTING the Lord Jesus Christ, from THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. That 15 second moment sort of summed up for me what is wrong with our country.
- I usually start my Bible reading through the year in November. Something about starting January first always hindered me. When I start in November, it makes me think that I have an extra two months to read through the Bible for the next year. Which is kind of silly, but it works for me.
- Now HERE is a COEXIST sticker I can agree with.
- When we like the command, it isn’t really displaying great obedience; it is more that we agree with the command. Obedience is shown when we do not agree or do not understand the command, but do it anyway.
- There has been some discussion concerning the King James Bible in the Lord's churches recently, and I have found some good reading on the subject. Milburn Cockrell wrote a good article on why he preached from the KJV.
- JC Philpot wrote an good defense of the KJV here.
- Dishonest Dealings. It really bothers me when men, in defending their position, misrepresent the other side, intentionally to make their side better. That is nothing more than a false witness. If you can't make your case without lying about it you either need to reexamine your position, or let someone who has a better grasp of the issue defend your position.
- Sunday recap. In the morning service, I preached on "Practical thoughts on the Doctrine of Election." We need to make sure that the doctrine is in the head, but also live with the doctrine in our heart.
- Sunday evening was continuing on our study of the first 11 chapters of Genesis. We took up days 2-4. We have sickness running through the church, pray the Lord blesses with strength and grace.
- With God's marvelous design in mind, here is a great video about seed dispersal. How anyone could deny creation and design after thinking about the following video is beyond me.
- This week:
Looking forward to continuing our Wednesday night study on things Paul was thankful for. I was really blessed last week in the study of having a thankful heart. Lord willing we will tackle Day 5 of creation next Sunday evening, and praying that God will strengthen the saints during the week. We need God every second, every hour! Let's not forsake prayer, and go to God this week needy, confident and thankful in Christ.
Douglas Newell IV
Monday, November 1, 2010
State of the blog
I’ve been thinking about the blog, since I haven’t been posting recently. I have been neglecting posting original content, even though I have it on the PC. It just stopped being fun. So I have decided to keep it simple, reduce the number of posts and try to have some continuity here.
Monday’s will be the Monday Morning QB, a reflection of the past week, the coming week, the Sunday sermons, and some random thoughts on current events.
Once or twice a month, I hope to write an article. Maybe more, but I think right now, one or two will be what we are looking at.
I started the blog as a hobby, so I could mess around with basic HTML, get some biblical truth on the interwebs, and have some fun. I enjoy writing, and most of my posts are either articles I am writing, or I am thinking through something, and it helps me to put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard). Writing helps the thought process and I believe writing helps make better preachers. Somewhere along the line, the blog became a burden, it stopped being fun, productivity slowed, then it stopped. I have some regular readers, and I appreciate you, but I think you deserve SOME expectation of content. And, lets face it, there are A LOT of blogs to keep up with, if you keep up with blogs. Hopefully this will give a little structure, and I can get back to enjoying keeping up with it.
Lord willing, we’ll have regular Monday posts, and original posts every other week.
Unless it changes.
Because it might. Because it usually does. 8^)
______________________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
Monday’s will be the Monday Morning QB, a reflection of the past week, the coming week, the Sunday sermons, and some random thoughts on current events.
Once or twice a month, I hope to write an article. Maybe more, but I think right now, one or two will be what we are looking at.
I started the blog as a hobby, so I could mess around with basic HTML, get some biblical truth on the interwebs, and have some fun. I enjoy writing, and most of my posts are either articles I am writing, or I am thinking through something, and it helps me to put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard). Writing helps the thought process and I believe writing helps make better preachers. Somewhere along the line, the blog became a burden, it stopped being fun, productivity slowed, then it stopped. I have some regular readers, and I appreciate you, but I think you deserve SOME expectation of content. And, lets face it, there are A LOT of blogs to keep up with, if you keep up with blogs. Hopefully this will give a little structure, and I can get back to enjoying keeping up with it.
Lord willing, we’ll have regular Monday posts, and original posts every other week.
Unless it changes.
Because it might. Because it usually does. 8^)
______________________________________________________________________
Douglas Newell IV
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)