Comments for RPCB Blog http://rpcb.wordpress.com Blog of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Boothwyn Thu, 24 Sep 2009 01:57:30 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Infant Baptism by paproadethest http://rpcb.wordpress.com/2006/12/26/infant-baptism/#comment-680 paproadethest Thu, 24 Sep 2009 01:57:30 +0000 http://rpcb.wordpress.com/2006/12/26/infant-baptism/#comment-680 Simplified rank <a href="http:/flyhost.net/" rel="nofollow">hosting </a>use Rapidshare ( www.rapidshare.com ) has been slapped with a $33.4 million outstanding by a German court and ordered to take stricter regulations for its uploaded content, according to several reports. The lawsuit was brought by German royalties collector GEMA, who called on the Regional Court in Hamburg to organization the march hosting overhaul to a halt it from hosting 5,000 music tracks on its neighbourhood in return download. GEMA released a statement in German addressing the court's ruling: "The judgment states that the hosting service itself is now chief for making sure that not any of the music tracks concerned are distributed via its rostrum in the future. This means that the copyright holder is no longer required to perform the ongoing and complex checks." The court concluded that Rapidshare and other be like rank sharing sites had not infatuated the expected measures to impede copyright infringement from occurring via the employ Simplified rank hosting use Rapidshare ( http://www.rapidshare.com ) has been slapped with a $33.4 million outstanding by a German court and ordered to take stricter regulations for its uploaded content, according to several reports.

The lawsuit was brought by German royalties collector GEMA, who called on the Regional Court in Hamburg to organization the march hosting overhaul to a halt it from hosting 5,000 music tracks on its neighbourhood in return download.

GEMA released a statement in German addressing the court’s ruling:

“The judgment states that the hosting service itself is now chief for making sure that not any of the music tracks concerned are distributed via its rostrum in the future. This means that the copyright holder is no longer required to perform the ongoing and complex checks.”

The court concluded that Rapidshare and other be like rank sharing sites had not infatuated the expected measures to impede copyright infringement from occurring via the employ

]]> Comment on Missions to Mexico Update #1 by Viagra http://rpcb.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/missions-to-mexico-update-1/#comment-679 Viagra Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:20:37 +0000 http://rpcb.wordpress.com/?p=27#comment-679 I think the idea is good but you need to modify it a little. I think the idea is good but you need to modify it a little.

]]> Comment on Infant Baptism by rpcbyg http://rpcb.wordpress.com/2006/12/26/infant-baptism/#comment-673 rpcbyg Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:17:10 +0000 http://rpcb.wordpress.com/2006/12/26/infant-baptism/#comment-673 Consider that for thousands of years the Jewish people included their infants in the covenant community by the means of circumcision. If there was to be a change in the NT you would think it would mention it somewhere. Consider this also... And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. (Luk 18:15-16) This passage tells us that infants are brought to Christ...presumably by believing adults (otherwise, why bring them?). Jesus rebukes those who would keep them from Him and goes so far as to say the kingdom of God is theirs. If the kingdom of God is theirs...how much more Baptism? Consider that for thousands of years the Jewish people included their infants in the covenant community by the means of circumcision. If there was to be a change in the NT you would think it would mention it somewhere.

Consider this also…

And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. (Luk 18:15-16)

This passage tells us that infants are brought to Christ…presumably by believing adults (otherwise, why bring them?).
Jesus rebukes those who would keep them from Him and goes so far as to say the kingdom of God is theirs.

If the kingdom of God is theirs…how much more Baptism?

]]> Comment on Infant Baptism by jason http://rpcb.wordpress.com/2006/12/26/infant-baptism/#comment-672 jason Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:37:55 +0000 http://rpcb.wordpress.com/2006/12/26/infant-baptism/#comment-672 That helps. I'm still struggling with it a little. I got to go....but thanks for the help. I definetly have more understanding of circumcision and this is beginning to make more sense. This blog and your comments helped. That helps. I’m still struggling with it a little. I got to go….but thanks for the help. I definetly have more understanding of circumcision and this is beginning to make more sense. This blog and your comments helped.

]]> Comment on Infant Baptism by Eric http://rpcb.wordpress.com/2006/12/26/infant-baptism/#comment-671 Eric Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:34:25 +0000 http://rpcb.wordpress.com/2006/12/26/infant-baptism/#comment-671 Peter said in Acts 2:38-39, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." It would be one thing if Peter said to repent and be baptized only but that still would not do away with infant baptism. He goes on to say “For the promise is for you and for your children…” This affirms that this promise is for the believer and his family. If the covenant’s sign is meant to be only for the believer then this would be a huge change from the old sign, circumcision, and Peter would be sure to make that abundantly clear. On the contrary he makes the family covenant abundantly clear. If the covenant is only with the believer and not with the believer’s offspring then God has broken His covenant with Abraham. God says in Genesis 17:7, “And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.” Peter said in Acts 2:38-39, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

It would be one thing if Peter said to repent and be baptized only but that still would not do away with infant baptism. He goes on to say “For the promise is for you and for your children…” This affirms that this promise is for the believer and his family. If the covenant’s sign is meant to be only for the believer then this would be a huge change from the old sign, circumcision, and Peter would be sure to make that abundantly clear.

On the contrary he makes the family covenant abundantly clear.
If the covenant is only with the believer and not with the believer’s offspring then God has broken His covenant with Abraham. God says in Genesis 17:7, “And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.”

]]> Comment on Infant Baptism by jason http://rpcb.wordpress.com/2006/12/26/infant-baptism/#comment-670 jason Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:29:40 +0000 http://rpcb.wordpress.com/2006/12/26/infant-baptism/#comment-670 Okay, I under stand why people in the old testament were circumsized. it pointed to the cross. makes sense. One more question: Those in the Bible who we see being baptized are all baptized after hearing and publicly professing belief in the gospel Okay, I under stand why people in the old testament were circumsized. it pointed to the cross. makes sense. One more question:

Those in the Bible who we see being baptized are all baptized after hearing and publicly professing belief in the gospel

]]> Comment on Infant Baptism by Eric http://rpcb.wordpress.com/2006/12/26/infant-baptism/#comment-669 Eric Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:27:49 +0000 http://rpcb.wordpress.com/2006/12/26/infant-baptism/#comment-669 No because baptism replaces circumcision as a result of what Jesus did for us on the cross. Circumcision was the bloody act of cutting away while baptism as a result of Christ signifies what Romans 13:12-14 tells us that we are to “put off” the old sinful ways and “put on” Christ. We live for Christ by putting off the works of the flesh and putting on the Fruit of the Spirit. Circumcision was a bloody act that signified that to pay for sin there must be bloodshed. Christ’s blood that was shed for us now covers us and as a result there is no longer a need to shed blood or to go through pain in baptism. Christ shed the blood and went through the pain for us. No because baptism replaces circumcision as a result of what Jesus did for us on the cross. Circumcision was the bloody act of cutting away while baptism as a result of Christ signifies what Romans 13:12-14 tells us that we are to “put off” the old sinful ways and “put on” Christ. We live for Christ by putting off the works of the flesh and putting on the Fruit of the Spirit. Circumcision was a bloody act that signified that to pay for sin there must be bloodshed. Christ’s blood that was shed for us now covers us and as a result there is no longer a need to shed blood or to go through pain in baptism. Christ shed the blood and went through the pain for us.

]]> Comment on Infant Baptism by jason http://rpcb.wordpress.com/2006/12/26/infant-baptism/#comment-668 jason Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:20:55 +0000 http://rpcb.wordpress.com/2006/12/26/infant-baptism/#comment-668 So wouldn't that mean that we have to be circumcised and baptized. Aren't we supposed to follow Jesus in everything? So wouldn’t that mean that we have to be circumcised and baptized. Aren’t we supposed to follow Jesus in everything?

]]> Comment on Infant Baptism by Eric http://rpcb.wordpress.com/2006/12/26/infant-baptism/#comment-667 Eric Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:19:51 +0000 http://rpcb.wordpress.com/2006/12/26/infant-baptism/#comment-667 Jesus was baptized as an adult and He was circumcized as an infant. baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of the covenant. Jesus was baptized as an adult and He was circumcized as an infant. baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of the covenant.

]]> Comment on Infant Baptism by jason http://rpcb.wordpress.com/2006/12/26/infant-baptism/#comment-666 jason Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:15:46 +0000 http://rpcb.wordpress.com/2006/12/26/infant-baptism/#comment-666 What does circumcision have to do with Baptism???????? What does circumcision have to do with Baptism????????

]]>