Social Reverend refuses to baptise baby

Codpiece said:
Job’s lack of complaint precludes his reward, actually. Job had no way of knowing what would come to him after God had spoken to him, whether more suffering or blessing.
Click to expand...
True, it was a test of faith. He did nothing to deserve his suffering, yet, had he decided to curse god for it what would have happened? He’d have no livestock or kids, his body would be covered in boils, and he’d burn in hell for eternity? Literally all he had to do to fail this test was say something mean about god. Remain loyal, though, maybe get a reward. The lesson is clear.
By the way, I especially like the little lesson within the lesson. God rewards him by replacing all the livestock and children he let Satan slaughter with even more livestock and children. Apparently kids are as valuable and replaceable as livestock.
 
sickc0d3r said:
True, it was a test of faith. He did nothing to deserve his suffering, yet, had he decided to curse god for it what would have happened? He’d have no livestock or kids, his body would be covered in boils, and he’d burn in hell for eternity? Literally all he had to do to fail this test was say something mean about god. Remain loyal, though, maybe get a reward. The lesson is clear.
By the way, I especially like the little lesson within the lesson. God rewards him by replacing all the livestock and children he let Satan slaughter with even more livestock and children. Apparently kids are as valuable and replaceable as livestock.
Click to expand...
How do you know what would have happened to Job had he “said something mean” about God? That’s nowhere in the book.

Weird take on the kids and livestock. The kids weren’t replaceable, but their eternal destiny is in God’s hands and Job doubtless trusted God in that.
 
Codpiece said:
How do you know what would have happened to Job had he “said something mean” about God? That’s nowhere in the book.

Weird take on the kids and livestock. The kids weren’t replaceable, but their eternal destiny is in God’s hands and Job doubtless trusted God in that.
Click to expand...
Funny how I got a quote notification from you and yet there is no such thing. Divine intervention, mayhaps.
 
Codpiece said:
How do you know what would have happened to Job had he “said something mean” about God? That’s nowhere in the book.
Click to expand...
It is the entire premise of the story. It’s literally the only way Satan could “win” his bet with God.

“Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? 1:10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. 1:11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face”

God proceeded to give Satan permission to put forth them hands on Job’s family, and wealth, and health to prove he was right and Satan was wrong. Job would not curse God (say mean things).

I suppose it’s possible Job would be rewarded either way, but, either way, his kids were all slaughtered. And taking the Lord’s name in vain is a sin. Presumably even if the Lord tries to make you do it as a test.

Weird take on the kids and livestock. The kids weren’t replaceable, but their eternal destiny is in God’s hands and Job doubtless trusted God in that.
Click to expand...
Again, I’m not saying anything that isn’t written in plain text.
The reward for his loyalty included replacing his slain kids with some new kids.
Apparently, Job was supposed to be happy because his new daughters were beautiful (I guess more beautiful than his 3 original daughters?).

“So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses. 42:13 He had also seven sons and three daughters. 42:14 And he called the name of the first, Jemima; and the name of the second, Kezia; and the name of the third, Keren-happuch. 42:15 And in all the land were no women found so fair as the daughters of Job: and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren”

People can certainly be cool with this, and find spiritual meaning or whatever, but I can’t see how anything I’ve said is even debatable.
 
fingercuffs said:
The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away?

Considering he knows the couple and them not being married and agreed to it then became an utter c word. "Living in sin" is an archaic bunch of poppycock, but surely it isn't the child's fault?

https://www.nbc12.com/2022/10/06/reverend-refuses-baptize-baby-says-unwed-parents-are-living-sin/

SUMRALL, Miss. (WLBT/Gray News) - A young couple in Mississippi who recently tried to have their newborn baptized said they were refused by the reverend.

Kamri Mclendon lives with her boyfriend of two years, Tristan Mcphail, in Sumrall. In May, the 18-year-old gave birth to a girl, Presleigh. She said the pregnancy was not planned, but her daughter has become the couple’s “greatest blessing.”

Mclendon said she grew up in the church, and thus wanted to have an infant baptism performed on Presleigh in the Hickory Grove United Methodist Church. Her family has been attending the church for “generations,” and it is where Mclendon herself was baptized.

The couple told WLBT they had only been attending the church sporadically lately due to their new responsibilities with a newborn. Even so, they were in communication with the Rev. Dewayne Warren, who they said had agreed to perform Presleigh’s baptism.

“He knew all of the information of us not being married, all of that,” Mclendon said. “And he agreed to it. He was like, ‘Yeah, that works.’ His wife sent us the material of what would need to be said at the service. He even announced it to the congregation. My grandmother and my aunt and uncle were all there. And then he sent us that letter.”

Mclendon said the letter, addressed to her, was sent by Warren on Sept. 15 to inform her and Mcphail that the baptism would not be happening.

The reverend gave the following reasons: Mclendon and “the baby’s father” were living together “in sin,” Presleigh was conceived before marriage, Mclendon’s mother was living with a man “in sin,” and the couple were not in regular attendance at the church.
Click to expand...

"I was trying to wait for the Holy Spirit of God to convict you on this, but we were running out of time" Lol, was he waiting for them to be smited by the Lord so he didn't have to pull out of the baptism he accidentally agreed to do?
 
aitkenmike said:
"I was trying to wait for the Holy Spirit of God to convict you on this, but we were running out of time" Lol, was he waiting for them to be smited by the Lord so he didn't have to pull out of the baptism he accidentally agreed to do?
Click to expand...

no that is a very ignorant take. he was hoping the holy spirit would help them to see that they are being foolish and self centered trying to force a church they have been supporting for years (as is) to suddenly change for them rather than go to the MANY other churches that would be willing to baptize this kid.
 
Last edited:
fingercuffs said:
Funny how I got a quote notification from you and yet there is no such thing. Divine intervention, mayhaps.
Click to expand...
Nah, I was going to respond to one of your points but I couldn’t work out how to say what I wanted so thought better of responding. The partial quote was in my original message which I edited immediately.
 
Codpiece said:
Nah, I was going to respond to one of your points but I couldn’t work out how to say what I wanted so thought better of responding. The partial quote was in my original message which I edited immediately.
Click to expand...
I admire the strength of your conviction :D
 
fingercuffs said:
I admire the strength of your conviction :D
Click to expand...
Ahaha, it just didn’t seem worth getting any of the theological weeds on the point I was seeking to address. That doesn’t really seem to be the point of the thread. (And yes, I realise I say that after engaging another poster in another side-point regarding theology.)
 
Codpiece said:
Ahaha, it just didn’t seem worth getting any of the theological weeds on the point I was seeking to address. That doesn’t really seem to be the point of the thread. (And yes, I realise I say that after engaging another poster in another side-point regarding theology.)
Click to expand...
The thread has been a learning curve, for sure. I thought being christened was about the baby going to heaven if it died and not being held in purgatory for eternity. Apparently it's about selfish vicars and a knees up for parents.
 
Oh no, how will the baby and family ever move forward without that?
 
fingercuffs said:
The thread has been a learning curve, for sure. I thought being christened was about the baby going to heaven if it died and not being held in purgatory for eternity. Apparently it's about selfish vicars and a knees up for parents.
Click to expand...
Haha, maybe I should have followed through earlier after all!

Look, there are definitely some who believe that a christening gets you into the club, so to speak, but that isn’t a Biblical teaching (then again, neither is purgatory). Baptism is something a person receives after belief/repentance in all the examples I have found in the Bible, as a public display of their confession of faith and a religious symbol. I’m not really sold on the whole idea pf infant baptism as a result.

If God is great enough and creative enough to make the world, I can’t imagine he’d be satisfied simply watching babies get water sprinkled on their heads as a path to eternal life.

EDIT: also, what is a “knees up”?
 
Codpiece said:
Haha, maybe I should have followed through earlier after all!

Look, there are definitely some who believe that a christening gets you into the club, so to speak, but that isn’t a Biblical teaching (then again, neither is purgatory). Baptism is something a person receives after belief/repentance in all the examples I have found in the Bible, as a public display of their confession of faith and a religious symbol. I’m not really sold on the whole idea pf infant baptism as a result.

If God is great enough and creative enough to make the world, I can’t imagine he’d be satisfied simply watching babies get water sprinkled on their heads as a path to eternal life.

EDIT: also, what is a “knees up”?
Click to expand...
A party.
I was wrong thinking it was about the baby. I was christened but not confirmed so I guess I'm in purgatory if I pop my clogs too.
 
Why don't they just get married? Are they still "playing the field" after living together and having a baby?
 
That couple needs to understand that its not the end of the world. So your child was not dunked in tap water by some old goon. Who cares?
 
I think the pastor should have maybe counseled the couple and see if they wanted to get married. I can see if there started being a large number of persistent unwed couples with children wanting to basically have church sanction it could be problematic. The couple can certainly receive God's grace and forgiveness but are they repentant and willing to get married? The parents are supposed to guide/nurture the child in the faith (bringing them to church etc...) as they grow up. Baptism is not a "work" of the person/child but the work of the Triune God through the water and the word. Faith, Grace and Baptism all work together and are not mutually exclusive. Here is a pastor of my Lutheran denomination (LCMS) speaking on baptism:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,445
Messages
55,491,305
Members
174,789
Latest member
Jahmaltheknight

Share this page

Back
Top