Fundie Retreat to Marry Off Children ~ Vaughn Ohlman

[withaj]

4 hours ago, devoe364 said:

If Winston thought it would benefit him, he'd do it in a heartbeat.

Winston and his family are to polygamy what the Bates are to the Quiverful Movement. Winston has good looking kids, many of whom continue to practice polygamy (although many do not). They are quanitly named, each year the kids born have their name start with the same letter.

Since Winston was excomunicated from the FLDS, he has been working steadily on his brand. Photos released from the community show his daughters and wives in jeans and without the FLDS hairstyle and look. 

That said, they still bleed the beast, which many aren't aware of. 

The Blackmore clan certainly lives in its own special universe, but I wouldn't say the Duggar/Bates to FLDS/Blackmore comparison is totally apt. The post-split Winston followers are, of course, still similar to the FLDS in many, many ways (fundamentally similar, one might say ), but although Winston's a crazy megalomaniac, I don't believe for a second he's the downright sociopath Warren Jeffs is. I think the degree of exposure to the outside world and freedom to deviate from the stated path is much, much more favorable for the Winstonites than those in adherent FLDS communities. Both, of course, still troubling.

So far I believe it's only 3 or 4 of Winston's sons and 1 or 2 daughters who are living polygamy. I hope that number stays low (well, low is relative when one has 140+ children). 

[FundieFarmer]

34 minutes ago, libriatrix said:

On May 10, 2016 at 9:49 AM, FundieFarmer said:

I went to a Reformed college for two years and have attended Reformed churches. Here's what I can say from my experience of the theology there. 

You don't really know if you're one of the Elect...Kind of like St. Peter or St. Paul said something about I've run the race but it is not yet complete so I continue to strive to live it in His way to the best of my ability until I reach the end of the race, that verse or however it goes. So you continue to serve as a Christian- helping out where you are called, being gracious, being a good person, NOT being an asshole, blah blah blah. 

I am REALLY surprised by your answer here. Can I ask what college or what denomination your experience is? Coming from a Calvinist and reformed (OPC) background myself, I was always taught that you could in fact be sure of your own salvation: If you loved God then you were saved and consequently one of the elect. You know your own heart because you feel desire to follow God and that's what lets you know you are elect. Anyone not elect will never love or desire to follow God. 

Of course, you don't know anyone else's heart and so you don't know who else is elect. That means election doesn't rule out evangelizing: God wants you to tell everyone the gospel even if those who will follow it are predetermined. You don't know who's elect and who's not, so you treat everyone as if they can be saved and evangelize to them. 

Furthermore, being elect has absolutely no reflection on your own moral value and doesn't make you superior to anyone else. You don't look down on anyone.

I won't say what college, just to not out myself, but it was PCA. I'm a member of a Calvinist Reformed church with OPC church governance/doctrine/covenants. We also regularly attend ARP churches, etc. I'm about as Reformed as you get, but personally, I hold more liberal social views...despite the fact that the churches we attend are very Reformed. Like @SilverBeach, apparently, I lean left in my own very right congregations. 

Ok. I see what you're saying and I'm tracking! I guess my pastors and professors have always spoken about Election more as a theological concept that God knows and we should understand, but not something that a human should endeavor to label themselves in day-to-day practice, so that's where I got lost. You wouldn't walk around claiming to be Elect.

Aside from that, I wholeheartedly concur with the rest of your assessment about election not being a free pass.  

[SilverBeach]

26 minutes ago, libriatrix said:

In my experience, yes, they do believe they know.

I am REALLY surprised by your answer here. Can I ask what college or what denomination your experience is? Coming from a Calvinist and reformed (OPC) background myself, I was always taught that you could in fact be sure of your own salvation: If you loved God then you were saved and consequently one of the elect. You know your own heart because you feel desire to follow God and that's what lets you know you are elect. Anyone not elect will never love or desire to follow God. 

Of course, you don't know anyone else's heart and so you don't know who else is elect. That means election doesn't rule out evangelizing: God wants you to tell everyone the gospel even if those who will follow it are predetermined. You don't know who's elect and who's not, so you treat everyone as if they can be saved and evangelize to them. 

Furthermore, being elect has absolutely no reflection on your own moral value and doesn't make you superior to anyone else. You don't look down on anyone.

People in arminian-leaning denominations refer to themselves as saved all the time.

As a member of an RCA affiliated congregation, I agree with your assessment of Calvinism.

[devoe364]

11 minutes ago, withaj said:

The Blackmore clan certainly lives in its own special universe, but I wouldn't say the Duggar/Bates to FLDS/Blackmore comparison is totally apt. The post-split Winston followers are, of course, still similar to the FLDS in many, many ways (fundamentally similar, one might say ), but although Winston's a crazy megalomaniac, I don't believe for a second he's the downright sociopath Warren Jeffs is. I think the degree of exposure to the outside world and freedom to deviate from the stated path is much, much more favorable for the Winstonites than those in adherent FLDS communities. Both, of course, still troubling.

So far I believe it's only 3 or 4 of Winston's sons and 1 or 2 daughters who are living polygamy. I hope that number stays low (well, low is relative when one has 140+ children). 

Winston just really, really, really likes fathering children, He's freakishly good at it. I assume wife #2, who is now wife #1, since wife #1 left, keeps track of cycles so Winston continues to reproduce at his freakish rate. I definitely agree that Winston isn't as crazy as Jeffs, just as I think Gil Bates is far more inteligent and dangerous then Jim Bob is.

Many of Winston's children are still quite young, based on the information that was provided to the media when Harper announced his silly taxable child care credit. The based it on him having 133 children, 98 of which were under 18, As a result, the number could balloon, depending in part on the mothers the children grew up with. 

[SilverBeach]

5 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

@hoipolloi, @SilverBeach @Howl@formergothardite@foreign fundie@Anonymousguest@smittykins

I hear you, but try not to offend traditional Baptists as you defend Reformed.

So try not to get offended by people trying to understand this morass and assuming that Fundies self-identify correctly.  It's a learning process.

Palimpsest, I definitely was not aiming to offend traditional Baptists, not in a million years. I really hope I didn't do that, but I apologize for any infraction here. Interestingly, prior to my current affiliation, I was a member of a very traditional Missionary Baptist Church. This flavor is common among Blacks.

It was only when I saw several members here referring to reformed in a way that was incorrect to me, that I said anything. I just don't want actual reformed denominations like mine lumped in with fundies who have nothing to do with us. I appreciate that people are gaining understanding here and will hopefully become more wary of fundy self-labeling in the future

It is indeed a learning process and I truly appreciate what you are doing here. I hope my input has helped a little bit.

[Palimpsest]

2 hours ago, SilverBeach said:

Palimpsest, I definitely was not aiming to offend traditional Baptists, not in a million years. I really hope I didn't do that, but I apologize for any infraction here. Interestingly, prior to my current affiliation, I was a member of a very traditional Missionary Baptist Church. This flavor is common among Blacks.

It was only when I saw several members here referring to reformed in a way that was incorrect to me, that I said anything. I just don't want actual reformed denominations like mine lumped in with fundies who have nothing to do with us. I appreciate that people are gaining understanding here and will hopefully become more wary of fundy self-labeling in the future

It is indeed a learning process and I truly appreciate what you are doing here. I hope my input has helped a little bit.

No worries @SilverBeach.  You wrote something that I thought could be badly misinterpreted that's all.  And I am not in charge of infractions here  - thank the FSM!

Yes, I'm trying to make sense of some of this very complicated stuff as academically and objectively as I can - as a card carrying atheist.  I am also a person who respects true faith when I see it.  It is hypocrisy and manipulation that I can't stand.

Yes, you have definitely helped.  It may take me some time to make sense of it all.

I'm afraid I'll offend many people before I'm done with this self-inflicted project - I've already pissed off one other person royally! 

I hope people can all realize that we are sharing knowledge and experience - not kicking sacred cows.  Well, unless they are Vile Patriarchal Pseudo-Christian (AKA Fundie) sacred cows.

[Palimpsest]

5 hours ago, libriatrix said:

Wait, what? I'm pretty sure IFB folks would be mortally insulted to be accused of any type of baptism other than believer's baptism, and pedobaptism is almost never applied to 5 year olds. Pretty sure that what IFB and your grandpa disagree on is whether a 5yo can believe enough for it to be appropriate to administer believer's baptism, not whether or not baptism should only be administered to those who can profess faith. IFB are baptizing 5yo's because they think the 5yo can profess faith and would not do to a 5yo who refused to profess faith. Pedobaptism is applied to babies, like a few weeks to months old, on the basis of their parents' belief, not their own. IFB are credobaptists and practice believer's baptism, unless I am VERY mistaken. 

Oh, I am very sure they would.  I don't think you are VERY mistaken.  We, or I at least, are looking at differences in doctrine objectively and sharing knowledge and experience not wanting to pick fights with fellow members.

It comes down to a difference in interpretation of paedo - or pedo.  It translates as "child," not infant, from the Greek "pais." Honest.

My grandfather has been pushing up the daisies for about 50 years now - or is in the Heaven of his belief.  I actually hope the latter because he was a lovely human being.  Be that as it may, he has no dog in this fight - the fight of your creation.

So, yes, my grandfather was Traditional English Baptist - note that underlined word.  Don't put that particular flavor into the same box as IFB.  As such, he would have rolled his eyes at baptizing 5 year olds - because to him paedo = child.  A child does not have the ability to "profess faith" as he understood it.

Within his particular tradition baptism did not take place until a person was at least in their mid-teens or close to the age of consent.  Credobaptism - the adult ability to understand the commitment.  My grandfather would have tested people on their understanding - not just accepted someone at an altar call.  Or a child terrorized into wanting salvation because of hell fire.

This was also my Baptist Missionary parents' belief, although they test drove other denominations during my childhood.  My brother and I were not baptized until we made informed adult opinions of religion.  My brother's choice of church was of his own conviction.  He became a Methodist.  My own baptism and confirmation into the CofE was mostly parental pressure.  Oh, well.  At least they waited until my teens to nag me.  Before that it was explained to us that children could "sin" but would not be exposed to eternal hell-fire because Jesus saying "suffer the little children to come unto me" gave us a grace period until we were gown up enough to commit.  Cherry picking - possibly.

From a child development point of view - I don't think the average five year old can possibly understand the concepts.  This is rather confirmed by the numbers of IFB who seem to need repeat saving - because they didn't really understand when they were 5.

MMV.

[EmiGirl]

My pastor once complained to me that,he was pressure to agree to baptize young children who were too young to know what they were doing. Called it baby baptism. Now that he has a few years under his belt and can stand up for himself he doesn't do it until he's counseled with the people and make sure they're doing it for the right reasons.

I go to a SBC church. 

[Baabaablacksheep]

Maybe someone already mentioned this and I missed it - but did you all know there is a reality show about arranged marriages? Apparently searching for information on Vaughn Ohlman and betrothal caused it to show up in ads on webpages I visit.  http://www.fyi.tv/shows/arranged/about?keyword=arranged%20fyi%20show&mkwid=siBaUp4tV%7Cdm_pcrid_76796336002_pkw_arranged%20fyi%20show_pmt_b&utm_source=%5Bchannel%5D&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=arranged%20fyi%20show&utm_campaign=G_Arranged&paidlink=1&cmpid=PaidSearch_%5Bchannel%5D_G_Arranged_arranged%20fyi%20show&gclid=CNnd6d-T18wCFUVsfgodE-wJAw

[Coconut Flan]

There is a thread for it:  http://www.freejinger.org/topic/26810-arranged-season-2/#comment-1181683

There hasn't been a lot of activity yet though.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

Quote

pedo- 

before vowels ped-, word-forming element meaning "boy, child," from Greek pedo-, comb. form of pais "boy, child," especially a son, from PIE root *peu- "small, little, few, young" (see few (adj.)). The British form paed- is better because it avoids confusion with ped-

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=p&p=16

21 hours ago, libriatrix said:

Pedobaptism is applied to babies, like a few weeks to months old, on the basis of their parents' belief, not their own. 

As @Palimpsest already explained pais-paidos means child, young, prepubescent boy. If you baptize someone who is under 10 you are baptizing a child.

[libriatrix]

16 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

Oh, I am very sure they would.  I don't think you are VERY mistaken.  We, or I at least, are looking at differences in doctrine objectively and sharing knowledge and experience not wanting to pick fights with fellow members.

It comes down to a difference in interpretation of paedo - or pedo.  It translates as "child," not infant, from the Greek "pais." Honest.

My grandfather has been pushing up the daisies for about 50 years now - or is in the Heaven of his belief.  I actually hope the latter because he was a lovely human being.  Be that as it may, he has no dog in this fight - the fight of your creation.

Did it sound like I was picking a fight, getting personal, or being antagonistic? If so I am sorry, because I don't want to fight. I want to discuss amiably. If I'm getting on your nerves, please let me know and I will drop it. 

Quote

So, yes, my grandfather was Traditional English Baptist - note that underlined word.  Don't put that particular flavor into the same box as IFB.  As such, he would have rolled his eyes at baptizing 5 year olds - because to him paedo = child.  A child does not have the ability to "profess faith" as he understood it.

Within his particular tradition baptism did not take place until a person was at least in their mid-teens or close to the age of consent.  Credobaptism - the adult ability to understand the commitment.  My grandfather would have tested people on their understanding - not just accepted someone at an altar call.  Or a child terrorized into wanting salvation because of hell fire.

20 minutes ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

As @Palimpsest already explained pais-paidos means child, young, prepubescent boy. If you baptize someone who is under 10 you are baptizing a child.

I understand the definition and derivation of 'paedo'. In my opinion that's not where the difference in interpretation is. Looking at the root meanings of words can help us understand them but is not the end of the process of understanding them. You also have to look at the usage of the words, because often it morphs as the words are used in day-to-day life for a while. To take a silly example, no one's going to throw some ice cubes into a bowl of whipping cream and be excited about eating ice cream! Obviously the construction 'ice cream' has a different usage than the two original words taken separately and I think something similar is going on with paedobaptism.

I think the litmus test between paedobaptism and credobaptism as terms churches use to describe their beliefs is why the baptism is being applied. Do we baptize someone because he/she has professed faith in Christ (credo), or do we baptize someone because they have parents who believe (paedo)? (or do we baptize someone because they exist; I believe that is the RC practice, also paedo.) Is baptism a symbol of personal profession of faith (credo) or is it a symbol of God's covenant with his people (paedo)? (Or is it a mechanism to save people and we should save everyone we can no matter how old they are? Also paedo.) 

The objection I have to describing IFB practice as paedo is not the age of the child being baptized (I regret making a big deal of paedo usually being on infants as that has turned into a red herring) but the reasons they had for baptizing the 5yo, which would definitely be credobaptist reasons. ("We're baptizing this 5yo because he's totally professing faith!!") From that point you can absolutely argue that they are applying credobaptism in a terrible and damaging way, and I can certainly see using "child baptism" as an insult towards them. I don't see paedobaptism as an accurate description of their beliefs though. 

[FundieFarmer]

Perhaps I'm confused here. My college roommate was rather fundamental Southern Baptist, and she said that her church did infant dedications (and later credobaptisms) rather than paedobaptisms. I grew up doing paedobaptisms, and preferred the dedication as she explained it as that made far more sense to me. I'm surprised to hear the tradition of baptisms within Baptist churches, as she was adamant that "Baptists would NEVER baptize infants- only Presbyterians did that!" 

I was paedobaptised, and later did a credobaptism of my own choice. So I'm a weirdo who's had both.

Regardless, color me confused. This denominational stuff gets so confusing. 

[libriatrix]

6 minutes ago, FundieFarmer said:

I'm surprised to hear the tradition of baptisms within Baptist churches, as she was adamant that "Baptists would NEVER baptize infants- only Presbyterians did that!"  

Oh dear, I'm afraid I'm muddying the waters.

Which tradition are you thinking of here? As far as I know all Baptists believe baptism is for people who profess belief in Christ. That's why your roommate was adamant about never baptizing infants -- she knows infants can't profess belief. 

SOME Baptists will baptize children as young as 4 or 5 if the child says they believe in Christ. This is still not baptizing infants, and it's not baptism offered to any child, it's baptism offered to children who profess faith. (Whether or not they're developmentally able to profess faith is a separate question.) 

Baptists won't claim the term paedobaptism. They believe in believer's baptism (another name for credobaptism). 

[FundieFarmer]

8 minutes ago, libriatrix said:

Oh dear, I'm afraid I'm muddying the waters.

Which tradition are you thinking of here? As far as I know all Baptists believe baptism is for people who profess belief in Christ. That's why your roommate was adamant about never baptizing infants -- she knows infants can't profess belief. 

SOME Baptists will baptize children as young as 4 or 5 if the child says they believe in Christ. This is still not baptizing infants, and it's not baptism offered to any child, it's baptism offered to children who profess faith. (Whether or not they're developmentally able to profess faith is a separate question.) 

Baptists won't claim the term paedobaptism. They believe in believer's baptism (another name for credobaptism). 

Ok ok ok ok. I think I'm following. So correct in that no paedobaptism (unlike my upbringing)- dedication perhaps, until credobaptism can be performed? 

PS: reasons why I love FJ. I don't usually get in to the technical differences in terminology so I love learning!

[libriatrix]

Just now, FundieFarmer said:

Ok ok ok ok. I think I'm following. So correct in that no paedobaptism (unlike my upbringing)- dedication perhaps, until credobaptism can be performed? 

Yes, that's how I would describe it. They do not practice paedobaptism the way that I define it.

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

I grew up in a Presbyterian church with infant baptism and now attend a church with only credobaptism. (I'm a little fuzzy on how young we would consider a child capable of making a true profession of belief, though.) So, like @FundieFarmer, I've been baptized both as an infant and an adult. Even though I now wouldn't have a baby baptized, I respect that other people disagree with me. My mil always grates on my nerves a little bit when she refers to infant baptism as "sprinkling", because it doesn't involve immersion. Maybe she's just trying to make it easy to tell which type of baptism she's referring to, but it always sounds dismissive and disrespectful of other people's beliefs. (Sorry--personal rant.)

We did take both of our kids to be "dedicated" as babies. Just a sort of public declaration in front of our congregation that we plan to bring them up in our church and teach them what we believe. 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

I have problems with judging by intentions only. If they baptize a 5yro they are de facto baptizing a child based on his/her parents faith, because honestly why else a 5yro would profess faith? So they may want to do Credobaptism but de fact do something that fits much better into the the paedobaptism category.  It's a bit like when fundies self define with a name with which they have very little in common.

[K'Z'K]

Atheist question here: what exactly is baptism anyway? Why is it so darn important? The way people argue (in general, here it's been polite) over the details of the ceremony and when it's done make it sound like some sort of magical transformation fueled by water, which seems odd for a religion that claims to reject magic. Symbolism I get (in theory anyway), but the fights over baptism say that the timing and method of the ritual can make a real difference in afterlife possibilities. If it's really about believing,why does it matter how, when, or even if you get wet with salvation?

I don't mean to offend. I just really find it all bewildering.

[FundieFarmer]

1 minute ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

I have problems with judging by intentions only. If they baptize a 5yro they are de facto baptizing a child based on his/her parents faith, because honestly why else a 5yro would profess faith? So they may want to do Credobaptism but de fact do something that fits much better into the the paedobaptism category.  It's a bit like when fundies self define with a name with which they have very little in common.

That's a really interesting point, LPG. Kind of feeds into what the others were saying– and what I've always wondered– about when a child is old enough to be making the decisions. 

It would be nice if pastors would take a moment to read into the child's behavior and parents' actions to see if it seems coerced or fear-based. That wouldn't work in families like the Rodriguii where it's just about CONVERSION CONVERSION CONVERSION and not as much about baptism.

[Palimpsest]

52 minutes ago, FundieFarmer said:

Perhaps I'm confused here. My college roommate was rather fundamental Southern Baptist, and she said that her church did infant dedications (and later credobaptisms) rather than paedobaptisms. I grew up doing paedobaptisms, and preferred the dedication as she explained it as that made far more sense to me. I'm surprised to hear the tradition of baptisms within Baptist churches, as she was adamant that "Baptists would NEVER baptize infants- only Presbyterians did that!" 

I was paedobaptised, and later did a credobaptism of my own choice. So I'm a weirdo who's had both.

Regardless, color me confused. This denominational stuff gets so confusing. 

My Baptist grandfather would have said that infant dedications were downright Methodist!  And the Methodists are practically Anglican (Episcoplian).  And Anglicans are almost the same as Catholics.  We all know that Papists are bad - that's why we needed the Reformation!  Hell's Bells and Fiddlesticks!

Not really.  One of the reasons I liked my grandfather's attitude - reflected in my parents' beliefs actually - was that they were downright ecumenical.   Now, that is another big divide.  Accepting that there can be different kinds of Christian, and different doctrines, but able to worship with them anyway as fellow believers.

In my definition of Fundies - they think ecumenical is a four letter word.

[FundieFarmer]

20 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

My Baptist grandfather would have said that infant dedications were downright Methodist!  And the Methodists are practically Anglican (Episcoplian).  And Anglicans are almost the same as Catholics.  We all know that Papists are bad - that's why we needed the Reformation!  Hell's Bells and Fiddlesticks!

Not really.  One of the reasons I liked my grandfather's attitude - reflected in my parents' beliefs actually - was that they were downright ecumenical.   Now, that is another big divide.  Accepting that there can be different kinds of Christian, and different doctrines, but able to worship with them anyway as fellow believers.

In my definition of Fundies - they think ecumenical is a four letter word.

I'm especially ecumenical. My mother is not. 

My mother goes to a very liberal* Presbyterian church. I do not. 

How is that for a dance of fundie WTF-ery for you?

If you were to meet my mom and me together, you would find her the more fundie of the two of us. You probably wouldn't expect it, because in theory, she belongs to a denomination where everyone should be accepted per their church governance and doctrine. But in fact, I would say she meets most of the points on the list you're writing (which is much of the reason I left her church, despite its more liberal theology). While I follow far more conservative doctrine in theological practice and church governance than she does, I'm on FJ for a reason, and it's because I ran away from the practices she taught.

I'm really fascinated to see how the red flag list turns out, because I experienced and ran away from those abusive practices in a more liberal church and not in my Reformed church...when most of the time we expect the opposite to be the case (especially with people like VO and Doug Wilson claiming Reformed).

*by liberal, I mean not the conservative denominations. I don't mean politically liberal. I just don't want to get into specific denominations lest I out myself. 

[Palimpsest]

7 minutes ago, KZK said:

Atheist question here: what exactly is baptism anyway? Why is it so darn important? The way people argue (in general, here it's been polite) over the details of the ceremony and when it's done make it sound like some sort of magical transformation fueled by water, which seems odd for a religion that claims to reject magic. Symbolism I get (in theory anyway), but the fights over baptism say that the timing and method of the ritual can make a real difference in afterlife possibilities. If it's really about believing,why does it matter how, when, or even if you get wet with salvation?

I don't mean to offend. I just really find it all bewildering.

And how wet you get.  Does baptism count if it is not full immersion?

Baptism is the first of the sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ.  A visible sign of inward grace or something.   Protestants have two important sacraments: baptism and the Lord's Supper/Eucharist.  Some protestants think confirmation (getting to get bread and grape juice - or wine) is a more important step than others.  I don't think marriage is a sacrament - can someone refresh my memory?

Catholics and Greek Orthodox  on the other hand have many:   baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, matrimony, penance, holy orders, and extreme unction (but Roman Catholics call extreme unction somethings else these days, I forget).  @laPapessaGiovanna?  @Arete?  Corrections?

@FundieFarmer That is fascinating!  

I'm sure the red flag list is going to get me into deep trouble.

 

 

[FundieFarmer]

5 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

I don't think marriage is a sacrament - can someone refresh my memory?

For many Protestants, no. Here's Calvin's take:

Quote

The last of all this [discussion of sacraments] is marriage, which, while all admit it to be an institution of God, no man ever saw to be a sacrament, until the time of [Pope] Gregory. And would it ever have occurred to the mind of any sober man? It is a good and holy ordinance of God. And agriculture, architecture, shoemaking, and shaving, are lawful ordinances of God; but they are not sacraments. For in a sacrament, the thing required is not only that it be a work of God, but that it be an external ceremony appointed by God to confirm a promise. That there is nothing of the kind in marriage, even children can judge.

Here's a link from something called GodWeb, whatever that is. But it explained it clearly enough: http://www.godweb.org/marriageasacrament.htm

[formergothardite]

6 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

A visible sign of inward grace or something.

An outward sign of an inward change.  Buried with Christ in baptism, raised to walk in newness of life. 

After all these years I can still pretty much remember the lines the pastors used to say before dunking people under water. 

 Does anyone remember the Christian comedian from the 80's who talked about all the different baptisms and made fun of how different denominations all claimed they were doing it right? It was amusing, but I can't remember anything abou the man except that he had long hair.