text:
I was flying across the country this week, long flight all the way to the East Coast, and the Lord always makes things serendipitous, always has a surprise or two. And I was sitting next to a man who eventually took out a Bible and started reading it. And as he was reading it, I said to him, I said, "That's a Bible you got there?" He said, "It is." And I said, do you understand what you're reading?" I thought I would just play Philip for a while. "Do you understand what you're reading?" He said, "Well, some of it. I know one thing. There are many ways to God." I said, "Keep reading. You're not done yet." He said, "Well, it's kind of hard to understand." I said, "Well, would you like to be able to understand the Bible?" He said, "I really wanna be able to understand the Bible. I really do." So I took out my MacArthur study Bible, and I opened this thing, and he said, "This has all the answers." Anyway, I had the opportunity to expose him to the gospel, and I'm gonna send him one of those Bibles. But what a wonderful thing the Lord does in just kind of placing the right people in the right place at the right time. I'm always grateful for that. And this is the right place and the right time for you this morning, because I have a word from the Lord for you. It's from the Scriptures, and it's on the subject of baptism. Now, as a faithful pastor, I'm duty bound to speak on this subject. If I don't, I'd be unfaithful to the Lord, who commands us to be baptized, and if we're to be faithful under shepherds, we have to bring the issue to the people. It's been a number of years since I've addressed the subject. It's been - in fact, somewhere between five and ten years since I've addressed this subject. And I confess to a certain amount of unfaithfulness in that regard. This is not something that we can overlook or pass by lightly. It is not a particularly popular subject today. It's not of great interest in the evangelical community. It's been years since I've seen any new book written on baptism, or any book emphasizing baptism, or any series of messages, or any preacher or teacher emphasizing baptism. I never hear about it on the radio. I never hear about it on Christian radio, Christian television programs. I never see a baptism on a Christian television program, though you have a lot of services, you rarely if ever see a baptismal service. The interest in baptism has sort of gone away, sad to say, in many cases. And we have a largely unbaptised church, which includes some of you. And I don't mean this church. I mean the church in general. It's amazing how many people who proclaim Christ and confess Christ have never been properly baptized. Now, probably, the greatest number of people who call themselves Christians have never been baptized according to New Testament Baptism. It may well be that the majority of those who call themselves Christians have not been properly baptized. It's not as if it's not clear about what a baptism is, and how it is to be done. It is clear. It's just that there has been sort of an indifference to that very important matter, and I would like to, if I can, put an end to that indifference this morning, if that in fact is the case.
There are no doubt many of you here this morning who have confessed Christ as Lord and Savior, believe in your heart God raises from the dead, you've never been baptized. There are some of you who maybe have never seen a baptismal service. We have one here every Sunday night, but you're here in the morning and not at night, and you may not have seen one, or maybe only a few. May I be so bold as to suggest that a failure to be obedient in the matter of baptism, to take baptism seriously is at the root of some of the immense problems in people's lives, and in the church in general? Because it allows the church to fill up with people who are unfaithful to the simplest commands of the Lord and of his word. And that's serious. When Jesus said go unto all the world and make disciples baptizing them, he's giving a command to the apostles and to the church saying go out there, evangelize, make disciples baptizing them. And teaching them to observe whatsoever things I have commanded you. The church then is commissioned in the great commission to do the work of baptizing. It's amazing to me to see mass evangelistic crusades, these massive crowds of people, these huge crowds of people, and supposedly people coming to Christ. Never do you see a baptism. Never is there a baptism at such events. And yet, on the day of Pentecost, 3000 people believed, and 3000 people were baptized when the church began. When the Holy Spirit spoke in speaking through Peter, "repent and be baptized". He gave a command there to the individual who repents and believes. So the church is commanded to baptize. The individual's commanded to be baptized. There is really no lack of clarity with regard to this. In fact, in each of the cases where the great commission is given in Matthew, Mark and Luke, there's an emphasis on baptism. In spite of this, there is widespread non-compliance with what is a very simple demand. In many ways, it's sort of the easiest act of obedience as a Christian you can do, because all the rest have to do is sorting out the stuff that's in your mind and heart for the most part. This simple act, when obediently done, demonstrates a heart that seeks to honor the word of the Lord. When not done, it betrays several possible motivations. A person who claims to be a Christian has not been baptized fits into the following categories: 1) Ignorant. That is, they've never been taught about baptism, and that's very possible in many places. From time to time, we have people baptized here who were converted years ago, but never were taught the significance of baptism. And some have been taught wrong. They had been taught that if they were baptized, or if they were immersed, or christened as a baby, that's sufficient. So it's possible that some people are unbaptized in the church because of ignorance. Secondly, pride is an issue. People who have allowed a long period of time to go since their conversion, they named the name of Chris for a long time, they are involved with the church, they're known as Christian people, they've never been baptized. It's a little bit embarrassing to acknowledge that failure and that disobedience for such a long time. And so, they're not willing to humble themselves, admit they've been disobedient, and be baptized. So, it could be ignorance. It could be pride. It could be indifference. There are plenty of people who just can't be bothered. They can't find a spot in their day timer for it. Doesn't fit into their schedule. It's not a priority. They know it's commanded in the Bible. But obedience isn't the main thing with them. They have other priorities. That's a sad situation to be apathetic towards a specific command. To be indifferent toward a very direct command from our Lord himself, which brings honor to him and blessings to the one is obedient. But there are people who are just indifferent. They just can't get around it. I've been planning to do it. I've thought about it. It just doesn't fit on the priority list. And there, fourthly, could be the defiant people. Those who basically aren't baptized because they are just rebellious. They refuse to obey. And usually, those kinds of people are sinning. They're in a pattern of sin. And it would just sort of elevate their hypocrisy if they were to have to come up and give a testimony of their faith in Jesus Christ and celebrate his wonderful redemption on their behalf. So people who are defiant and rebellious and just won't be baptized generally are in a pattern of sinning. And then fifthly, it's possible that you're unregenerate. You're just not a true Christian. You have no desire to make a public confession of faith in Jesus Christ because you don't wanna be identified with him in a public way. You may come, and you may like to come and hang on the edges and on the fringes here. But you're not about to take your public stand with Christ. Those are the only reasons I can think of. Either you're ignorant, you're too proud to humble yourself and be baptized, you're apathetic and indifferent towards that matter of obedience, you're defiant, or you're not a believer. And that puts the issue squarely where it belongs, and its backs you if you've never been baptized in a corner to sort that out. Could be a combination of several of those things, in some cases. But you're in there somewhere. Now, I wanna explain baptism to you, and I wanna see if I can motivate you to be obedient for the glory of the Lord, and for your own blessing. And I guess the best way to do this, and somebody said this morning that I wasn't in much of a preaching mode, and that's probably true. This is more of a teaching time. This is more of sorting out the issues with regards to baptism in a way that is teaching you the principles and the truths. But I'll try to yell occasionally so you don't feel cheated. Question number one, what is baptism? What are we talking about here when we talk about baptism? Simply, here's the definition: it is a ceremony by which a person is immersed into water. That's what it is. It's a ceremony by which a person is immersed into water, or dunked, they used to say. In fact, there were people who baptized this way were called dunkers. So, this is simply a ceremony by which people are immersed in water. That's it. And right behind me here, and under the floor, there's a pool of water where that is done every Sunday evening.
Now, we do this because it's instructed in the New Testament. We've already commented on the fact that the great commissions all tell us to baptize, and Peter in his sermon at the Pentecost told those who heard and believed to be baptized. But let me go to the word so to give you an understanding of this. The two Greek verbs that are used in the New Testament with regard to baptism, they're translated baptism, Bapto and Baptiso. Bapto is the less common, used only four times in the New Testament. It means to dip into. To dip into. In fact, it was used for dying, when you immerse something in a dye. It is the word immerse, bapto. Baptiso is an intensified form of bapto. The Greeks had ways of sticking in a few extra letters and intensifying a word. Baptiso is used many times in the New Testament. And it means to dip completely. And it's a Greek word for drowning. That shows you how complete dipping is, potentially. It's the word to submerse or immerse. In fact, the Latin equivalent is immersio or submersio. The noun baptism, baptismas, is used always in the Book of Acts to refer to a Christian being immersed in water. It's always used to refer to a Christian being immersed in water. So that is what baptism is. It's a ceremony about which a person believes the gospel and is then immersed into water. In fact, the terms bapto and baptiso, the verb, and baptismas, the noun, could have been translated immerse, and probably solved a lot of problems. But the translators chose to transliterate the Greek baptiso into baptize. They transliterated it rather than translate it, because it had become such a technical term for immersion. And so, they just transliterated it across. But that doesn't change the meaning. It means to immerse. In fact, the Greeks had a different word for sprinkling, and that word Raintosanti is used of sprinkling or splattering with water. It's a different word all together. We're not talking about sprinkling. There's no such thing as a ceremony of sprinkling in the Bible, or pouring, or any application of water to the individual. Whenever you find baptism in the Bible, it is the word immerse or submerse, and it means putting the person under the water. Every New Testament use of these terms requires or permits the idea of immersion.
This is so obvious, that even John Calvin, who basically came down on the side of infant sprinkling, or infant baptism, says this. He writes, "The word baptize means to immerse. No linguist can come up with anything else." Calvin says, "The word baptize means to immerse. It is certain that immersion was the practice of the early church." There really is no argument. There's no debate at that point. The verbs bapto, baptiso, are never used in the passive. That is to say water is never said to be baptized on someone, such as sprinkling or pouring or touching with water, which is done is a great portion of the church today. They sprinkle, they pour, or they dip and just touch the water to the forehead, or to some other part of the head. Never are those verbs used in the passive sense of water being placed on someone. They're always used in the sense of someone being placed in water. And whenever you read in the New Testament about a baptism, an actual occasion of baptism, immersion is the only possible meaning. Matthew 3, look at it, or just listen to it. Matthew 3:6, John the Baptist, "They were being baptized by him in the Jordan River." They were being baptized in the Jordan River. They came down into the river, and they were baptized there. The river was not taken to them. They were taken to the river. Matthew 3:16, "After being baptized, Jesus, having been baptized, went up immediately literally out of the water. Jesus went down into the water, came up out of the water." Again, that clearly indicates that he went down into the water in order that he might be placed into that water, and that's the use of the word baptism. It means immersed in that water. In John 3, when John the Baptist was doing his baptism, he picked a place at the Jordan River that was deep. It says in verse 23 of John 3, "John was baptizing in Aenon near Salem." Of all the spots you can stop along the Jordan River, he picked that one because there was much water there. This is simply another way of saying that the water was deep. There was enough water there to get people under it. That was the whole point. In Mark chapter 1, verse 5, same thing. "All the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem, they were being baptize by him in the Jordan River." And you remember in Acts, chapter 8, when Philip came across the Ethiopian eunuch, you remember the statement in verse 36, "Look, water. What prevents me from being baptized?" verse 38, "He ordered the chariot to stop. They both went down into the water, and he immersed him." Now that is what baptism is. That's what baptiso means. Baptism is a ceremony by which a person is immersed into water. That is the only kind of baptism the New Testament knows anything about. Doesn't know anything about sprinkling, pouring, touching with water, and particularly doesn't know anything about baptizing infants. And I'm gonna address that issue, because it is an important issue, and some of you will remember, I made a presentation of that at a past Ligonier conference. There is one here this week, by the way. And that was completely coincidental in my preaching schedule that this issue came up at this time. Many of the people who will be at the conference of course will affirm the things that I'm teaching. But next Sunday morning, I think. It may be next Sunday. I may postpone it a week. I'm not sure yet. I wanna address the issue of infant baptism from the biblical perspective. You'll find it a very fascinating discussion. But as far as the New Testament is concerned, there is no such thing as pouring, sprinkling, touching with water, or baptizing infants. It was an act by which an adult person was placed into water. It had great spiritual significance. And the significance of baptism can only be depicted in immersion. The significance of baptism, the spiritual significance, can only be depicted in immersion. And I'll say more about that later. Now, when you look at baptism in the New Testament, you'll come across some other baptisms that are not water baptisms. There are times when the word baptiso is dry. There are times when the word baptiso isn't talking about water at all. We use it that way. We talk about people going through a baptism of fire, right? And we mean by that that he was immersed in a very difficult situation. John the Baptist talked about a baptism of fire in John chapter 3. And what he was talking about was the immersing of unbelievers in the full fury of God's fiery wrath. There is a baptism by Christ with the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ, 1 Corinthians 12, "We've all been baptized with the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ." When you became a Christian, you were immersed into the communion of the redeemed. You were placed in the union with every other believer so that he that is joining the Lord is one spirit with every other believer. So there's the immersing of the believer into the body of Christ. There is the immersing of the unbeliever into the full fury and wrath of God under which he was completely submerged. In the 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 2, it says that "The children of Israel were immersed into Moses." They're talking about solidarity. They were joined unto Moses and his leadership. What he did, they did. What he said, they followed. They literally - he was their leader, and they were immersed into Moses. Where he went, they went. Solidarity. Union. Communion. The Lord then can have that sort of metaphoric meaning where it means being immersed into something. You can say I was immersed in my work. I was immersed in thought. Those kinds of expressions don't necessarily refer to water, but they refer to using the idea of water as a metaphor for being engulfed in something.
So there are times in the New Testament when you read about a baptism that isn't a baptism by water. There are other times when of course it is, as we've seen, a baptism by water. We're gonna focus on the issue of the baptisms that have to do with water.
This water immersion commanded of every believer is basically non-negotiable. We don't have an option with this. This is a command. It is a reiterated and repeated and obeyed command in the New Testament. It is in itself a simple act, and were it no more than just to put somebody in water and take them out, we could say it was nothing but a dunk. It was nothing but a cleansing. It was nothing but a refreshing - nothing more. But there is much more, because it is an object lesson. It is a depiction. It is a picture. It is a symbol. It is a physical analogy of a great spiritual truth. It is profound. And it is crucial if you understand what baptism signifies to stick with the New Testament mode. If you change the mode of immersion, you then confound its symbol. God has designed that this simple ordinance teach us most wonderful truth. The most wonderful truth of all. The truth of personal salvation. It's all wrapped up in this act of baptism. And of course, any student of the Bible knows that God teaches with symbols. In the Old Testament, all kinds of symbols and analogies and types and pictures and ceremonies depicting a spiritual truth in some physical way. And certainly, in the New Testament, Jesus did that with his parables and his analogies. The apostle Paul does it with his illustrations. So we have long seen God dispense truth to us in abstract terms, but connected with very concrete pragmatic tangible things, which can graphically illustrate the truth. And baptism is one of those. It is an external, physical, symbolic act which depicts a profound and deep and essential spiritual truth. Now, let's go to the second question. Now we know what baptism is, what has been the history of baptism? How do we understand its history? Well, let's go back before the New Testament, and we'll get at least a portion of the history of baptism. There were a number of washings in Israel. A number of cleansings and ceremonies, the washing of the hands that the priests went through, and the people went through. The washing of pots and things like that that were certain kinds of immersings were necessary to depict cleansing. But Christian baptism has at least one very important precursor, and that is Judaistic Proselyte baptism. Before the New Testament, let's say a gentile had come to the knowledge of the true God. Some gentile had heard the prophets or he had heard the testimony of the faithful Israelite, or he'd come to Israel and he moved into the land, and he took us residence there, or he lived on the border, or whatever, and he was exposed to the living and true God. God moved upon his heart. He came to believe in the true and living God. He repented of his sin, and he became a follower of the true God. He was a saved individual, a saved gentile who wanted to identify with God's people. He would be called a Proselyte. He had been proselytized, if you will. He was not a Proselyte to Judaism. He was a gentile wanting to become identified with the Jews and worship their God. Like Cornelius would be in the New Testament. Now, he would have to go through a three-stage ceremony. The Jews had developed a ceremony by which a Proselyte would enter in to privilege in the covenant community. First of all, the first phase was called milla, and that amounted to circumcision, because circumcision was a God ordained sign. Any male who came in, even an adult, would need to be circumcised. He would need therefore to identify himself with the people of God by this unique circumcision ceremony. Second thing that would happen to him would be tebula. Milla was the first one, tebula's the second one. And that was an immersion. He would be dunked in water, submerged in water, in order to demonstrate this. This is what they said. It was to demonstrate that they were dead as to their old life. They were dead as to their old customs, their old habits, their old traditions, most of all, their old idolatry and their old iniquity. That was now gone. They were burying it. And that submersion into water depicted the death of that old life. And they would come out of that water having arisen to walk in a cleaned and new life with God's community, God's family. The third part of that three phase induction of a gentile into the people of God was called Corbin. And it had to do with the sacrificial animal. They were to bring an animal to be slaughtered. And the reason for the slaughtering of the animal was to remind that gentile that the forgiveness of their sin, they were coming into the community of God's people, they were repenting and confessing the true and living God, that forgiveness of fin which God would grant to them would only come to them through death. And so here was the death of a substitute animal to picture the fact that there would have to be a substitute to die for their sins. So the literally passed on, as it were, the symbol of a substitutionary death to those gentiles who came in again depicting the ultimate lamb who would come and truly take away sin.
So any gentile who wanted to come in would be circumcised, would be immersed, and would have to offer a blood sacrifice which was an open confession that their sin was going to require the death of a substitute. And that of course looked forward to the messiah, who was that substitute. Now into this Jewish community comes John the Baptist. And John comes preaching, and he comes preaching repentance, and then he comes baptizing. That's not surprising. It's not surprising that John would come baptizing. They were used to that. They had gone through the ceremony. They were used to seeing people baptized. But what was shocking, what was devastating, what was remarkable was that John the Baptist was asking Jews to be baptized. Why was that remarkable? It was an amazing thing. He was in effect saying to them you are as, what? You're as gentiles. You're outside the covenant. You're without hope in the world. You're without God. You need to be immersed as a symbol that you have died to the old life, been washed, and brought into the cleansed family of God. Now for a Jew to admit that he was equal to being a gentile was a stretch. It was a huge stretch. For the most part, they hated the gentiles. The gentiles had been their oppressors. The gentiles were non-convenental people. They ridiculed in ridiculing ways, called them the uncircumcised. when they would come from a gentile country back into Israel, they would stop before they would cross the border and shake the dust off their cloak so they didn't take any gentile dirt into their land. They wouldn't go into the home of a gentile because they weren't clean. They wouldn't eat food with a gentile because they were unclean. They had all of these social prohibitions that they erected, which really were not consistent with the law of God. They had fabricated them. You remember Jonah, when a whole gentile city never repented, went out and wept and said he'd rather be dead than see gentiles being allowed to come into the family of the true and living God. They had deep seeded racial animosity. But here comes John the Baptist, and he says to them, you need to be immersed. And he's treating them as if they're in the same condition as gentiles outside the covenant. You know what? He preached repentance, and he must have been a powerful preacher, because he was very convincing. And people began to repent, didn't they? They really began to repent. This is a powerful man. He may have been the most powerful of all preachers. In fact, wasn't it Jesus who clearly told us that. He said, of all who ever lived, John the Baptist is the greatest. Up until Christ, the greatest prophet ever. I would have loved to have heard him preach. He must have been something fierce. They chopped his head off for it. And served it up on a platter at a party just to silence him. But all Israel was coming out there. And here were all these people who basically were being redefined as if they were gentiles outside the covenant, outside the promise, outside the hope, outside salvation, and needing to repent of their sin, died of the old life of legalism and self-righteousness and all the Judaistic trappings, and to come to a true understanding of their sin, and cast themselves on the mercy of God and go into this baptism as a symbol that they wanted a new life, and they wanted to be ready for the messiah. So he preached repentance and righteousness. And he called for people to turn from iniquity to holiness, from the old life to a new one. And in order to symbolize it, he selected baptism. Matthew 3 shows him _____ baptizing people. They were confessing their sins, it says. They were confessing that they were worthy of death, they were worthy of burial, and they needed a new life. And that was depicted in their immersion. So the baptism of John the Baptist really did mark a turning point in the heart of a sinful Jew who wanted to be ready to face the messiah and knew he wasn't. On one particular day, however, an incredible thing occurred, and I need to comment on it. Jesus showed up. He had showed up before, and John had said, behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. So John knew who he was, and John had identified him as the messiah, the one who would die for sin. The true lamb who would the final and full sacrifice. But Jesus showed up on another occasion, Matthew 3:13, and he comes to John to be baptized by John. This is quite remarkable. Well, he can't handle this, verse 14, "John tried to prevent him, saying I have need to be baptized by you. You come to me. This doesn't make sense. You don't need to reject your old life. You don't need to repent of anything. You're sinless, holy and undefiled. You don't need to say no to the past and yes to the future. You don't need to have some death to the old symbolized, and some resurrection the new dramatized. This doesn't make sense. This doesn't fit you." But Jesus answered, he said to him, "Permit it at this time, this is just for now. It needs to be done. For in this way, it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he permitted him. Why did he do this? Well, he says it. To fulfill all righteousness. Listen, that's so important. John understood baptism to be the confession of sin. John understood baptism to be repentance. John understood baptism to be the death of the old life, to rise and walk in new life. But Jesus didn't need to do that. He was sinless. What's the point? The whole idea of this baptism was to prepare sinners to receive the sinless king. So John tried to prevent him. And Jesus said no. You have to do this for now, because I need to fulfill all righteousness. What does he mean by that? Some people say well, he wanted to identify with the people who are getting ready for him. That's possible. Others have said he wanted to set the example for believers in the future. I think that's very possible. That's getting close. But let me just kind of chop it off. What he wanted to do was fulfill all righteousness. And for us, all righteousness would include what? Baptism. If you're gonna fulfill all the righteousness that God asks of you, you're gonna be baptized. I think Jesus, you know his life is imputed to us. Our sins imputed to him. His righteous life imputed to us, and he fulfilled all righteousness. Yes, it was a symbol of his coming death. Yes, it was a symbol of his coming resurrection, of course. It's sort of a prophecy of that, sort of a type of that, a picture of that, a prefiguring of that. But I think what he says here is that I don't have a choice about this, because this is the standard of righteousness to be baptized. It will continue to be the standard of righteousness to be baptized. And since I am here living as a man to fulfill all righteousness, I will be baptized. Of course, it doesn't have the same exact meaning for him. But he knows that this is a call from God. He knows that John the Baptist is preaching God's message. It is God through John calling people to be baptized. And it is God through the apostles and God through the preachers calling you to be baptized, and Jesus is simply saying, in order to fulfill all righteousness, I will be obedient to what God desires. If I'm gonna live as a man, I'm gonna obey all the commands. So in submitting to baptism, Jesus is showing us how critical obedience is. So critical that he did it, even though there was no need for him to go through any kind of cleansing, any kind of repentance, any kind of confession of sin. Yes, I think Jesus, when he was going through that baptism by John and being immersed in the water, anticipated that that's what his death and burial and resurrection was going to be like, and that out of that would come a new symbol of baptism. That he did it to fulfill all righteousness. So baptism is clearly a ceremony. Very simple, somebody immersed in water, and it has a spiritual significance of great importance. What is the history of it? It really is sort of a transition from Proselyte baptism, which was also to identify someone as a sinner, who was repentant, confessed his sin, and desired new life and desired to be associated with the kingdom of the true and living God, and his son, the messiah.
Well, more to say. Let me go to a third question. Getting time away from us here. So, third question: what is the specific meaning of Christian baptism? What is the specific meaning of Christian baptism? And you already kind of know it. But let's dig a little deeper into the text of the New Testament. All throughout the New Testament, Christian baptism is clearly identified for us. It's really not hard at all. In fact, it's crystal clear. Look at Romans, chapter 6. And I wanna show you a couple verses, so you can turn there. We're not gonna spend a lot of time there. But just a couple of thoughts, and it'll be very obvious to you. When you come to Christ as a non-believer, and you put your faith to Jesus Christ, and you believe, you've repent of your sin, and you're wonderfully saved, regenerated, born again, there is a spiritual miracle that takes place. I can't explain all of it in its actual reality. I can only tell you what the words are in the text that describe this. But when you come to faith in Christ, you are literally immersed into Christ. You're literally immersed into Christ. His life becomes your life. It even reaches backwards so that he died bearing your sins. So in that sense, you were there dying. He rose again for your justification. Therefore, you were there rising with him. He was your substitute. He died and rose again for you. So in a real sense, he went to the cross carrying your sins. And he comes out of the grave bearing your new life. That's why Paul in Romans 6:3 says, "Do you not know that all of us who have been immersed into Christ, Jesus, have been immersed into his death?" This is a dry verse here, folks. Not talking about water baptism. He's simply saying that when you have been immersed into Christ, Jesus by faith, you have been immersed into his death. When you put your faith into Jesus Christ, he that has joined to the Lord is one spirit, which Corinthians 6 says. Also ____ 220, I am crucified with Christ. Nevertheless, I live. But Christ lives in me. So here I am, inseparable from Christ, as it were. Here is Christ living in me, and I am in Christ. I am in Christ. Christ is in me. My body is the temple of the spirit of God. If any man have not the spirit of Christ, he's not of his. Christ dwells within me. So, I am now in this inseparable indivisible unity with the Lord, Jesus Christ. I am in an ongoing constant shared life. I possess the life of God, as it were. I am a partaker of the divine life. Christ dwells within me. The Holy Spirit has taken up residency in my life. I have been literally immersed into Christ. And that includes, verse 3, having been immersed into his death. I wouldn't have this relationship to him if I hadn't died in him, in the sense that all my sins were there when he died. He was carrying my sins. It was as if I was there. God, in a supernatural and mysterious way, literally puts the sinner and all his sin in Christ. And by the way, that would put all of us there, because even our righteousness is filthy rags. And before you were regenerate, you were all sin and nothing else. So you were there in total when Christ died. So anybody immersed into Christ was immersed into his death, and verse 4 says, "You were buried with him through that immersion into his death, and then you were raised from the dead to walk in newness of life." Verse 5 sums it up, "You were united with Him in the likeness of His death. You are united with Him in the likeness of His resurrection." Your old self was crucified with Him and you now, verse 9, have been raised from the dead along with Christ, never to die again and death is no longer master over Him or you. So, that's the symbolism. The symbolism is of dying, being buried, and rising again. That symbolism can only be depicted in water baptism. That is the meaning of Christian baptism. It is a physical illustration. It is a physical symbol, a physical ceremony, intended to depict this reality. Whenever a person goes into the water, it symbolizes the death of the old life. They come out of the water, it symbolizes that they are now new creations. In Colossians - well, Galatians, let's look there and then we'll go to Colossians, since they're in that order. Galatians 3:27 says, "For all of you who were immersed into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ." There's a good parallel. What he is saying, he's trying to figure ways to illustrate this union. He's saying, "You've been literally submerged into Christ. You've been literally immersed into Christ." Another way to say it is: you have been clothed with Christ. In other words, you are wrapped in Christ. Christ covers you. You are underneath Him. You are contained, as it were, in Christ. He envelops you. And, there is neither Jew nor Greek - you sort of lose your identity here. There's neither slave nor free man, neither male nor female. You're all one in Christ, Jesus and you belong to Christ, verse 29 says. That's the idea. In Colossians, chapter 2, similarly, verses 12 and 13, "Having been buried with Him in baptism," that's right. Same idea. You were there dying in Him. You were immersed into Him in His death. "You were also raised up with Him, all of this through faith in the working of God who raised him from the dead." You put your faith in God, you believe that God raised Jesus from the dead - (Romans 10, "If you believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you'll be saved."), you believed that God raised Him from the dead and by faith, in God, raising Jesus from the dead, which affirms all about the cross and all about His bearing sin, all the way through to the resurrection. You affirm that, therefore you were buried with Him, immersed into Him, in that death and in that resurrection. You were placed into union with Christ, participating in His death, His resurrection, spiritually. This is the baptism that saves. Peter talks about a baptism that saves. That's the baptism that saves. The spiritual immersing into Christ, not the water. This is the true washing of regeneration of Titus 3:5, not the H2 O. This is the real washing away of sins, Acts 22:16. The water is simply the symbol. It's simply the parable. It's simply the analogy. It's simply the illustration. Jesus, you remember back in Mark's Gospel, said, "If you're not willing to confess me before man, I'm not willing to confess you before my father who's in heaven." This depicts that miracle. When a child asks, "Why do you do that? What is the meaning of baptism?" It's a very graphic illustration. It makes it very clear in helping to explain to a child. When an unbeliever comes and sees a baptismal service, they're literally seeing an object lesson of the spiritual dynamics of new birth. That leads to a fourth question. What is the relation of immersion to salvation? That's what I just said, basically. It is a symbol of salvation already received. Acts 2:38 says, "Repent, and be baptized for the remission of sins." Some people think, well, that means you can't have your sins forgiven or remitted unless you're baptized. Is that what it's saying? It could be translated, "Repent, and be baptized because of the remission of sins." That's a construction that is used, for example, in Matthew 12:41, the same construction translated that way. But, even if it says, "Repent, and be baptized for the remission of sins," the baptism doesn't save you. The baptism is evidence of genuine repentance and an obedient heart. It's just a way to demonstrate the genuineness. Because, you see, when a Jew was - if you were listening to Peter preach on the day of Pentecost, and you were going to go and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, you were going to be baptized in the name of the one who was probably hated more than anybody else by the Jewish leadership. You were going to wind up losing you family, your social status, your job, your right to attend the synagogue, everything. You would become immediately indigent and homeless. The price was very high. You would become a pariah, a social outcast. But, true faith will pay the price, count the cost. So, when Peter says, "Repent and be baptized," he's saying, let's see, if the repentance is real, you'll take the stand. If the repentance is real, you'll respond in obedience no matter what the price. Baptism was the immediate and inseparable indicator of salvation. True believers were obedient and they were baptized. Day of Pentecost, three thousand believed and three thousand were baptized. The apostles insisted on it. That's why we at Grace Church ask that anyone who joins our church, be baptized. We aren't adding something. We're just trying to be faithful to what the New Testament says. If a convert was not willing to be baptized in the early church, there was little confidence in his repentance. There was no such thing as an unbaptized church. There was no such thing as all kinds of unbaptized believers. Baptism was obedience and obedience was the fruit of repentance. This became then, an inseparable sign of salvation, so much so that when Paul was discussing salvation in Ephesians 4, he discusses it this way, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." And, he means by that, one salvation, but baptism and salvation had become synonymous. There are still places in the world where you don't ask someone is they were saved, you ask them if they've been baptized, because it was an inseparable and immediate indicator of salvation. As the church developed through the Middle Ages, baptism got pushed further away from the point of salvation, tragically. And it's still held at great distance by some people even in our society. As I say, you look at these crusades and these things that you see on television and there's never any baptism, it doesn't seem to be a part. Yet, Jesus said, "Go out into all the world and make disciples, baptizing them." When He was saying that, that was synonymous with salvation because the next thing he says is, "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you." Baptism became synonymous with leading them to the knowledge of the gospel and if they were willing to receive the gospel, believe, repent, they would be baptized as an immediate response. So, when Peter says, "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sin," he's simply saying, "Repent and believe unto salvation." demonstrate the genuineness of that by the first act of obedience, which is baptism. We're not saved by the water. That's not going to save you. "By grace are you saved, through what?" "Faith, that not of yourself, not of works." Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:14, "I'm glad that I baptized none of you." Now, if that was a saving act, how could he say that? It doesn't save you. You can go through all the water you want and not be saved. And, I have to confess that you can be saved and not be baptized, but you're in a condition of disobedience. Baptism produces nothing but blessing. Nothing but the joy and the reward of obedience. Nothing but the affirmation of God to an obedient child. It doesn't save you, it doesn't make you holier than somebody else. It just brings you the blessing of obedience. That's what it does. You could sum it up like this: as a believer stands in the water, ready to be immersed, he could declare these words, "I hereby confess in my willing submission to this divinely appointed ordinance, my glad obedience to the command of my Lord and Savior. In this symbolic manner, I show forth my identification with the one who bore my sins, took my place, died in my stead, was buried, and rose again for my justification. As Christ went through the dreadful reality of suffering and death to secure my salvation, so, by my immersion in water and emergence there from, I thus publicly declare my identification with my Lord in His death, burial, and resurrection on my behalf, with the intention hence forth to walk with Him in newness of life." That's the sum of it. That leads me to another issue, that leads me to the next message, why is there so much confusion on this? Well, I think Satan wants to break the pattern of obedience at the very start, so there's a lot of attacks on baptism. You know, there are churches that teach that it's not for us? That it's a Jewish ordinance that doesn't belong to the church, Quakers, Friend's Churches, Salvation Army, other hyper-dispensational groups, for those of you that know what that means, the Bullinger rights. Others say you're saved by water, the Christian Church, the Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, have taught baptismal regeneration through the years, that you can't get to heaven without going through the water. And then there are those who, like the Mormons, who have baptisms for the dead. In one year over 2.5 million Mormons are baptized, proxy baptisms for dead people. And then you come to the Roman Catholic Church, which the only baptism they have is the sprinkling and it's infants that are sprinkled. The Roman Catholic Church has an infant baptismal regeneration belief that water cleanses the baby from original sin and results in regeneration. By the way, until the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic's immersed babies. Sprinkling didn't come until the Middle Ages. The Roman Catholic church teaches that if a baby dies without being christened or baptized, it goes to the limbo of the innocence. It never goes to heaven. It doesn't go to hell. Just goes to the limbo of the innocence. That's the place where the soul enjoys natural bliss, but is forever deprived of the vision of God. So, these unbaptized infants just go hang out in some limbo place that's some kind of natural bliss, but there's no presence of God there. That's not in the Bible, by the way. That's how they intimidated people to get their babies baptized which brought them into the system, which brought them under control of the Roman Empire. The Lutherans never got too far away from that, unfortunately. Luther never really shook the grave clothes of infant baptism. He even wrote a small book entitled The Small Baptismal Book, aptly named. He wrote it in 1526, and at an infant baptism, this is the prayer that he designed to be prayed. You bring your baby to be baptized and this is the prayer: Oh Lord Almighty, I invoke Thee concerning this child, thy servant who asks for the gift of thy baptism and desires thy grace through the spiritual new birth. All of a sudden, this child is a servant of God who desires grace and new birth, even though this is a totally unconscious infant in the sense of knowing anything at all about anything. Receive him, O Lord, and thus extend, now, the good to him who knocks, that he may obtain the eternal blessing of this heavenly bath, and receive the promise kingdom of thy gift, through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.
And then, in Luther's ceremony, the infant is asked, "Doest thou renounce the devil and all his works and nature?" The parents answer, "Yes." "Doest thou believe in God the Father, in Jesus Christ, His Son, in the Holy Spirit, and the one Christian Church?" These were asked of the infant. The parents say, "Yes." The child is then baptized, and then the concluding prayer: The Almighty God hath begotten thee anew, through water and the Holy Spirit, and has forgiven thee all thy sins. Amen. Why, that's salvation. Infant salvation, through water.
The Reformed Church has moved some beyond that. They believe that when adults turn to Christ, they are to be sprinkled because they now are - so they do have adult sprinkling - they now have come into a covenant relationship to God. And then, when they have children, their children are automatically included in the covenant of grace and they are to be baptized when they're born, as little members of the covenant. Later, they are confirmed as actual members, after satisfactorily answering the questions in the catechism. That's what's usually called confirmation. No such thing is taught in Scripture. Children born into this world are not somehow introduced, by virtue of their birth, into the covenant of salvation. And, there's nothing about baptism with children at all. All of this stuff clouds the issue. And so, so many people say, "Oh well. There's so many views of baptism. I don't want to make an issue out of it." and the devil gains the day, doesn't he? This is not complex, this isn't brain surgery. Even I understand this. This is very straightforward stuff. I'll tell you, in the next message, you're going to find it fascinating when I talk to you about where infant baptism came from and you see why it even was developed. It had nothing to do with the Bible. You know, during the time of the Reformation too, they thought that - they were so into infant baptism that anybody who got rebaptized after they'd been baptized as an infant was in some trouble. They were called Anabaptists because they got rebaptized. They came to the conviction that infant baptism was wrong and you needed to be baptized as an adult believer. They were rebaptized. And in so doing, they were sort of slapping the face of the religious hierarchy, the national church, and the Reformation produced national churches, governmental churches that, in many cases, weren't much better than the Roman Catholic nations. They had literally Protestant countries where the church exercised great political pressure and power. And many times the Anabaptists were persecuted and sometimes executed by Reformers. Hard to imagine.
So, that they thought rebaptism was unacceptable. Well, that's another confusing thing. People ask me about that all the time. "I as baptized once as a baby. Do I need to be rebaptized?" Answer: if you weren't baptized the biblical way, you'd better be baptized the biblical way. John the Baptist's disciples showed up in Acts 19. The disciples - apostles said to them, "Have you heard of the Messiah?" etc.... They said, "We don't know anything about John. We were baptized with John's baptism." They didn't say, "Oh well, that's sufficient." They said, "Then you need to hear the truth about Messiah." They heard the truth and they were baptized the right way. Well, more later.
Baptism is a command. It is the purpose of God. It is the command of Christ. And, if you say no, it can't be ignorance. We've eliminated that category, if you were listening. Pride, indifference, defiance, or you're not a Christian. Jesus said, "How can you say Lord, Lord, and do not the things I say?" Jesus said, "If you love me, you'll" what? "Keep my commandments." Don't bring yourself under God's chastening because of disobedience in this most simple act of obedience, which will bring upon you God's favor and your own joy.
Now, make it practical. In the pew is a little green card. If you want to be baptized, we're going to be prepared to do that. You just need to take that green card and put your name on it and check off baptism, or write baptism, and give us a phone number and address. Most helpful would be a phone number. And we'll get a hold of you and include you in a baptismal service very quickly. We're going to do some special things in order to respond to you. The green cards are there. If you can't find a green card, use a beige one. Just write your name and write baptism, and make sure your phone number is there so we can reach you and we'll arrange - our pastoral team is standing by and ready to arrange that.
All I can do is lay this on your conscience from the Lord Himself and trust that you'll do what is right. For those of you who have been baptized, you know those who haven't, you can become a little added conscience for them, to stimulate them to do what is right before God. When you go out the door, the ushers will be there and they will collect those green cards, okay? I'll give you a minute to do that. Don't - if you're too shy to take the green card out and see somebody watching, gonna have kind of a hard time getting into the baptismal. We have to get you past that barrier if we could, my goodness. Just take one of those cards and you should be stampeding to get one because of the joy of obedience. Let's pray. Let's stand first and we'll pray.
This article is also available and sold as a booklet.
This sermon series includes the following messages:
Please contact the publisher to obtain copies of this resource.Publisher Information


text:
DOWNLOAD a watermarked copy for use on your web site.
Copyright: Responsibility for observance of copyright protections when using or copying images rests exclusively with the user. Images are provided here under Fair Use.
Citation: Please cite this image with the following:
OpenSFHistory / wnp25.11539.jpg
OpenSFHistory / wnp25.11539.jpg
Use this form for any comments, corrections, or thoughts you have on this particular image.
Questions about use? Check our Permissions Page.
possibly related images
This Image Sponsored by
Related Links and Information
Like this Image?
Please make a donation to help the non-profit effort to put this important collection online

subset: commoncrawl


text:
KDE's Next Generation user interfaces will run on top of Qt5, on Linux, they will run atop Wayland or Xorg as display server. The user interfaces move away from widget-based X11 rendering to OpenGL. Monolithic libraries are being split up, interdependencies removed and portability and dependencies cut by stronger modularization.
For users, this means higher quality graphics, more organic user interfaces and availability of applications on a wider range of devices.
Developers will find an extensive archive of high-quality, libraries and solutions on top of Qt. Complex problems and a high-level of integration between apps and the workspace allow easy creation of portable, high-quality applications.
The projects to achieve this goal are KDE Frameworks 5 and Plasma 2. In this article, you'll learn about the reasons for this migration and the status of the individual steps to be taken.
As this article is going to be a bit long, due to its level of detail, you can just skip to the end of every subsection to get the executive summary. Also, I would like to thank Blue Systems for their sponsoring of a lot of the work that is going into the future of KDE's products, among which, mine.
Status Frameworks 5
Development of KDE's Frameworks5, which focuses on modularization of APIs currently contained in kdelibs and kde-runtime, loosening its internal structure and making it possible to only use specific parts by splitting it into individual libraries and solutions.
The entire work to be done for Frameworks 5.0 is split into 7 topics. Three of these "Epics" are done:
- Initial communication and documentation (Kevin Ottens),
- Merging of code into Qt 5.0 (David Faure)
- Reduction of duplication with Qt by removing classes and using their Qt alternatives (Stephen Kelly)
Four Epics are currently work in progress, three of them are monstrous:
- Build system (Alex Neundorf, Stephen Kelly)
- CMake (upstreaming some stuff, modularization, porting)
- Modularization of CMake KDE settings (work in progress)
- Modularization of macros
- Review and inventarize Find* CMake modules
- kdelibs cleanups (David Faure)
This is a large Epic, containing many bite-sized tasks. Roughly 50% of them are done, 37 tasks remain open and 7 are being worked on, an extensive list is on the wiki.
- Qt 5.1 merging (David Faure)
This is the list of things that we haven't been able to merge upstream into Qt 5.0, so we hope we can upstream as much as possible into Qt 5.1. This can potentially cause timing problems, if we can't get all the necessary things we need into Qt 5.1. 9 tasks are work in progress by David Faure, Thiago Maciera, Richard Moore and others. 52 tasks are on the todo list, most of them currently unclaimed.
- Splitting kdelibs (blocked) (Kevin Ottens)
Another large Epic, in bigger chunks, meaning going through all libraries one by one, porting their build system to the changes in Frameworks5, cut out certain library dependencies and changing the translation system. 13 tasks are done, 12 work in progress and 8 on the todo list, not all of them assigned.
An extensive list of libraries and their status can be found on the wiki.
Frameworks 5 currently compiles on top of Qt 5.0 and basic system services run (kdeinit5), although not all of its dependencies have been ported to Qt 5. Work on Frameworks5 is ongoing, so it is currently quite a moving target, and will remain so for a while.
Plasma and KWin Direction
An architecture based on Qt5 and Wayland makes it possible to use a more modern graphics stack, which means moving from X11-based rendering to OpenGL graphics rendering. QtQuick2 (which is the QtQuick shipped with Qt5) makes it possible to offer a very nice and extensible development API, while using the full power of the graphics hardware to produce excellent visual possibilites. Plasma offers development APIs that make it easy to create well-integrated applications as well as workspaces that are flexible, extensible and fully featured on top of QtQuick, and in the future QtQuick2.
As KDE moves forward towards Frameworks5, Plasma is taking the opportunity of the source and binary compatibility break of Qt5 to do necessary updates to its architecture. The goal is to have a leaner Plasma Development API and depdendency chain and achieve a better user- and developer experience by moving the UI fully to Plasma Quick, which is QtQuick plus a number of integration components for theming, compositor interaction, internationalization, data access and sharing, configuration, hardware, etc..
This constitutes a major refactoring of the Plasma libraries and components. First, their UI needs to be done in QML. This effort of porting workspace components to QML is already well underway. Second, the Plasma library and runtime components need to be ported from the QGraphicsView-based canvas to QML. This means cutting out dependencies on classes such as QGraphicsItem and QGraphicsWidget to their equivalent in QML. In the case of painting and layouting code, it means porting this code to QML.
Detailed Status Plasma Framework
The first bigger set of tasks is done:
- API changes have been made in libplasma2 (done)
- De-QGraphicsViewification of libplasma2 (done)
The open tasks are:
- Remaining libplasma2 design tasks
- Out-of-process dataengines
- Dataengines as models
- More fine-grained data retention in dataengines
- Improved remote widgets
- Change libplasma2 directory structure to reflect Frameworks5 policies
- Create a scenegraph-based shell, make it load a QtQuick2Corona, Containments and Applets
- Port QML Scriptengine to QtQuick2
- Port scriptengine from QScriptEngine to QDeclarativeEngine
- Remove dependency on graphics backend (QGraphicsView, or scenegraph) (Marco Martin)
- Port imports to QtQuick2
- Plasma Core (containing Theme, FrameSvg, DataSource, etc.)
- Plasma Components (containing a basic QtQuick widget set)
- QtExtras (containing components missing in Qt, such as MouseEventListener)
- PlasmaExtras (containing additional UI widgets for better integration, such as animations, text layout helpers, Share-like-connect integration, etc.)
- Making scriptengines (such as the Python scriptengine) only export QObject-deriven classes to the QML runtime (needs investigation right now)
- Port of widgets away from QGraphics*, also necessary for some QML code
Plans for KWin Plasma Compositor
Plasma Compositor refers, in a Wayland world, to the compositor used for Plasma workspaces, which is essentially KWin in disguise as Wayland compositor.
In KWin, we benefit from an ongoing effort to modularize and clean it up architecturally. For most of its UI, KWin already supports QML (Window decorations, tabswitcher, etc.). Some mechanisms which currenty work through XAtoms will need to be ported, the API impact of that will likely be quite limited for application developers.
The strategy for KWin is to port KWin to Qt 5, then make it possible to run KWin outside of an X server on top of KMS, using the graphics hardware more directly. The next step is to use KWin as compositor for Wayland display servers. The dependency of X11 can be removed once it is not needed anymore to provide compatibility with X11 applications, or can possibly be made optional.
Milestones for KWin (Martin Graesslin) (updated with further clarifications, thanks Martin):
- KWin on Qt5 (work in progress, planned for 4.11): KWin will not depend on Qt 5 as of 4.11. The idea is to have KWin in a state that we could compile KWin with Qt 5/KF 5. But as it is unlikely that KF 5 will be allowed dependency for 4.11, we will not see a KWin on top of Qt 5 even if we achieve that goal. It's a weak goal as we cannot release on it anyway.
- on top of KMS (planned for 4.11): KWin in 4.11 will still run on top of the X-Server. This is mostly about adding a proof-of-concept. Whether that will be merged into 4.11 and compilation enabled will be seen once the code has been written. So in this case it will at most be an additional very hidden (env variable) mode for testing.
- KWin as Wayland compositor (planned for 4.12): Again only as addition. As of 4.12 we will still be targetting X-Server as default. If we succeed we might add an option. But this pretty much depends on the state of Qt 5/KF 5 and QtCompositor. If any of those dependencies is not ready to depend on, the code might exist, but will not be released.
- no X11 dependency (planned for the distant future): There are no plans to drop X11 support. But we want to have the possibility to build a KWin without X for new targets like Plasma Active. For the desktop there are no such plans.
Plasma Workspaces
The porting strategy of the workspaces is to port plasmoids and containments to QML, in order to make them ready to run on top of the new infrastructure. In the case of C++ and Python, Ruby, JavaScript and "Web API" applets, it means rewriting them in QML. For portability and maintainability reasons, pure QML widgets are preferred. For some complex use cases, that can not be easily done in QML, we ship a combined C++ QML applet. For Plasma2, the only way to do the UI is using QML. QGraphicsWidget based Uis will not be supported anymore.
Once we have a working libplasma2 and a useful set of QML Plasmoids, we can think of running an entire workspace in QML and on top of QtQuick2, either on top of X11, or with KWin's plans in mind, on Wayland.
Porting status of important widgets to QML / Plasma Quick needed for the workspace:
- Taskbar (close to first review, target: 4.11) (Eike Hein)
- Folderview (work in progress) (Ignat Semenov)
- Desktop containment (second revision close to review, target: 4.11) (Sebastian Kügler)
- Calendar (work in progress, target: 4.11) (Davide Bettio, Sebastian Kügler)
- Kickoff (about to be merged into master, target: 4.11)
- KRunner (work in progress, target: 4.11) Aaron Seigo, Aleix Pol
- Done: System tray, pager, notifications, device notifier, battery, lock/logout, weather, Wallpaper, Containment support
- Open:
- Digital Clock
- Icon
- Picture Frame
- others from kdeplasma-addons
- and more (see wiki)
KDE's Framework 5 project is well underway. It will allow us to move to a more modern graphics rendering engine, make our development platform more portable, and make it easier to reuse solutions KDE has built. The work does not happen by itself, however, yet it is time-critical. With Qt5.0 being released, 3rd parties are porting their code already. These people will only consider using KDE's technologies if they are actually available — and that means we need a Frameworks 5 release.
So is this going to be KDE 5? The answer to this question is still "No!", for a number of reasons:
- KDE is the community, not the software
- Frameworks 5, apps and the Plasma workspaces are not one singular entity. These parts are only released together (which might change in the future), and cobbling them up under one name really is really not helpful. (3rd party developers will think we're only targeting Plasma workspaces, Plasma users will think you'll only be able to run "KDE apps", potential users of applications will assume that you can only use them inside Plasma workspaces — all of them untrue, all of them taken right out of my daily experience)
- Within the Plasma team, we tend to use the abbreviation PW2 to refer to the next generation of Plasma workspaces. It stands for Plasma Workspaces 2, and it will probably be named differently in the future.
So, now you're fully up to date on the status, isn't it time to get cracking?


text:
3rd April 2017
What happens when your ethical stance risks leaving you stranded?
Ah, millennials. So much has been said or written about this fascinating cohort, including by my Grayling colleagues, that I hesitated before diving into another post that uses 'the M word'. But something caught my eye this morning that made me think again about this group. Moreover, it reminded me of the power of the brand.
All the research tells us that millennials are a caring generation, or rather, an ethical one. They expect brands and corporations to behave in ethical ways. They want, we are told, to contribute towards having a positive impact on the world, to 'make a difference'.
But do they really?
Ride-sharing company, Uber is enduring some bad press at the moment through a series of circumstances largely of its own making (neatly summarized in my colleague Peggy Carlton, here). And while it is difficult to judge the actual cost of such reputational damage to a private company, it would be hard to argue that Uber is unaffected by its recent scrapes.
The #deleteUber campaign that sprang up in the wake of Uber's initial opportunistic response to New York taxi drivers' boycott of JFK, was driven by millennials – they are, after all, the heaviest users, as well as being the most inclined to take action against companies they perceive as unethical. But new research by LendEDU – conducted in March 2017 and reported by eMarketer – suggests that very few millennials plan to stop using Uber. In fact 93% said they wouldn't.
So what does that tell us?
Far be it from me to suggest that millennials say one thing (#deleteUber) and do another (#continuetotakeUber). While I am sure there is an element of that, I don't believe it is as simple as convenience trumping ethics.
No, I believe this data actually tells us less about millennials than it does about the power of the brand.
My assertion is that Uber's brand resilience is such that it can weather even the considerable storms the company has endured in recent months. And possibly even worse. Although not the first to market, Uber is far and away the market leader, with a share of around 87% in the US. Not only is it almost ubiquitous, it has become synonymous with the very idea of ride-sharing app – a byword for the service itself. And when your brand name becomes a verb, you know you're in a strong position. Just ask William Henry Hoover.
But the ride-sharing market is still immature. The same Pew research that showed millennials to be the heaviest users, also showed that only 15% of Americans had ever used any kind of ride-hailing app. And a full third of Americans had never even heard of Uber, Lyft or any of their competitors.
So while the folks at Uber can breathe a sigh of relief that their millennial loyalists do not appear to be deserting them in droves, in a growing and dynamic market there is no room for complacency, and even established, trusted brands can find themselves vulnerable. Just ask Frank Winfield Woolworth.
Jon Meakin
15th November 2016
Will Kunkel, Executive Vice President for Creative and Content in Grayling New York, on the final of our #7for17 trends, Live and Uncut'Timing is everything' has been a favorite line to many but...Read More
8th November 2016
Danica Ross, Grayling San Francisco US Executive Vice President, on how brands can guide themselves through the 'the new space race' – part of our #7for17 trends series.In an era where brands...Read More
3rd November 2016
Russell Patten, Chair of Grayling's European Public Affairs practice, looks at one of the major political trends as part of our #7for17 series. It's been a turbulent year in politics, with the...Read More


text:
Some think the move may work for him — or at least can't hurt a candidate wooing conservative voters. But Texans won't know what they've missed as Dewhurst's campaign carefully controls what people see of him.
Newspaper editorial boards want meetings for the same reason it makes political sense for Dewhurst to skip them: It's a chance to take a candidate's measure in an unscripted format.
Dewhurst senior adviser Dave Carney gave this explanation, in a cordial email: "Generally doing editorial boards at this late date does not fit into our campaign plans. We're spending our time talking with and listening to Republican primary voters."
Carney was Perry's top consultant during successful state campaigns, including 2010, when the governor skipped editorial board meetings and general-election debates. The two parted ways after Perry's presidential effort ran aground.
While ignoring or declining some long-standing editorial board invitations, Dewhurst has participated in debates and forums with his primary foes (as Perry did), though not as many as they'd like. Some say avoiding uncertainty as the primary nears makes political sense.
"Obviously, it didn't hurt Rick Perry a bit — unless you count all the sniping from angry editorial page editors. And I don't think it'll hurt Dewhurst a bit," said Democratic consultant Harold Cook.
SMU political scientist Cal Jillson said he's seen this developing over a couple of election cycles: "Frontrunners who are confident and comfortable about where they stand in a race have been trying to minimize the opportunities for stumbles and mistakes such as can be made before an editorial board, or even in a debate."
Dewhurst previously has met with editorial boards, but he's now facing an opponent in Ted Cruz who is harshly challenging his conservative credentials. Candidates in general seem to value an editorial board's backing, Jillson said, citing an email touting endorsements for a Democratic candidate. But he said, "There is a sense that … to have the approval of the 'lamestream media' is not helpful on the right."
However he feels about endorsements, Dewhurst's failure to show up isn't shutting the door on them. He was just backed by the Dallas Morning News, in the city where primary opponent Tom Leppert served as mayor.
Cook said a decreased emphasis on editorial endorsements is unfortunate, in this way: "Editorial boards can be, and usually are, very highly motivated, very highly in tune with the issues, very highly educated on the nuances of the issues, and have a very high level of sophistication on how their community that the newspaper serves would be affected by the answers to those questions."
For journalists like Bruce Davidson, editorial page editor of the San Antonio Express-News, that responsibility is undiminished: "Newspapers and editorial boards will be here long after today's politicians are out of office, and editorial writers will continue providing voters with frank assessments of candidates and public officials."


text:
The mission of the New Jersey Office of the State Comptroller - Medicaid Fraud Division (MFD) is to mitigate fraud, waste and abuse in the Medicaid program resulting in cost effectiveness to New Jersey's taxpayers. As part of our multi-disciplinary approach to attaining these goals, we support providers who find problems within their own organizations, reveal (self-disclose) those issues to the MFD, and return inappropriate payments.
The Affordable Care Act of 2010 imposes new federal requirements on Medicaid providers to have a more proficient and time-sensitive process for identifying errors and overpayments received under the Medicaid program, and disclosing and repaying the Medicaid program for amounts that providers received in error. Under changes set forth in the ACA, providers are obligated to report, explain and repay overpayments within 60 calendar days of identification. See ACA Sec. 6402, expected to be codified at 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1320a-7k(d)(2). Those that fail to disclose, explain, and repay the overpayment in a timely manner may be subject to liability under the New Jersey and federal False Claims Acts.
The MFD recognizes that many improper payments are discovered during the course of a provider's internal review processes. While providers who identify that they have received inappropriate payments from the Medicaid program are obligated to return the overpayments, it is essential to develop and maintain a fair, reasonable process that will be mutually beneficial for both New Jersey and the provider involved. In order to encourage self-disclosure, MFD offers incentives for providers to investigate and report matters that involve possible fraud, waste, abuse or inappropriate payment of funds-whether intentional or unintentional-under the state's Medicaid program. By forming a partnership with providers through this self-disclosure approach, MFD's overall efforts to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse will be enhanced, while simultaneously offering providers a mechanism or method to reduce their legal and financial exposure.
The MFD recognizes that situations which are subject to this guidance could vary significantly; therefore, this protocol is written in general terms to allow providers the flexibility to address the unique aspects of the matters disclosed.
Advantages of Self-Disclosure
Self-disclosing overpayments, in most circumstances, will result in a better outcome than if MFD staff had discovered the matter independently. While the specific resolution of self-disclosures depends upon the individual merits of each case, the MFD will extend the following benefits to providers who, in good-faith, participate in a self-disclosure:
- Avoidance of False Claims penalties if reported within 60 days of identification
- Forgiveness or reduction of interest payments (for up to two years)
- Extended repayment terms
- Waiver of penalties and/or sanctions
- Timely resolution of the overpayment
- Decrease in the likelihood of imposition of an MFD Corporate Integrity Program
Developing such a partnership with the MFD during the self-disclosure process may also lead to more thorough understanding of the MFD's audit and investigatory processes, benefitting the provider in the future.
When to Disclose
Section 1128J (d)(2) of the Social Security Act requires a provider to self-disclose an overpayment within 60 days of the overpayment being identified or the date any corresponding cost report is due, if applicable. Under subsection (3) of the statute, failure to report the overpayment in a timely manner, makes the claims comprising the overpayment subject to the penalties described in the False Claims Act. Matters related to an on-going audit/investigation of the provider are not generally eligible for resolution under the self-disclosure protocol. Unrelated matters disclosed during an on-going audit may be eligible for processing under the self-disclosure protocol assuming the matter has received timely attention. If MFD is already auditing or investigating the provider, and the provider wishes to disclose an issue, in addition to submitting a disclosure under this protocol, the provider should bring the matter to the attention of the on-site audit staff. If another outside agency is auditing or investigating the provider, and the provider seeks to disclose an issue to MFD, the provider should follow this guidance accordingly. However, because of the wide variance in the nature, amount and frequency of overpayments that may occur over a wide spectrum of provider types, it is difficult to present a comprehensive set of criteria by which to judge whether disclosure is appropriate. Providers must determine whether the repayment warrants a self-disclosure or whether it would be better handled through administrative billing processes. Because of the complexity of some issues surrounding self-disclosures, providers may want to consider obtaining the advice of experienced healthcare legal counsel or consultants.
Each incident must be considered on an individual basis. Factors to consider include the exact issue, the amount involved, any patterns or trends that the problem may demonstrate within the provider's system, the period of non-compliance, the circumstances that led to the non-compliance problem, the organization's history and whether or not the organization has a corporate integrity agreement (CIA) in place.
Issues appropriate for disclosure may include, but are not limited to:
- Substantial routine errors
- Systematic errors
- Patterns of errors
- Potential violation of fraud and abuse laws
MFD is not interested in fundamentally altering the day-to-day business processes of organizations for minor or insignificant matters. Consequently, the repayment of simple, more routine occurrences of overpayment should continue through typical methods of resolution, which may include voiding or adjusting the amounts of claims. Providers should be aware that the MFD monitors both the number of occurrences and dollar amounts of voids and/or adjustments, as well as any patterns of voids and/or adjustments. The MFD highly discourages providers from attempting to avoid the self-disclosure process when circumstances in fact warrant its use.
The Process
Once a provider determines to disclose a problem, an initial report should be prepared which includes gathering the following information:
- The basis for the initial disclosure, including how it was discovered, the approximate time period covered and an assessment of the potential financial impact;
- The Medicaid program rules potentially implicated;
- Any corrective action taken to address the problem leading to the disclosure, the date the correction occurred and the process for monitoring the issue to prevent reoccurrence; and
- The name and telephone number(s) of the individual making the report on behalf of the provider. The individual may be a senior official within the organization or an outside consultant or counsel but should, in any event, be in an appropriate position to speak for the organization.
Contact the MFD with the above information by telephone or via formal letter to the Chief of Investigations, Medicaid Fraud Division, P.O. Box 025, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0025. Providers may also use the printable version of MFD's self-disclosure form
After this initial reporting phase, the MFD will consult with the provider and determine the most appropriate process for proceeding. MFD staff will discuss the next steps, which may include requesting additional information. Ultimately, the provider should be prepared to present the following:
- A summary of the identified underlying cause of the issue(s) involved and any corrective action taken;
- A CD containing an Excel file containing a detailed list of claims paid that comprise the overpayments. Each claim should list the provider Medicaid ID number, client name and Medicaid ID, dates of service(s), rates or procedure codes and the amount(s) paid by Medicaid;
- The names of individuals involved in any suspected improper or illegal conduct and whether they are still employed by the provider, the names of the individuals who found the problem ans the names of the individuals involved in rectifying the problem;
- The nature and extent of any investigation or audit conducted to identify and determine the amount of overpayment;
- An attestation of accuracy and completeness; and
- The name, correspondence address, email address and telephone number(s) of the individual making the report on behalf of the provider. The individual may be a senior official within the organization or an outside consultant or counsel but should, in any event, be in an appropriate position to speak for the organization.
Assuming a provider completely cooperates and responds promptly to information requests, the MFD expects that the vast majority of self-disclosures will be completed within six months of submission of this information.
The MFD will consider the provider's involvement and level of cooperation throughout the disclosure process in determining the most appropriate resolution and the best mechanism to achieve that resolution. In the event that the provider and the MFD cannot reach agreement on the amount of overpayments identified, or if a provider fails to cooperate in good faith with the MFD to resolve the disclosure, the MFD may pursue the matter through established audit or investigation processes, and any less stringent repayment and/or sanction terms may no longer apply. Upon review of the provider's disclosure and related information, the MFD may conclude that the disclosed matter warrants referral to the New Jersey Attorney General's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU). Alternatively, the provider may request the participation of a representative of the MFCU, DHHS OIG, the Department of Justice or a local United States Attorney's Office in settlement discussions in order to resolve potential liability under the False Claims Act or other laws.
Access to Information
Providers are expected to promptly comply with MFD requests to provide documents and information materially related to the disclosure and to speak with relevant individuals. The MFD also expects the provider to execute and provide business record affidavits whenever requested, in a form acceptable to the MFD.
The MFD is committed to working with providers in a cooperative manner to obtain relevant facts and evidence without interfering with the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection. Discussions with the provider's counsel will explore ways to gain access to factual or other non-protected information pertinent to the case in the event that documents or other material contain thought processes or advice from the provider's legal counsel, without the need to waive the protection provided by an appropriately asserted claim of attorney-client privilege or attorney work product. Assuming the provider acts in good-faith, the mere fact that the provider and MFD are unable to agree on an amount and resolve the disclosure will not automatically preclude favorable repayment terms, particularly related to the portion of the matter to which the provider and MFD are able to agree.
All provider self-disclosures are subject to a thorough MFD review to determine whether the amount identified is accurate. The MFD will not accept any payment for self-disclosures prior to reviewing the provider's submission, and confirming the accurate amount of the overpayment.
Following the review, MFD staff will consult with the provider's respective state oversight agency to establish a repayment amount and schedule and explore the need to pursue any further administrative action. MFD's determination will be based on several factors, including the nature of the problem, the effectiveness of the provider's compliance program, the dollar amounts involved, the time period, thoroughness and timing of the provider's disclosure, any potential harm to the health and safety of Medicaid recipients and the provider's efforts to prevent the problem from recurring.
Once a repayment amount has been established, assuming full repayment has not previously been made, the MFD expects the provider to reimburse the State of New Jersey for the overpayment with a check for the full amount, or enter into a repayment agreement. Repayments can occur through monthly payments to MFD or by having MFD withhold a portion of that provider's weekly reimbursement. The MFD will work with providers to establish repayment terms, which may include some forgiveness of interest and/or extended repayment. Providers interested in extended repayment terms will be required to submit audited financial statements, if available, and/or other documentation to assist the MFD in making that determination. The MFD will assess a provider's culpability and good-faith efforts in reaching the disposition of a self-disclosure. Cooperation will be measured by the extent to which a provider discloses relevant facts and evidence, not its waiver of the attorney-client privilege or work product protection. A lack of information may make it difficult for MFD to determine the nature and extent of the conduct which caused the improper payment. Once the repayment has been finalized, the MFD will issue a letter indicating closure of the matter.


text:
Technology Support Center
Room 009 Stalker Hall
M-Th 7:30am to 9:00pm
Friday 7:30am to 6:00pm
Saturday 12:00pm to 9:00pm
Sunday 12:00pm to 9:00pm
Instructional Tools Support Center
Classroom and Event Technology Support
Setting up your iPhone or iPad for the ISU Exchange server is a very
quick and easy process for staff and faculty. The following
instructions will allow your iPhone or iPad to access your ISU email and
IMPORTANT NOTE: Whenever you change your password in Portal you MUST change it on your phone as well. Failure to do so will cause your account to be locked due to too many bad password attempts.
For current iOS devices, the instructions can be found here:
Necessary ISU Specific Information:
For older iOS devices or older versions of iOS try these steps:
If these instructions do not work for you then print them out and take them to your phone's service provider for further assistance. Click here to download a PDF version of these instructions.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Due to the limitations of the phone software you will not be able to access shared resources or multiple Exchange accounts through your email.
1. Select the Settings app on your device.
2. Select Mail, Contacts, Calendars
3. Select Add Account...
4. Select Microsoft Exchange
5. Enter In Your Data
Email firstname.lastname@example.com Domain isuad Username your University Username Password your portal password Description anything you want to call your account Press Next and your account will be verified. After your account is verified add webmail.indstate.edu in the Server field and press Next.
You can then choose what you want to access on your phone by selecting the appropriate slider and then pressing Save when finished.
All systems normal.
Computer-based self-paced training for students, faculty and staff >>
Main Contact
Gillum Hall 103
Indiana State University
Terre Haute, IN 47809
Get Help:
(812) 237-2910
(812) 237-8439


text:
Sarah Palin joins Glenn Beck in desecrating MLK's legacy
Blog ››› ››› BEN DIMIERO
Earlier this year, Fox News televangelist Glenn Beck spent several months making a mockery of the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.
In the build-up to his 8-28 Restoring Honor rally, Beck repeatedly tried to co-opt King's legacy and portray himself and his followers as the true torchbearers of King and the civil rights movement.
In her new book America by Heart, Sarah Palin continues this shameful tradition by using MLK's words to attack Obama for seeking a "fundamental transformation" of our country. After (approvingly) citing then-candidate Obama's speech on race during the 2008 presidential campaign, Palin writes:
My only wish is that President Obama would follow through on this hopeful view of America. To want a better and brighter future for our country does not mean a rejection of our founding or a "fundamental transformation" of who we are. Instead it means following, in part, the wisdom of the most powerful American voice for civil rights of the twentieth century, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Famously, Dr. King called not for a rejection of America's founding principles, but for America to "rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed." [America by Heart, pg 32]
In a rare moment in which Palin and I agree wholeheartedly, she claims on the next page "it's a shame that not everyone wants to quote Dr. King these days."
Aside from repeatedly quoting King's "I Have a Dream speech" - while removing it from the historical context of the culmination of a march on Washington by civil rights and labor leaders not only to combat racial injustice, but also calling for massive federal intervention in the economy to fight economic injustice - conservatives like Palin and Beck like to ignore the balance of King's writings and speeches.
First of all, Palin spends much of her book railing against big government and spending, joining Beck in decrying people who want "handouts." King, on the other hand, spent much of his life explicitly calling for the government to fight poverty by redistributing our nation's wealth; called for an economic bill of rights guaranteeing a job to all Americans; wanted the government to ensure a "guaranteed national income"; and called for our country to "place the problems of the poor at the seat of government of the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind."
Further, Palin's invocation of King in this particular context is inane. She claims that Obama wants a "fundamental transformation" of our country, which puts him at odds with MLK. But in his last address as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, King said that the civil rights movement "must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society."
I want to say to you as I move to my conclusion, as we talk about "Where do we go from here," that we honestly face the fact that the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society. There are forty million poor people here. And one day we must ask the question, "Why are there forty million poor people in America?" And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I'm simply saying that more and more, we've got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life's marketplace. But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. It means that questions must be raised. You see, my friends, when you deal with this, you begin to ask the question, "Who owns the oil?" You begin to ask the question, "Who owns the iron ore?" You begin to ask to the question, "Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that is two-thirds water?" These are questions that must be asked.
Now, don't think you have me in a "bind" today. I'm not talking about communism.
What I'm saying to you this morning is that communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truth of both. Now, when I say question the whole society, it means ultimately coming to see that the problem of racism, the problem of economic exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together. These are the triple evils that are interrelated.
[A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King Jr., Page 250]
As reported by author Nick Kotz in his book, Judgment Days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Laws That Changed America, King also called for a "radical redistribution of economic power" to be achieved by the nation "spending billions of dollars" - a concept that is anathema to everything Palin purports to stand for.
Indeed, "it's a shame that not everyone wants to quote Dr. King these days."
- Person
- Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin
- Show/Publication
- America By Heart
Instructions for signing up and claiming your comment history are located here.
Updated rules for commenting are here.


text:
In my previous impressions article of The Elder Scrolls Online, I explored the game's adventure aspects ranging from the narrative to its various quests. I provided my thoughts on what I believed worked and didn't work in regards to the gameplay and overall presentation. In this article, I'll provide thoughts on my extended time spent exploring the game's player versus player component that takes place in the province of Cyrodiil, which was also the setting of Oblivion. The Elder Scrolls Online is set 800 years before the previous games in which the Aldmeri Dominion, Daggerfall Covenant, and Ebonheart Pact alliances battle for control of Tamriel's throne. Upon reaching level ten, players are made aware of and allowed to join the larger alliance war in Cyrodiil.
Cyrodiil is divided into three, ever-changing territories in which the alliances battle for control of keeps that are surrounded by resource points such as lumber mills and mines. The lands of Cyrodiil feel quite massive as traveling either on foot or horseback between keeps reveals the many dungeons and other towns that are scattered about the landscape. Players are given an array of missions from scouting enemy locations to capturing keeps and resource points which in turn reward alliance points for buying siege weapons and such. Even with the low number of players allowed into the test server during the beta period, it was exciting to imagine the lands of Cyrodiil overrun with thousands of players battling for control upon the game's launch in April.
The province of Cyrodiil provided an enthralling and atmospheric backdrop to the player versus player adventures and encounters. I wasn't expecting the sheer size of the world that is open for players to explore, which I'm going to guess will be more dangerous with additional players roaming about after launch. It's an especially entertaining landscape to explore alongside other group or guild members while discovering quests such as slaying a bandit leader or trespassing into enemy territory to scout for the next ambush. The player versus player component shares similarities with the current fascination with online survival action role-playing games in that The Elder Scrolls Online has a massive area in which players can succumb to ambushes by other players, but also explore at their own will across the map. The major element missing from primary narrative quests that makes the player versus player content such an entertaining experience are the dynamic occurrences of events and activities.
The process of attempting to capture a keep is one of the most thrilling gameplay activities as a group of focused players and strong teamwork are required to accomplish the feat. From the initial step of fighting through the primary gate to destroying one of the keep's walls with siege weapons are kept thrilling with a continually-dynamic battlefield. Non-playable characters can respawn if the process is taking too long, which contributes to a sense of urgency of capturing the keep. In addition, the presence of other players that are defending the keep result in tense encounters on the battlefield. The deployable siege weapons and various player classes work in combination with one another as each person can have specific roles while capturing or defending a keep. Groups of players that say for example lack a healer or individuals controlling siege weapons will fail quickly while trying to capture or defend a keep.
Through the actual process of capturing a keep or defending a resource point are entertaining in their own right, the underlying concept that players are able to contribute change to the overall game world is highly-satisfying. During the beta test period, I was able to participate in capturing an enemy keep and then proceed to name its new ownership under our guild name was satisfying knowing that my player specifically contributed to the process. Few massively multiplayer online games and especially their player versus player component create a sense of significant player accomplishment or personal change to the overall world state. The Elder Scrolls Online also ensures players can decide on their level of involvement with the alliance wars whether it involves scouting an enemy location or capturing an entire keep, all of which contribute to the game's world state in some manner.
Unfortunately the beta testing period for press didn't provide the best example of what the final game world be like upon launch as only a few amount of players were given access. Most times during play the lack of players resulted in a ghost world of non-playable characters roaming around the landscape. However, it did demonstrate the player versus player component will require a strong base of players to ensure that the massive province of Cyrodiil feels like its actually at war between three alliances. The ultimate success of The Elder Scrolls Online player versus player component will depend both upon the amount of players as well as how well groups can work together in accomplishing the various quests such as capturing or defending keeps. Quest attempts with groups of characters that either didn't communicate or didn't utilize teamwork all failed, while in contrast to working with groups that did communicate resulted in successful outcomes.
Final Thoughts
After spending an extended amount of time with the player versus player component from completing various quests and raiding dungeons to capturing keeps and exploring Cyrodiil I can say with confidence that it will be the primary draw for me in subscribing to The Elder Scrolls Online. While the primary narrative quests and adventures in the other areas of Tamriel were interesting, none of them compared to the unpredictable and dynamic nature of the player versus player gameplay elements. I'm especially excited to return upon the game's launch and see how the province of Cyrodiil is transformed over the game's course from battles and encounters between the three alliances. Now, the more difficult decision will be deciding which alliance I pledge my support for in acquiring control of Tamriel's throne.
The Elder Scrolls Online will be available on April 4 for Windows PC and Mac, and later in June for PlayStation 4 and Xbox One.
* The product in this article was sent to us by the developer/company.
I've been writing for Gaming Nexus since 2011 and focus primarily on PC games and hardware. I'm a strong advocate of independent developers and am always seeking the next genre-breaking and unique game releases. My favorite game genres are strategy, role-playing, and simulation, or any games that feature open worlds and survival elements.View Profile


text:
I'm receiving a 7020 error code when requesting the schedules for a number of stations. None of the error messages I've seen so far include the valid date range for that station.
For example:
code: 7020
maxDate: None
message: Date requested (2015-09-17) not within -> for stationID 61179"
requestedDate: 2015-09-17
response: SCHEDULE_RANGE_EXCEEDED
server: 20141201.web.2
This is occurring with dates between 2015-09-17 and 2015-09-30 for station IDs 61179, 82449, 24710, 24717, 24716, 24715, 24714, and 82447. There may be other stations returning the same error but this is what I found on a cursory glance.
I am investing this for one of my users so I'm not certain if this is an ongoing issue.


text:
I mentioned in a thread about udon that I would be attending a soba making class.
This proved to be an excellent and very worthwhile experience. I learned about the existence of the school through this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDLcgvbzVf0
Contact was made by email and a date and time arranged (10:30am on a Wednesday - the school is closed on Tuesdays)
I was very fortunate to be the only student enrolled for that date and time, even luckier when I discovered that sensei spoke English! continue reading...
@justbento - strictly site updates
@makiwi - Maki tweets at random