Mark Clarke

It's funny. I just finished writing a reply to Twinky's post on the "Judging the Dead" thread, and then this deals with the same issue - TWI's definitions of body, soul, and spirit. As I wrote to Twinky, if you study it carefully you'll find that "soul" in the Bible is not primarily the "breath life" that makes one alive. Genesis 2:7 says that God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul. It doesn't say man HAD a soul, but that he WAS a soul. Also, the word spirit is not used exclusively of the spirit of God. The spirit of man is what the Bible calls the breath life. I wrote about it in more detail on my website here.

Twinky, Your question is based on the assumption of TWI's definitions of soul and spirit. But if you study it carefully you'll find that "soul" in the Bible is not primarily the "breath life" that makes one alive. Genesis 2:7 says that God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul. It doesn't say man HAD a soul, but that he WAS a soul. Also, the word spirit is not used exclusively of the spirit of God. The spirit of man is what the Bible calls the breath life. I wrote about this in more detail on my website, here. So to answer your question, what part of man gets judged? ALL of him. The Hebrew mindset did not visualize man as a being wtih three parts that could be separated. A person was a soul. His spirit gave him life. His life was what made him alive. When he died he had no more life, that is, no more spirit, so he was no longer a living soul. The Bible called that a dead soul (i.e. dead person). When that person is resurrected, he is revived and has a new life, which will take place at the return of Christ.

I'm not sure about 10,000, but from what I have looked into, I'm leaning towards the earth being much younger than most scientists say. The creation/evolution sites that I have linked to on my site would do a much better job at answering that.

Hello all ! I would just like to invite you to check out my new website. It's at godskingdomfirst.net. I think you will find it interesting, although some may find it challenging, since there are some things that are different from doctrines we learned in TWI, and doctrines that some ex-Ways still hold.

These computer jokes remind me... If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed.... Oh, wait, he does!

If we used the hard stuff, would it be a baptism of "spirits"?

The malefactor on the cross was BEFORE Jesus completed his sacrifice, which is what made the difference in baptism afterward. But if you'd rather stoop to name calling than seriously consider the Scriptures, then have another beer. Once again, it becomes clear that the difference of opinion depends on one's definition of "saved" and/or "regenerated." It might almost warrant a new thread.

I agree; with one added thought.... One thing I have learned from this discussion is how much the conclusion does depend on our definition of "saved" or "born again." There are a number of factors which the NT discusses, more than just "confess Romans 10:9". The first requirement is to receive and believe the gospel, and then to accept Jesus Christ as Lord. Jesus preached "the gospel" throughout his ministry for some time before he even mentioned his suffering and death. It was the gospel of the kingdom of God. After he offered himself for the perfect sacrifice, and was raised from the dead, the details of what his shed blood accomplished were added to the preaching of the apostles. A gospel of repentance was first presented by John, and then by Jesus, who baptized more disciples than John. The repentance was preached as the proper response to the fact that the kingdom of God was at hand. It was to this that the disciples in Acts added the details of Christ's sacrifice. Forgiveness or remission of sins is offered as part of the new covenant, and it is based on Christ's atoning sacrifice. Paul speaks in his epistles about baptism being the point at which we enter into Christ's body and share in his death and resurrection. While Jesus died for all, not all share in that sacrifice. They must choose to repent (turn their hearts toward God) and be baptized as Peter declared on Pentecost. The reason this particular act of faith is "necessary" is that it is how we enter into that covenant. One could believe the gospel and accept Jesus, but without repentance and baptism there is no forgiveness of sins. It would be like saying, "Yes I will make an agreement, but I won't sign the contract." Or perhaps more accurately, "Yes I will marry you, but I won't have a wedding." These things were never meant to be separated, and historically they have always accompanied one another, until people like VPW came along and started to split hairs. I don't know who exactly invented this doctrine, but it is a recent invention, and very much in the minority among Christians of all circles. Sure VPW got some things right, but considering how many he had wrong we should not accept anything we learned in The Way without a thorough examination of where the idea came from and what the Scriptures really say about it.

What The Hey, Also at the risk of going in circles, I thought I'd touch on some of the points in your post. Where is water baptism the way John preached it in the Old Testament law? It isn't. The OT had washings (referred to in Hebrews 9 as being obsolete) but these were not baptism as John preached it. John preached a baptism of repentance, which included full immersion, while OT washings consisted of washing articles such as cups and pots, or parts of the body, such as hands, feet, etc. Also, with OT washings, one washed one's own hands or feet, while baptism was done to the baptized person by a baptizer. And finally, OT washings were done periodically, while John's baptism of repentance was done once as a sign of repentance and turning one's heart toward God. Where is that defined? In PFAL, but not in the Bible. That is true. But you don't read anywhere in Acts OR the Epistles, where God corrected them for baptizing in water. This is true. And Paul discusses at length how we are not under the law and how the shadows of the OT covenant pointed to the New Covenant. But NOWHERE in any of his epistles does he state that water baptism was an OT shadow pointing to NT spirit baptism. What he does say (in Acts 19) is that John's baptism in water (which was not an OT ritual, but something new) pointed to the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, because it was not until Jesus offered himself as the sacrifice for the remission of sins that baptism had any real power. Only after that did Jesus promise the baptism of the holy spirit, which was ADDED TO the baptism of repentance. It doesn't say anywhere in this record that he did not baptize them in water. Absolutely. This is WHY the receiving of holy spirit had to come first. But once that had taken place, Peter said that nobody could forbid these Gentiles from being baptized in the name of the Lord, and thus becoming members of the body of Christ. When Peter said "Who was I that I could withstand God" he was referring to denying the Gentiles the opportunity to be baptized into the Church. THAT is what would have been "withstanding God." The old TWI interpretation of this passage, that he realized the error of his ways and didn't go ahead and baptize them in water, ignores the whole point of the passage. It has nothing to do with any issue about whether baptism was to be with water or spirit. That simply was not the issue. But we were taught in PFAL to read the passage this way. Acts 2:38, for one place. There didn't need to be a lot of records of the COMMAND to baptize, since we read that whenever people heard the word and believed they were baptized. What Peter remembered was not a command of the Lord, it was a promise. "Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." The Lord's command was to preach the gospel, and when people believed it they would be baptized in response. Jesus promised that when people repented and were baptized in his name, they would receive or be baptized with the holy spirit (Acts 2:38 again). Peter did not command them to be baptized in the holy ghost; why would he, if he had seen that they had already received it and manifested it? The context of the chapter clearly indicates that Peter is commanding baptism with water, in the name of the Lord: "Can any man forbid [the, in the Greek] water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." There is a definite distinction between the baptism of the holy ghost (which only Jesus would do) and the baptism in water in the name of Jesus (which the disciples did). I gave the references for that in the previous post. But NOWHERE does it state that one replaced the other. BOTH aspects were necessary. Jesus baptizes with holy spirit, but when a person believes the gospel and decides to repent and make Jesus his Lord, in order to partake of the saving power of Christ's blood for the forgiveness of sins, he is expected to be baptized.

Of course you're entitled to believe what you want. I'm just surprised by how many ex-TWI people still hold to their "research methods" of taking a few verses out of context that support their doctrine, and reading things into other scriptures, despite evidence from others that contribute to the overall picture. And this even when they have seen so many other TWI doctrines disproved.

When the word baptism is used with the words holy spirit, it is referring to the baptism of holy spirit. But there are a number of places where the word baptism is used by itself. VPW always used to point out "it doesn't say water there." But when you carefully examine how it's used in Acts, you find that the word baptized without any other qualifier is a short way of saying baptized in the name of Jesus, or baptized in the name of the Lord. Now we were taught that to be baptized in the name of Jesus was the same as being baptized in the holy spirit. But this can't be if you read Acts 8:15,16: "Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)" Acts 2:38 also makes a distinction between baptism in the name of Jesus and receiving the holy spirit: "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Also, Acts 19:4-6: "Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." Plus there are records which specifically identify it with water, such as Philip and the Eunuch in Acts 8, and Peter's command to baptize the Gentiles in Acts 10. By the way, I pointed out in another post that "one baptism" in Ephesians 6 has nothing to do with different types of baptism; the context is unity in the church because we all have the same faith, same Lord, same baptism, etc. We must be careful not to dismiss something based on just a couple of verses. I was gradually convinced of the error in The Way's doctrine about baptism, when I studied the whole subject and considered how many passages of scripture relating to the subject fit together.

There are some TWI offshoots that teach it in various forms. But I don't believe there is any real Scriptural proof of such an idea. If the meaning of baptism changed after the day of Pentecost, there is nothing in Paul's or any of the other Epistles.

OK. Cheers!

Part of the difficulty is, as you said before, a difference in the definition of "saved." From your quote, it seems like you are equating receiving the holy spirit with being saved. Would this be a correct assumption? I don't understand. You say you did it to demonstrate your faith in the way that he tells us to. Yet you say it's not necessary. That seems like a contradiction. If making Jesus Lord is necessary for salvation, and making him Lord involves obeying his commands, and baptism is a command of the Lord, how can you say it is not necessary?

What Scripture do you base this statement on?

Please read those chapters again in context. It does not say he recanted; we were taught to look at it that way. When he said "Then remembered I," he was remembering the words of Jesus. I already dealt in a previous post about why "John indeed baptised with water, but you shall be baptised with holy spirit" is not saying that one would replace the other. The whole point of this passage is convincing the Jewish Christians that the Gentiles would now be able to be members of the Church as well as they. That there was some conflict between forms of baptism in the first century church is simply not the issue in these chapters. Remember, Peter commanded them "in the name of the Lord" to be baptized in water. The scriptures tell us that salvation depends on believing the gospel, and then repenting and being baptized for the remission of sins. Perhaps, as Raf pointed out, we have a different definition of saved. If I have truly made Jesus my Lord, why would I not want to demonstrate it the way he has told me to do? Isn't that the definiton of making him Lord?

It would be possible if there were scripture that said so. But the scriptures don't say that John's baptism was only a forshadowing of the new birth. As I have pointed out, the records in Acts indicate that Christian baptism included both elements of water and spirit. If you read Acts 10 and 11 in context, you see that the whole point was that the Jewish Christians had to be convinced that Gentiles could receive the same salvation. Only the receiving of holy spirit would have convinced them of that, which is why it came first. But Peter, when he saw that they received the holy spirit, said "Can any man forbid water..." In Greek it literally reads, "Can any man forbid the water..." This shows that water and spirit were the normal and expected elements involved. (Add to that the record in Acts 8 where they had been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ but had not received holy spirit. Both instances were considered unusual.) True, the problem was that they were putting emphasis on who baptized them. He was putting the focus back on Christ into whom we are baptized, rather than the person who performed the baptism, which was of no consequence to him. The fact that he was not sent to baptize doesn't prove that we are not supposed to be baptized. Not everyone that preaches the gospel will have occasion to perform a baptism. But the proper response to believing the gospel is to repent and be baptized. *** Many of you seem to have a problem with the idea of an outward symbol being required. But this is because of the way our thinking has been so dominated by Greek thinking. It was Greek philosophy, and especially Gnosticism, that put such a division between the physical and the spiritual. To the Hebrew mind, one's faith was demonstrated by one's actions, and without those actions there was no faith, even though there could certainly be actions without faith. True faith involves the heart and the action; either one without the other is not true faith. Jesus said we should remember his suffering and death in the practice of communion. Would anyone suggest that it is sufficient to just use "spiritual" bread and wine (whatever that may be) as long as our heart is in the right place? I doubt it. But does that mean the bread and wine have power in and of themselves? No. It is what they represent that gives them any significance. But there is still the need to have bread and wine, because that is what our Lord commanded. Would anyone suggest that a wedding is not necessary, as long as they are married "in their hearts?" Of course, this is what the world promotes all the time, but I think we agree that it is not God's will. It is only an outward ceremony, but it is what it represents that gives it significance. The same is true with baptism. And we can see this from the records throughout Acts, as well as references elsewhere. *** By the way, for the sake of clarity, there are two Marks posting here. I post as Mark Clarke, and the other one (whomever he may be) posts as simply Mark. As for whether or not I persuade anyone, my hope is that people reading this will take a serious look at what we always thought was a "given." Like so many other Way doctrines, I have discovered that when you allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves without preconceived notions, there turns out to be no basis for many of the beliefs we were taught. I don't expect to persuade anyone with my words, but if we can take an honest look at just the scriptures, and see how our previous understanding of them may have been wrong, it will be worth while.

I didn't add water. Water was part of the outward sign of repentance from John onward. Jesus added spirit, but it didn't replace water. And it was Peter and the other apostles who confirmed that baptism was the proper response after believing the gospel. As for being a voluntary act, it is still voluntary, just as accepting Jesus as Lord is voluntary. You say it's our faith. To paraphrase James' admonition, show me your faith without works and I will show you my faith by my works. Faith without action is not really faith. The beauty of it is that rather than have to suffer and die as Jesus did, or cut up animals to shed blood sacrificially, all we have to do is demonstrate our repentance and sharing in the Lord's sacrifice by this simple rite. You can cite many reasons why it seems wrong to you, as I did for many years. But can you show me any scriptural proof that it is just an "optional extra?" If there were any Scripture that said that, it would contradict the many passages of Scripture that present it clearly. *** As for spiritual purity and cleansing through water being a pagan concept, I agree. But while scholars recognize that there were pagan rituals which involved water, they also recognize that John's baptism was something new, in that he preached the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And the baptism in the name of Jesus which followed was also a symbol of repentance and change in heart. The NT does not say it is the water that cleanses. It is the change in heart, accompanied by the power of the holy spirit, that makes you spiritually pure. But the outward symbol is as necessary as the spirit inside, because it has to do with demonstrating your faith, and entering into a sharing in Jesus Christ's sacrifice and shed blood. While scholars recognize the existance of pagan rituals, my point was that Biblical scholars have always recognized that baptism was the commonly accepted rite of initiation into the Christian Church and into Christ, and that it involved water and spirit. You don't have to look for obscure scholarly writings either. Look up baptism in any Bible dictionary and you will see this pattern. The whole idea that baptism of the holy spirit made water obsolete is a recent invention, and very few outside of TWI and its offshoots hold to this belief. We were taught to accept what VPW said and avoid reading the works of other scholars, and as a result our whole system of Biblical interpretation was largely esoteric and elitist. Hebrews 6:2 does not say we should move on in the sense of not talking about things that don't matter. It says we should "go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment..." These things (including baptism) are THE BASICS, and we should not be laying the foundation again, but growing beyond the basics. The epistle is actually reproving those to whom it is addressed, because they were not even upholding the basics. "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat." (Heb. 5:12) I again want to highly exhort anyone reading this to put aside Way doctrine and thinking patterns, and search the Scriptures to see if these things are so.

Actually, I have done quite a bit of research, and find that there is nothing absolutely conclusive to prove that the section does not belong. But even if there were, it does not contradict any of the other clear indications from Scripture that baptism was a command of the Lord. Despite what Conybeare said about Eusebius quoting Matthew 28:19, there is no manuscript that does not include the reference to baptism in that verse. And Luke 23:47 clearly states that Jesus commanded repentance and remission of sins be preached in the name of Jesus Christ, which Peter links with baptism in Acts 2:38, as well as the pattern of baptism seen throughout Acts. It can't be just tossed away because of a couple of verses. I exhort anyone reading this to put aside all previous notions about the subject that were learned from TWI and consider the Scriptures as if you had never taken any classes. Virtually all Biblical scholars have recognized that Christian baptism is not just spirit to the exclusion of water. The very idea that spirit replaced water is actually a recent one, only seen in this century. I believe I answered that already. Please reread my previous posts.

But there is no command that says, "He that believes and speaks in tongues shall be saved and he that does not shall be damned." Nor is there any such command for the other things you mention. I think we might have differing views on soteriology, as you say. Salvation depends on believing the gospel message, repenting (that is turning your heart toward God) and confessing Jesus as Lord. If one were to say "I believe in Jesus" but never do any of the things he commanded, has he truly made Jesus Lord? On the road to Emmaus, they (like the other disciples) had not yet seen the significance of Christ's death, and did not yet believe he was risen. However, the disciples were fully instructed in those things by Jesus himself afterward. Apollos was shown a more prefect way, and what Paul shared with him regarding baptism in the name of Jesus is in harmony with other scriptures that teach this. But there is no clear teaching by Jesus, Paul, or anyone else, that baptism in water became obsolete with the coming of the holy spirit. Besides, the point I was making is that the only way TWI could make the records that clearly show baptism in water fit with their doctrine, was to say that the apostles were wrong when they did it. This does not fit with anything in the scriptures. Sure they made mistakes, like when Peter acted like he should still not eat with Gentiles, as described in Galatians. But we don't have to guess which things were right and which were wrong. The scriptures plainly tell us that we are not under the Mosaic Law and that Gentiles are of the same body. But as I said, there is no clear teaching that baptism in water became obsolete with the coming of the holy spirit. We were taught to read this into the records by TWI, and must be willing to rethink and reevaluate this topic, just as we have with so many others that turned out to be wrong.

Raf, You wrote, "I agree, baptism is an act of obedience. But it does not save." But I Peter 3:21 says, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:" The reason Peter could say that baptism saves us, is that rather than washing the flesh as ordinary water would do, it is the "answer of a good conscience toward God." You have that good conscience toward God when you believe His gospel, accept His Son, and do what He tells you to do. You say it's "an outward expression of obedience, praise God, but no more necessary than speaking in tongues." But if obedience to God is necessary for salvation, and baptism is the outward expression of it, then how can it not be necessary? That's the same as saying that believing is necessary, but you don't have to really demonstrate your faith, which is the exact opposite of what James says about faith: "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:18) If salvation depends on making Jesus your Lord, then how can we not obey him? "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46) How much plainer could Jesus have made it? "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16) Mark

JerryB, You wrote, The problem with the argument that we are supposed to bapitze in water and spirit is Paul's stipulation in Ephesians 4:5 that there is one baptism, not two or three. Unfortunately, we were taught how to read into the Scriptures what VPW and others said, instead of reading in context, and letting it speak for itself. The following is the context of Ephesians 4: 1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, 2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; 3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Notice that it is talking about unity in the Body, not about different types of baptism. We are to endeavor to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, because there is one body, one spirit, etc. We should try to maintain unity because we all have the same spirit, the same Lord, the same faith, the same baptism, the same God. That there were two forms of baptism, or a question of which form was correct was not an issue. In another post you said, Lots and lots of people were baptized in water. That doesn't mean that God wanted that done, but it was done nevertheless. But on what are we to base the conclusion that God didn't want it done? In order to make this idea fit, VPW and all his followers had to assume that the apostles messed up and got it wrong. This doesn't say much for Jesus' ability to teach, does it? Not only that, but it is reading something into the records that is nowhere explicitly stated. If the word "baptism" when used without any other qualifying words, meant water in one place, and spirit in another, there would be major confusion, unless a change in meaning was specifically stated. Paul does, in fact, specifically state many changes in meaning from Old Testament practices, but baptism is not one of them. There is nothing in the New Testament that specifically says that water was replaced by spirit. Jesus himself even authorized his disciples to baptize in water, early in his ministry (John 3:22,26; 4:1,2). When he comissioned his disciples after his resurrection, he instructed them to baptize (Mathew 28:19, Mark 16:16) and they followed his commandments, as we read throughout Acts. There is nothing in any of the records on which to base the conclusion that spirit was supposed to replace water. We just were told that, and learned to read Acts with that viewpoint. To be baptized in the name of Jesus was a baptism that the disciples performed, using water as the symbol of the person's repentance and sharing in the death and resurrection of Jesus. It was usually accompanied with the baptism in holy spirit, which Jesus himself does, not any man. John said that Jesus would baptize with holy spirit, in contrast to what he or any man could do. But nowhere in the Bible does it say that spirit would replace water. Rather, it was added to water. There are two aspects of it, but it is still one baptism. Water baptism from John onward was a symbol of repentance for the forgiveness of sin. But it was incomplete until Jesus shed his blood, which is why John said that his baptism pointed to the one who was to come after, namely Jesus. (Paul said the same thing in Acts 19). When the spiritual aspect was added, the rite became complete, and it was what Peter and the others declared must be done for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). They baptized with water, now in the name of Jesus Christ instead of by John's baptism, and when they did so, Jesus baptized them with spirit. Both aspects are necessary, and both were the norm in the Church. When they were baptized in the name of Jesus but didn't receive the holy spirit in Acts 8, this was unusual. Likewise when the Gentiles received the holy spirit without being baptized in water, in Acts 10, which the context shows was necessary to prove to Peter and the others that the Gentiles should be allowed to partake of the rite and be members of the Church. As for making it necessary for salvation, is forgiveness of sins necessary for salvation? We are told that we must repent and be baptized in order to receive forgiveness of sins. It is not salvation by works if we are demonstrating our faith and repentance with this act which the Lord prescribed. It is simply a matter of obedience. If we call him Lord, why would we not do what he has commanded us to do? Mark

I haven't posted on this site in quite a while, but I would like to make a few observations, as this is a subject I have been studying for a while now. First of all, the most common argument against water baptism being necessary is the reference to "John baptizes with water, but you shall be baptized with holy spirit." The verses that say this were thought by VPW and TWI to be setting spirit against water, and making them mutually exclusive. (Many TWI offshoots still hold to this understanding.) But this is not the point of those verses. The point is to contrast the ministry of John with the ministry of Jesus. Jesus would baptize with the holy spirit, which would make an inner change in the believer, in contrast to John's baptism which was only outward. But it is not saying that one would make the other obsolete. When the word “but” is used to set two things in contrast, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they are mutually exclusive. It is similar to I Cor. 8:1 where Paul writes, “Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth.” This verse doesn’t mean you should have love without knowledge. It is simply contrasting the aspects of each. In fact, in this case, it is implying that knowledge without love is insufficient, and that love must be added to knowledge. Similarly, John’s baptism involved water, while Jesus’ baptism would also involve spirit. But it doesn’t automatically follow that spirit and water are mutually exclusive. Theologians have recognized this for years. Reading through the records in Acts, one sees that the typical Christian baptism involved both water and spirit. The disciples baptized with water in Jesus’ name, and Jesus baptized in holy spirit, usually at the same time. In fact on the occasions where one was present without the other, it was considered unusual, and the apostles got involved to rectify the situation. Certainly John’s baptism in water alone could not produce a change on the inside, as the holy spirit could do. But there was also a purpose for the outward sign of water. Rather than spirit replacing water, it was added to it, making Christian baptism complete. When Peter said that he remembered the words of Jesus, that John baptized in water but they would be baptized in holy spirit, we were taught that Peter had made a mistake by ordering water baptism, but then came to his senses. But the fact is, believers in Acts were usually baptized in water and received holy spirit. Peter would never have believed that Gentiles would receive and become part of the Body of Christ, unless he had seen specific indication of their acceptance from God. When he saw that they received holy spirit, he said, "Can any man forbid water...?" In the Greek, it is literally "the water," that is, the well-known water, which was a regular part of Christian baptism. When he said "What was I that I could withstand God" we were taught that it meant that withstanding God would have been to continue baptizing in water instead of holy spirit. But this is not what the whole passage is talking about. Read Acts chapters 10 and 11 in context, and you see that the whole point was God showing them that Gentiles could also be part of the Church too. To withstand God would have been to deny the Gentiles the right to be baptized into the Church. There is a lot more to this subject, but the main point of baptism that TWI and many of its offshoots miss, is that it is our entrance into the New Covenant relationship, which includes our sharing in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is his shed blood that gives us forgiveness of sins, and we share in that through baptism. Romans 6: 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Colossians 2: 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; The objection many have about water baptism is that it is an "outward sign" and we are supposed to be saved by faith and not by works. But as James writes, faith without works is dead. James 2: 14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Does this contradict what Paul writes about salvation by faith? Certainly not. But there is a difference between works that are done to try to earn salvation, and works that are done as a demonstration of your faith. Remember the old saying in TWI, "Believing is action?" You can say you believe all you want, but until you put it into action, it is not really believing. To ratify the New Covenant, Jesus shed his blood; we have to take some kind of action to enter into that covenant and partake of the sin-cleansing power of his blood. Another important point, John the Baptist did not preach the same dipping practices that proselytes were doing. That was a man made practice that was not commanded of God. Nor was he preaching any washing rituals from the OT Law. They involved washing parts of one's body, or utensils, rather than complete immersion, and it was to be done on a regular basis. John's baptism, on the other hand, was total immersion, and done only once as a sign of repentance. He preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). But it was not complete, since Jesus had not yet shed his blood for that purpose. Once it was complete, the disciples were instructed to preach repentance and remission of sins in the name of Jesus Christ. Peter did so on the day of Pentecost. Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Notice it doesn't say "repent and be baptized in the holy ghost." If you read the records in Acts carefully, without preconceived ideas, you see that to be baptized in the name of Jesus is not the same as baptized in the holy ghost. It is actually to be baptized in water, but in the name of Jesus Christ, rather than in the name of John the Baptist. Water baptism was an outward sign, which demonstrated one's faith in the gospel and one's decision to repent and turn one's heart to God. Is an outward sign just an "optional extra" as we have been told? Consider the words of our Lord. Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. I'd say it's pretty clear that we need to demonstrate our faith and repentance, to enter into the covenant and partake of what Jesus made available.

When they first came out, I was turned off by all the screaming girls. I saw "A Hard Day's Night" in the theater when it was released, and I couldn't hear a thing. It was about the time of Sgt. Pepper that I began to appreciate their music. It wasn't until the mid-seventies that I came to appreciate the actual music from their early years, and it made me wish I'd been able to hear it back then.

Then there's the one about the first nicotine fit in the Bible. Acts 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas...