Infant Baptism

I grew up reformed and have been baptized as an infant but I'be been lately challenged on this issue by a book from Dr. James Dunn - UNITY AND DIVERSITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. A passage from the book:"For it has to be recognized that infant baptism can find no real support in the theology of baptim which any NT writer can be shown to espouse. And the more we recognize that a primary function of baptism throughout the first decades of Christianity was to serve as a means of expressing the initiate's faith and commitment, the less justified in term of Christian beginnings would the practice of infant baptism appear to be." (Dunn, 1997 : 160)Any insight into this with scripture verses being used in context (sound interpretation) would be appreciated.Brother in ChristHolywarrior

And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: Matt 3:4-8I understand this is John baptizing people but I belive that this same standard should be held today when someone is baptized. They should have already of confessed their sins and shown fruits worthy of repentance(Luke 3:8). Can an infant do that?

HiI had a similar feeling when I accepted Jesus as Lord and Saiour at the age of forty. Did my infant baptism, and subsequent confirmation have any meaning. Jesus commands his followers to disciple and baptise all peoples in his name. This discipling and baptising are human acts, but there is a working of God in them. Baptism is a sacrament - a time when the gap between heaven and earth becomes thin - and God acts on the subject. This is an event similar to Holy Communion, which may be celebrated regularly ( I leave it to you to decide how often).Peter on the day of Pentecost told the crowd who asked 'what should we do?' to repent and be baptised.Later at Cornelius house, the hearers were baptised in the Spirit and Peter then baptised the whole household with water - presumably including children and slaves.So I don't think that scripture gives us a hard and fast rule, but allows for a variety of baptism events - after all it's God's work not ours.Personally I wish I had not been baptised as a baby - but I would probably have been baptised as a teenager and later regretted that I had not waited until I was 40. As it is I do not desire further baptism in water, but require the baptism in the Spirit to be a continual event - I need to be constantly topped up, just as Jesus was regularly ministered to by the Holy Spirit during his life on earth strengthening him to allow his mission to be completed.On the baptism of other peoples babies - I am glad to say that a blessing service is becoming more popular and allows for adult baptism as believers to be a much more dramatic event.Lots to think about though - child baptism became popular when infant deaths were very common. More questions than answers.There is a book called 'Baptise every baby' (Clifford Owen) which describes a ministers struggle to come up with a sound policy and rehearses the arguments for and against.Only you yourself know what God has done for you and when. Is any further response required? Grace and PeaceDave

I grew up reformed and have been baptized as an infant but I'be been lately challenged on this issue by a book from Dr. James Dunn - UNITY AND DIVERSITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. A passage from the book:James Dunn is a brilliant UK academic with charismatic leanings. I have read several of his books including the one mentioned above. Although I agree with this statement on baptism his views on the canon and the inspiration of scripture are certainly not classical evangelical.As you read the book you will find that his real core of revelation truth becomes smaller and smaller. A writer to be read with extreme caution.

There is good excerpt about baptism in A.W. Tozer "The Voice of the Spirit" The part that he talks about baptism is at 19:30 to 21:00 min

Later at Cornelius house, the hearers were baptised in the Spirit and Peter then baptised the whole household with water - presumably including children and slaves.I think this is an unwarranted 'presumption'; ;-) using your own word. A careful reading of Acts 10:44-48 will show that Peter asked 'can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized'. The 'these' refers to those who had heard the word and upon whom the HOly Spirit had 'fallen'. 'these' also spoke with tongues.There is no reference in this account to the mass baptism of Cornelius' household. I think you are thinking of other Acts households; eg Acts 16:15 & 31.

Hi PhilologosThank you for this insight on Dr. James Dunn. It helps me to evaluate him in a better perpsective.Thanks you also everyone who has responded on my post. It helps me to deal with the issue and think about it objectively.GreeintingsBrother in ChristHolywarrior

I think the root question is something along the lines of "Are the children of Christians members of the New Covenant?"If yes, then they should be baptized, and there's a good shot that they should be given communion too.If no, they're short heathen, however cute, and should be regarded thus.

I think the root question is something along the lines of "Are the children of Christians members of the New Covenant?"Is there any other way into the New Covenant than by regeneration?

1Cor7:13-14 Infant baptism isn't nessary but after the children reach an age of accountability they have a personal responsibility to know Jesus as messiah and Lord for them selves.Up until that point it can be argued that they are the benefactors of thier parent(s) committment to Christ.

1Cor7:13-14 Infant baptism isn't nessary but after the children reach an age of accountability they have a personal responsibility to know Jesus as messiah and Lord for them selves.Up until that point it can be argued that they are the benefactors of thier parent(s) committment to Christ.The 1 Cor 7:13-14 are difficult verses to expound, but in that it follows the 'putting away verses' it seems to imply that the continued presence of the Christian in a mixed-union as a 'contagious' effect upon both the unbelieving spouse and the children. In each case it seems to be the presence of the believer in the home that causes the 'sanctifying', of the spouse or the children.In this sense the whole family is 'benefactor' of the believing parent's faith and continuing presence in the family. It is an interesting reversion of the OT position where an unclean person would pollute a clean person. Here we seem to have a clean person whose 'believing' is impacting the whole family.I still don't really know what this 'sanctifying' implies in this verse.

I've never made that connection between the the OT and NT with the change in relation to clean and unclean. Ill need to look into that a little closer. I believe the santifying effect here could be something like what happened to Lot, he was spared because of Abraham , that might be a poor example but wouldn't it be somewhat accurate to say that in the same manner that the Bible says because of my servant David of for my servant David's sake ect.... I'll do this or that.?Or judgement was withheld because of the relationship between thoughs who should be judged and the servant of God?? Just a thought.

I believe the santifying effect here could be something like what happened to Lot, he was spared because of Abraham , that might be a poor example but wouldn't it be somewhat accurate to say that in the same manner that the Bible says because of my servant David of for my servant David's sake ect....I think both of these are excellent. I particularly like 'for David's sake'; one of my favourite thoughts. But what do you think the 'unbelieving spouse or child' is spared from? That is, what 'judgments' do other families come under that are spared to the family with a believer in its midst?

But what do you think the 'unbelieving spouse or child' is spared from? That is, what 'judgments' do other families come under that are spared to the family with a believer in its midst?I think that its along the lines of how many gates are left open in the city through which the enemy can come.

ZekeO posted: I think that its along the lines of how many gates are left open in the city through which the enemy can come.Where does this leave us with else were your children unclean; but now are they holy?children, in this verse, are either 'not-clean' or 'holy'. How would a believer in the family transform 'not clean' children into 'holy' children?

I think the root question is something along the lines of "Are the children of Christians members of the New Covenant?"I once heard someone say "God has no grandchildren", I think that is true.

philologos wrote:children, in this verse, are either 'not-clean' or 'holy'. How would a believer in the family transform 'not clean' children into 'holy' children? Well seeing as we are into theological mathematics. One could logically deduce that one of the parents would have to be born again. ;-)

philologos wrote:

I think the root question is something along the lines of "Are the children of Christians members of the New Covenant?"Is there any other way into the New Covenant than by regeneration?

philologos wrote: children, in this verse, are either 'not-clean' or 'holy'. How would a believer in the family transform 'not clean' children into 'holy' children?ZekeO posted: Well seeing as we are into theological mathematics. One could logically deduce that one of the parents would have to be born again.

Allow me to respond with another pair of questions: Wow Keith, these are some questions! Are we still on the same topic?

Bubbaguy, have you ever heard of John the "Baptist"?

philologos wrote:Wow Keith, these are some questions! Are we still on the same topic?Yes :-) The question (unless I'm mistaken) is whether it is appropriate to baptize the infant children of Christians. My understanding is that all of us in this thread (minus the liberal Quaker) agree that members of the New Covenant should be baptized. Further, I think we have similar agreement that someone who is clearly not a member of the New Covenant should not be baptized. Therefore, as I said earlier, the question is more specifically "Are the infant children of Christians members of the New Covenant?"Your quite understandable response was to ask whether one can enter the New Covenant by any means other than regeneration. Am I correct in assuming that your answer to that, and thus to my earlier question (and thus to the original question), is "no"?So I'm now trying to test your definition of New Covenant membership, first with a question about marriage covenant membership and whether there's such a thing as being an unfaithful member of a marriage covenant (as opposed to not being a member of a marriage covenant at all), and then with an application by analogy as to whether there's such a thing as an unfaithful member of the New Covenant (as opposed to not being a member of the New Covenant at all).The reasoning goes that, if a man who has publicly confessed Christ and is baptized but is not regenerate is not a member of the New Covenant, then he is not obligated to keep that Covenant, and thus he is none the worse off (judicially) for his baptism. It's analogous to saying that an unfaithful husband is no husband at all (which sounds interesting but neglects the facts). It may well be, however, that it is an improper analogy.I'm essentially restating arguments from Douglas Wilson, a Presbyterian who believes in paedobaptism (and paedocommunion for that matter), on the "objectivity of the Covenant." One of his main points there is that public confession of Christ and trinitarian baptism make one a member (in a not-necessarily-salvific sense) of the New Covenant. Therefore such a person is obligated to keep the New Covenant. He also argues that the baptized infants of Christians are members of the New Covenant, but it would be pointless to go into that if you don't buy the idea that it's possible to be an unregenerate (and not-going-to-heaven) Covenant member.Wilson found himself in a fair amount of hot water (no pun intended) for teaching this, but it seems to me that he's got some pretty good arguments. Perhaps more interestingly (to me) it seems that if he's wrong then paedobaptism has to be wrong, which is interesting because most of the people going after him for his take on the Covenant are fellow Presbyterians (fellow paedobaptists).I'm not yet decided on the issue, but where I go on it will probably determine where I go on paedobaptism and paedocommunion.edit- also, I think much of the rancor against Wilson is due to misunderstanding, which is not surprising considering he's advocating that the word "Christian" has more than one meaning: first: "regenerate and going to heaven", second: something along the lines of "person who has publicly confessed Christ and been baptized, and is thus a member of the New Covenant whether or not he's actually regenerate".

Your quite understandable response was to ask whether one can enter the New Covenant by any means other than regeneration. Am I correct in assuming that your answer to that, and thus to my earlier question (and thus to the original question), is "no"?Yes, I mean no, I mean 'yes, you are right in thinking my answer would be that the only way in to the New Covenant would be by regeneration.So I'm now trying to test your definition of New Covenant membership, first with a question about marriage covenant membership and whether there's such a thing as being an unfaithful member of a marriage covenant (as opposed to not being a member of a marriage covenant at all), and then with an application by analogy as to whether there's such a thing as an unfaithful member of the New Covenant (as opposed to not being a member of the New Covenant at all).So the question is can someone leave the New Covenant or behave improperly while being a member of the New Covenant? They are good questions but it does imply that all covenants are the same whereas a covenant can really only be described by its conditions.I'm essentially restating arguments from Douglas Wilson, a Presbyterian who believes in paedobaptism (and paedocommunion for that matter), on the "objectivity of the Covenant." One of his main points there is that public confession of Christ and trinitarian baptism make one a member (in a not-necessarily-salvific sense) of the New Covenant. Therefore such a person is obligated to keep the New Covenant. He also argues that the baptized infants of Christians are members of the New Covenant, but it would be pointless to go into that if you don't buy the idea that it's possible to be an unregenerate (and not-going-to-heaven) Covenant member.The concept of being a member of the New Covenant but not a recipient of salvation strains my credulity. Surely the covenant parties are God and another. How does someone enter the Covenant other than by response to invitation/command?One of his main points there is that public confession of Christ and trinitarian baptism make one a member (in a not-necessarily-salvific sense) of the New Covenant.Would that mean both or either/or. A public confession would surely exclude all but the most precocious infants!edit- also, I think much of the rancor against Wilson is due to misunderstanding, which is not surprising considering he's advocating that the word "Christian" has more than one meaning: first: "regenerate and going to heaven", second: something along the lines of "person who has publicly confessed Christ and been baptized, and is thus a member of the New Covenant whether or not he's actually regenerate".You do mix with some interesting people! I have a lot of sympathy with this particular paragraph but very little with his 'all the responsibilities but none of the benefits' membership of the New Covenant. I think the word Christian is so vague that it is almost impossible to know what anyone means by it. The only biblical synonym would have to be 'disciples' (ie the disciples were called Christians) and that would necessarily mean conscious followers which would exclude infants.I am familiar with the Covenant Theology which is behind his position but do not share it. I think it misunderstands the nature of faith among other things.

From a Quaker perspective, no one can baptise anyone else. Only the Holy Spirit can baptise you. "sprinklings" are nothing but religious feel-good pagentry.Hi JakeI think I can see why Fox and William Booth rejected the outward as being unnecessary if the inward was effective. But the biblical account of Cornelius presents us with someone who had received the Spirit but who was 'commanded' to be baptised. That is the only 'compulsory' baptism in the scripture.With this in mind and the clear commission to 'baptise' from the Risen Christ, I think both Fox, and Booth were mistaken. It is true that only Christ can baptise in the Spirit, but baptism in water has always been a legitimate expression of submission to the claims of Christ.

Brother Ron--- your question was to me very very revealing, almost as if it searched out my inward parts. I gave it alot of prayer and thought and find no satisfactory explaination to that verse , and the commentaries don't seem to much real help. I thought this way and that and I find that to answer one single question really reveals where a person stands theologically. As a matter of fact its so gripped me that I don't seem to be able to get away from it , and will pursue it until I have an answer that at least satisfies my soul and lines up with scripture. I guess my short answer was Noah and the saving of his family, however having thought it through to its finial conclusions that's not sound enough doctrine for me. So you've placed me in a position where I need to spend alot of time and prayer and study on a subject I can't really answer at this time.Thank you for the challenge.

Brother Kieth, I keep this in the same thread line that you and Ron have run. So let me see if I understand what you're saying. In this scripture we'er dealing with One man(just for sake of arguement we'll say he's unsaved---i.e. not born of the spirit) unsaved, married to One woman(a true christian believer born of the spirit of God) and lets just say they have 3 children.So we don't muddy up the waters lets just say both the man and woman are being faithful to each other (because I think Paul quite possibilly could have had someone in mind). Now , as a reault of the womans committment are you saying that the children are under the New Covenant without any of its benefits or provisions? And what about the husband. Ron's question to me was so penetrating because what I heard was this----- What difference is there between children with 2 unsaved parents (non-christian, not born of the spirit of God) and children with at least one saved parent. It's clear, santified. However it has been very very unsettling to me in doctrine because you must allow it to run to its finial conclusions.And I can't seem to bring my mind to a place where I have an adequate understanding of this passage.

Hi Bubbaguy,From a Quaker perspective, no one can baptise anyone else. Only the Holy Spirit can baptise you. "sprinklings" are nothing but religious feel-good pagentry.Once the crucifiction and resurrection had been accomplished, there was no more need of water baptisms. The work was accomplished and thus water baptism became superfluous.Why does Christ say this then?:Matthew 2816Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.17And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Bro. Ron:I think I muddied the waters a bit with the "public confession" part, I think Wilson (and presumably others in the "Federal Vision" or "Auburn Avenue" theological camp, the latter name due to the name of the church where they held a conference that first attracted serious fire upon their position) would say that trinitarian baptism makes one a member of the New Covenant (though not regenerated/saved if one wasn't already), and perhaps he would add that such a baptism is a public confession for a baptizee who knows what he's doing.I have a lot of sympathy with this particular paragraph but very little with his 'all the responsibilities but none of the benefits' membership of the New Covenant.I'm not sure I'd say "none" of the benefits, although the one we primarily think of is missing. I think anyone would have to be thankful to God if they were raised in the teaching and admonition of the Lord, surrounded by a cloud of witnesses, and regularly participating (in some sense) in the communion of the saints. All that light increases their condemnation if they still rebel against God, but it is a blessing all the same even if misappropriated.I may be able to track down a more thorough summary from Douglas Wilson's own work, but here's the summary from a book on the subject (his main book on it, I believe), "'Reformed' is not enough: Recovering the Objectivity of the Covenant":"Membership in the Christian faith is objective—it can be photographed and fingerprinted. In baptism, God names us and imposes gracious obligations upon us. Multitudes of faithless, corrupt Christians show that they do not believe what God said at their baptism. They live like adulterous husbands. But the tragedy is that many conscientious conservative Christians also do not believe what God said at their baptism."Also, while this is obviously built upon Covenant theology, Wilson's stuff has stirred up a lot of opposition even amongst that group. I think much of that is more from misunderstanding than real disagreement, however.Perhaps this will help clarify: If an unregenerate man is baptized, but persists in his rebellion against God, has he incurred any more guilt than before his baptism? If so, what is the nature of that guilt?

Bro. Dohzman:Now , as a reault of the womans committment are you saying that the children are under the New Covenant without any of its benefits or provisions?I think the "objectivity of the Covenant" position would be that the children, if baptized, would be obligated to keep the New Covenant and not necessarily regenerate. As I mentioned above, however, I don't think that equates to them having none of the benefits. Even if it did, however, what exactly is the problem with that?Jake:it would be wrong to tell people they are in any way saved because of their (infant) water baptism; or that water baptism is required for salvation.I agree with that, unless I'm missing something in the statement. I don't think anyone here was advocating baptismal regeneration.

"Membership in the Christian faith is objective—it can be photographed and fingerprinted. In baptism, God names us and imposes gracious obligations upon us. Multitudes of faithless, corrupt Christians show that they do not believe what God said at their baptism. They live like adulterous husbands. But the tragedy is that many conscientious conservative Christians also do not believe what God said at their baptism."Which 'baptism' are we talking about here? Is he saying that at every trinitarian baptism God 'says' something? If so, he is getting very close to the Catholic 'ex opere operata'; where the action generates the grace.I would dispute too the notion of 'membership in the Christian faith'. What can that mean? I understand 'membership of Christ' (I think) and membership of the body which is His church, but what kind of creature is 'the Christian faith' that someone can be a member of it?Perhaps this will help clarify: If an unregenerate man is baptized, but persists in his rebellion against God, has he incurred any more guilt than before his baptism? If so, what is the nature of that guilt?It depends on what he thought his baptism was. Baptism is a two step process; repent and be baptised. If he has not repented and knows he has not repented it is a plain defiance of God's command. The nature of his guilt would be hypocrisy, in that he has acted out a lie. He has said, by his baptism, I surrender to Jesus Christ. If he has not he has lied. I know that it is the usual view to say that the 'unregenerate' should not be baptised, but baptism is a response, rather than a confirmation. It is the response of a good conscience as Peter calls it, but not a human confirmation of regeneration. I know it depends on our understanding of regeneration but Peter's word at Pentecost was repent and be baptised for (with a view to, en route to) remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Spirit.Baptism, rather than 'going to the front' or 'praying the sinners' prayer' was the normal New Testament to the gospel.

"teach" is the operative word here. teach all nations . . . . . Teaching them to observe"the word "baptise" here is used as a metaphor. i.e. submerge them in the teachings of the Lord.what did Jesus command us to observe beyond "Love the Lord with all . . " and "love one another"?essentially He is saying that by teaching these commands we baptize people in Christ.Jake, my friend, this is nonsense! What makes you think that your interpretation is right when the universal testimony of the Acts of the Apostles was that baptism meant baptism? Peter insisted that people who had received the Spirit baptism were baptised in water. Paul baptised believers in Corinth.So Paul and Peter baptised in water and Jake thinks he knows better. I have said it before, this is idolatry. You are worshipping your own intuitions and are not prepared to submit to the truth of God.

But Paulianism and religious ritualism bores the crap out of most people; they sleep in the pews!I don't know why you post in 'scriptures and doctrine' you obviously reject most of the scriptures and your ideas are bizarre. How do you decided which bits of the bible to believe? Don't tell me, I already know .. you agree with the bits that you agree with! Have you ever tried to work out a percentage?You don't believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection. You persist in calling the Spirit an 'it'. You reject Christ's teaching in Matthew, Mark and Luke on His second coming. You reject the Acts of the Apostles because they don't fit into your scheme of things. You reject Paul, you reject the Revelation. You reject the parts of the Old Testament that you can't twist into your own crazy notions. Added to which you believe in reincarnation which is rejected by Hebrews.Jake, in spite of all that you say, you are not a Christian, and I don't regard you as one; neither are you a brother, so I don't call you one. You are a freebootting freethinker, and your adolatry will be the death of you.

Something you might want to at least consider is that the Hebrew believers already had a "christian ethic" but Paul was sent to the gentles to lead them to the truth and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.The gentles at that time for the most part had no idea what christian ethics were since most of the ethical teaching of Christ are rooted in the OT. So basically what Paul did was teach to gentiles what Jesus taught and he used the OT. I might warn you about only one thing,if you spiritualize everything in the bible you will become a hearer and not a doer of the word of God. Very dangerous.

"teach" is the operative word here. teach all nations . . . . . Teaching them to observe"I come to a different conclusion, please tell me how you came to your conclusion, here is how I came to mine:There are 3 commands in verse 19:"Go""Teach""Baptize"If you start to analyse the passage, you start to ask yourself questions, firstly when I read "Go ye therefore" I ask my self "go where?", the answer is in the next bit "and teach all nations" and also in Mark 16:15 - "Go ye into all the world"Next it says "teach all nations", this word for teach is matheteuo which is the verb form of the noun mathetes which means disciple.Then it says "baptizing them", therefore Christ is saying baptize the ones you have been discipling (i.e. the ones who have now become disciples themselves)The next question I ask myself is "what kind of baptism is Christ talking about here?"Well there are a few baptisms in the new testament, firstly we have John the Baptists baptism which was a baptism for repentance (I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance Mat 3:11) which was to prepare the way of the Lord (Mat 3:3) This baptism was performed with water (I indeed baptize you with water Mat 3:11)Secondly we have Christ's baptism which was the cross (But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? Mark 10:38)Thirdly a baptism is mentioned that Christ will accomplish himself - he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire, this is where we are baptized into his baptism (And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized Mark 10:39)Forthly we have the baptism performed by the disciples (When therefore the LORD knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)) This baptism was therefore similar to John's, therefore it must have been with water. You see the pattern here - they made and then baptized disciples.This is the continuation of this baptism that Christ is talking about, this time the disciples will venture out further (into all the world) to perform these baptisms. Christ says "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost", i.e. baptizing them into the authority of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.We then have verse 20 - Teaching the word for teaching this time is didasko which means:1) to teach 1a) to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them, deliver didactic discourses 1b) to be a teacher 1c) to discharge the office of a teacher, conduct one’s self as a teacher 2) to teach one 2a) to impart instruction 2b) instill doctrine into one 2c) the thing taught or enjoined 2d) to explain or expound a thing 2f) to teach one somethingthem i.e. the ones who have already been made disciples, to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you i.e. not teaching them unto salvation but unto santification.In summation, Christ is saying this:Therefore [because all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth] go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them [in water] into the authority of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost [to publically declare that they belong to me].essentially He is saying that by teaching these commands we baptize people in Christ.You don't really mean this...do you?

Jake says: We have to sort out the differences in order to get at what Jesus really meant. The 'we' is just your arrogance speaking. Man will be judged by the revelation of God in the Scripture, not the other way around.Your views are self-centred and non-Christian. The choice really is 'Jake says' or 'The Bible says'. I know which one I am prepared to stake my eternity on!

He did not require our participation in any formal religious rituals such as communion or water baptism. Yes, Jesus did. He explicitly commanded the observance of communion at the Last Supper. He himself received water baptism by John the Baptist, and he also explicitly commanded that disciples be baptised in Matt 28--of which almost all Christians throughout history understood as water baptism. The Quakers and Salvation Army may have understood "baptism" at a more spiritual level, but they did not go as far as making the false claim you've made in declaring that Jesus did not require communion or baptism.And contrary to what you think, Jesus in the Gospels clearly presupposed the authority of Scripture and the belief in resurrection, not reincarnation.Moreover, it is true that there are much interpretations that are matters of opinion. But there are also core beliefs that are matters of conviction. "Opinion is that which you hold on to. Conviction is that which holds on to you." Truth matters in the Christian faith.

He did not require our participation in any formal religious rituals such as communion or water baptism. I did not say Jesus require communion and water baptism in order to be saved. All I said is that Jesus commanded his disciples to observe communion and baptism.I am not talking about salvation here at all, all I am saying is that to contradict Jesus' explicit commands is obviously wrong and that this is by no means merely a matter of opinion. Like it or not, it is the Lord's command.

But, my beliefs fit squarely within the realm of Christianity. I am not asking how you live but what you believe.How many of these can you tick?1. Jesus Christ is the unique Son of God uniquely born by virgin conception.2. Jesus Christ rose physically from the dead and was seen to ascend physically into heaven.3. The Holy Spirit is a Person within the Godhead, coequal with the Father and the Son.4. Jesus Christ will return to earth physically as He was seen to ascent into heaven.5. Jesus Christ died in penal substitution for the sins of the world.6. Salvation is by grace through faith and receives no contribution in the good works of the recipient.7. All scripture is God breathed.Then we have to ask what percentage of the Bible do you have any faith in at all? I know that you reject Paul's authority, given by the Risen Christ. I know you reject the Revelation. I know you reject anything which does not pass your test of personal rationality.Your beliefs do not fit squarely within the realm of Christianity. What you mean is you have redefined Christianity so that it fits squarely within the belief system of Jake. This is not Christianity; it is Jakeism.

so in essence you are saying not all scripture is profitable? and those that wrote it were in the spirt at some times and then in the flesh at others? If that is so how can you even belive that Matthew Mark Luke and John didn't misquote Jesus?

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Do you belive this scripture? If so then what does all scripture mean? If you belive its not the entire Bible then what is it then?

(And how many versions of the Bible are there!? are they all correct!?)There are many translations.. the translations are not inspired scripture.. the originally greek/hebrew is. I dont know of any english translations that are purfect or show the entire meaning of the words. If I could read/write in koin greek and hebrew i would probably not read the english... but I can study the greek and hebrew and see the best translationIf you have Faith, you won't need an Infallible Bible to prop it up.Where according to you does faith come from? I know what Paul said but I'm guessing you dont aggree?Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. maybe the question to ask you is where does the word of God come from? Are all quakers belive like this? I dont know alot about the quakers...

I edited the last post... please respond the the rest

If a modern day person said any such thing, would you believe them to be infallible? Yes if a modern man said "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." I would shout AMEN.

We have been given the reasoning skills and spiritual sensitivities to determine the Truth of the Living God in this day and age, if we are willing to wait upon the Lord.In other words you are not prepared to say 'yes', without prevarication, to a single one of points on the list. This is not Christianity, this is Jakeism.

Are all quakers belive like this? I dont know alot about the quakers...No, they don't, but many increasingly have cut their moorings in the scriptures and have drifted far from the faith of their fathers. George Fox and Robert Barclay would be horrified to hear Jake. There is almost nothing in common between the original Quakers and Jake's position.

Ps138:2“For thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” The word of promise made to David was in his eyes more glorious than all else that he had seen of the Most High. Revelation excels creation in the clearness, definiteness, and fulness of its teaching. The name of the Lord in nature is not so easily read as in the Scriptures, which are a revelation in human language, specially adapted to the human mind, treating of human need, and of a Saviour who appeared in human nature to redeem humanity. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but the divine word will not pass away, and in this respect especially it has a pre-eminence over every other form of manifestation. Moreover, the Lord lays all the rest of his name under tribute to his word: his wisdom, power, love, and all his other attributes combine to carry out his word. It is his word which creates, sustains, quickens, enlightens, and comforts. As a word of command it is supreme; and in the person of the incarnate Word it is set above all the works of God's hands. The sentence in the text is wonderfully full of meaning. We have collected a vast mass of literature upon it, but space will not allow us to put it all into our notes. Let us adore the Lord who has spoken to us by his word, and by his Son; and in the presence of unbelievers let us both praise his holy name and extol his holy word.

I haven't been able to read all of this thread but if you don't mind I do have a couple of questions/comments on the topic. In a lot of churches in the Southern Baptist Convention we'll continually rebaptise folks when they feel like they are "really" saved. Luther said stick with your baptism. Edwards,Knox,Whitfield, and Wesley as well as most of the Puritans baptised infants. While some folks may have written some good books recently I believe the aforementioned men probably knew the God of the Word far better than most of us. I think AA Hodge in a commentary on the Westminster Confession draws a distinction between John the Baptist's baptism, as he was the last of the Old Testament prophets,and the baptism commanded to those of the New Covenant. Paul said I came to preach the Gospel not to baptise. At any rate, I am only putting out a few thoughts for discussion. Thank you all.

When the Lord (the Holy Spirit proclaimed by Jesus) visits upon a member of the meeting and gives them a message for the Meeting, that person stands, and addresses the Meeting with this message. (The speaker addresses the Meeting from the Source we call the "Light Within".)Of course, this could just as easily be said of occultists. They too await 'visitations'. It could just as easily be said of any group of God's people who 'wait upon the Lord', except that Christians, like George Fox (the founder of Quakerism), know that there is a corroborating external witness too; the inerrant scriptures. For people like Fox who were saturated in the scriptures the constraints of scripture worked upon them subconsciously as well as consciously. Fox's instinct was to confirm his words or actions by the scripture. Jesus was the same. Jesus and Fox were solidly Bible based. Jakeism on the other hand has no such confidence in the scriptures. Whereas Jesus and Fox used the Bible to corroborate what they were saying, Jake-ists only accept the scripture when it corroborates their impressions. Christian's corroborate or reject their experience from the scriptures; Jake-ists corroborate or reject the scriptures from their experience. Christians constantly check their experience from the scriptures; Jake-ists will only accept the scriptures which agree with their experience. For the Christian the final court of judgement is the scripture, for the Jake-ist the final court of judgement is their own rationanality.The kind of Quakerism or Jakeism being set forth here is an insult to the early Quakers. Jakeism has become more and more nebulous now that it is adrift from the Bible. Jake-ists aren't interested in what the Bible has to say about homosexual activity; they know better. They are not really interested in the Bible at all, except as the testimony of people like themselves. The Bible consequently is not the Word of God, but th testimony of some who have heard the Word of God. Just as a witness may be mistaken so Jake-ists believe the witness of the men who wrote the scriptures is mistaken. How can you check which is which? Simply if it agrees with what you think, accept it. If not, spit it out. Some Jake-ists have simply absorbed simple paganism as in the way that Jake has adopted a belief in re-incarnation. The scriptures' testimony against re-incarnation is simply rejected; Jake-ists know better. The possibility of demonic deception of course cannot be considered because Jake-ists think demons are the 'hollywood' kind with spinning heads. The arch-deceiver himself, who Christ and Fox believed to be a real spirit-person does not exist for Jake-ists, because their real god is their rationality and anything non-rational is thereby eliminated from the possible.Jake-ists don't realise that both the HOly Spirit and other spirits can synchronise thoughts and events. How could they; they have eliminated the concept of spiritually evil beings so anything out of the ordinary has to be from the Holy Spirit? Jake-ists are easily duped by coincidental things.Jake-ists do not really believe in Christ as Saviour but as Example. We save ourselves by following Christ's example, according to Jake-ists. Jake-ists do not believe that the death of Christ averted the wrath of God; they believe they must avert it with their own righteousness. Although, in our Jake's case, you will get as many reincarnations as you need until you get it right.There is an old English phrase which I used often in my past confrontations with Jakes. A man had purchased a tailor-made suit and had gone for a fitting. The suit showed no sign of having been fashioned with the customer in mind. The tailor encouraged his customer by saying 'very good sir, it fits where it touches'. Jake-ism is Christianity in the same way, 'it fits, only where it touches'. Jake-ism is not Christianity, it is what is known as syncretism... pick and mix designer religion. Jake is, of course, at liberty to believe all this nonsense, but I trust none of the readers of these posts is in any doubt as to the real nature of Jakeism... it is an arrogant tower of Bible built with man's energy, reaching for the skies. It is already under God's abiding condemnation.

Don't know enough theology to add, but my whole understanding of the NT is summed in this verse in 1 Tim 3:14,15 :Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. If we live by the spirit, which indeed we do, how do we know that which emminates from ourselves and what comes from God. We need some sort of compass, map, guide to keep us from straying off the path.

know that there is a corroborating external witness too; the inerrant scripturesWe have a cliche here in Missouri; "The Spirit and the Word agree." C. Finney made the statement once in a lecture he did on the conscience and the Word being in agreement. His text was II Corinthians 4:2:"By manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (II Corinthians 4:2.)The Bible and the human conscience are at one, and entirely agree in all their moral decisions and teachings. This fact proves conclusively that they both come from the same author.Beginning with our text, I ask, what can Paul mean in saying that, by manifestation of the truth, he commends himself to every man's conscience? Obviously this -- that by exhibiting to men the great truths of the gospel and of the law, he made his appeal to every man's conscience in a way and with sentiments that enforced each man's approval. The truth commended itself as truth; the claims of duty, as right. No man who understood this truth could doubt its evidence; none who understood its moral claims could dispute those claims.

Ron, I tremble and am fearful for your soul. Saying that the Light of God is a demon is to blaspheme against the Holy Ghost.No Jake, Ron is saying that what you think is the light of God, is not the light of God.Jake, why do you think you have it right, when all the other writers of the New Testament disagree with you?What makes you right and them wrong?Surely you must agree that either they are wrong or you are wrong?

A couple of verses to think about:Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.Everything that is considered or thought to be from God that does not line up with the Word of God "the Bible" then it must be considered not from God but from another that is not of God.Mt 6:23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!I'm not trying to be offensive to you Jake, but if the things that you believe are contradicted by the Bible, then I would have to discern from scripture that the the inner light which you talk about is really darkness according to what Jesus said in Matthew 6:23.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

Ron, I tremble and am fearful for your soul. Saying that the Light of God is a demon is to blaspheme against the Holy Ghost.Why should this worry you? Do you believe in demons? Do you believe in the person of the Holy Spirit?

"WHERE EVER TWO OR MORE ARE GATHERED IN MY NAME,I AM WITH YOU" MATTHEW 18:20This means to be under the authority, the Name of Jesus Christ. He prayed "Neither pray I for them alone (the disciples) but for them also which shall believe on me through their word" John 17Tell me Jake, Do you believe 'on Christ, through their word' or through your own intuitions? You do not believe in the Christ of the gospels. You believe in a Christ of your own making; this is idolatry.For your information, there is much in the New Testament that I completely agree with. But in the days it was (spoken) and then written people thought the world was flat (including, presumably, all of the Apostles). They were wrong. They thought diseases were caused by demons in those days, as well. We know better now. Most of your 'presumptions' are just that; presumptions. You have no evidence for saying that the disciples thought the world was flat.They did not believe that diseases were caused by demons; per se. When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: (Mat 8:16 KJV) You will see that they were well able to distinguish between conditions caused by sickness and those caused by demonic activity. You have, and still are, rejecting the testimony of Christ Himself.The Bible is a wonderful gift given to Mankind. You have made it into a ball and chain by expecting (demanding) it to be perfect, when it clearly is not. You have made it into a paltry mixture of truth and error.

Reincarnation does not go against Christianity in any way.Can you please give some scriptural references for that position? Suppose you can't use scripture if it is so untrustworthy, but please humour me.Some interesting questions. How do you know what goes against Christianity? What is your standard for measuring absoluteness? The company of saints all in agreement?Everything on this planet that needs maintenance has a manual.

The Bible is a wonderful gift given to Mankind. You have made it into a ball and chain by expecting (demanding) it to be perfect, when it clearly is not.I heard an old quote in a video once that I found:"When the French monarch proposed the persecution of Christians in his dominion, an old statesman and warrior said to him, 'Sire, the church of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.' So the hammers of infidels have been pecking away at this book for ages, but the hammers are worn out, and the anvil still endures. If this book had not been the book of God, men would have destroyed it long ago. Emperors and popes, kings and priests, princes and rulers have all tried their hand at it; they die and the book still lives."Scripture is infallible in it's original tongues. God has watched over His word for thousands of years to ensure that man had an accurate revelation of 4 main things:1) God's revelation of Himself2) God's revelation of His will3) God's revelation of man's condition4) God's answer to man's conditionSince I was Spirit filled I have tried to live by a three point axiom:A) Without a revelation of God you will not reverence GodB) Without reverence for God you cannot worship GodC) Without a life of worship you cannot know the presence of God (because the Temple is a house of worship)God's will IS God's word. God's word is the primary source of all revelation concerning God. The conscience bears witness to this fact. The multiplied proofs for the infallibility of scripture prove this fact. It is the devil's job to convince man that God did not say what he said. This is another axiom:1) The enemy will undermine what God said. IF the enemy cannot do that he will:2) Undermine the penalty for the crime. IF he cannot do that he will:3) Cause the offender to feel the punishment is way distant in the future.These are among the devils divices and whiles. Every jot is God's word.

I have to challenge all of you on this issue. Read the book listed below and you will understand that reincarnation is real.The author is a noted Washington Post reporter and scholar. He was a complete skeptic before researching this book.Of course, if you believed in demons who have age-enduring lives you might begin to understand where the historical 'evidence' is really coming from. All you need for such 'historical evidence' is an eye witness who was 'there' on the occasion.The fact is that when people reject the authoratitive revelation of God in the scripture, they swing to one of two extremes, they either believe 'nothing at all' or they believe 'anything at all'. You are adrift Jake, without map or compass.

You have no evidence for saying that the disciples thought the world was flat.This is an old one. Isaiah said God sits on the circle of the earth and Job said that God hung it upon nothing. God was saying that by inspiration while the heathen thought the earth was flat.

I believe your right in reguards to infant baptism, its basically nothing. I would mention though even as much as I stress the obedience to the Word of God to the hears , that obedience cannot be accomplished without the regenerational work of the Holy Spirit and that through faith. We still fall far short of obedience and so our salvation still rests in our identification with Jesus Christ and that through faith in Him only.

Do quarkers even test and try the spirit to see if it be of God? and how can you if you don't rely upon the scripture?Rember line upon line precept upon precept here a little there a little?I believe that's in the word. I don't mean to be unspiritual but basically walking in the spirit is the doing of God's word in a pratical expression in our daily lives. Rember Jesus' parable of the 2 builders of houses? in that he placed great importance on his word and the doing of it. Last I checked the mosaic text of the hebrew scripture was numerically perfect, a claim that no other book in history has been able to make, most credible scholars place the erancy of the bible at around 2-3 % and the errors don't have any bearing on any major doctrines of the church. So to undermine the importance of scripture is a big mistake.

well now that's incouraging, a book written by a liberal DC area journaralist who I'm sure has never even darkened the prophetic pages of scripture which has yet to be wrong in a single prediction over several thousand years and counting. It amazes me how quick cultists quote the scripture when it suits thier purposes , to the neglect of the rest of scripture,Test the spirit and see if it be of God, now why would The Holy Spirit be offended at the pracitcal application on something he told us we should do?answer--he wouldn't. God delights to show Himself his children who honestly seek him---Rember Jeremiah who accused God of tricking him? God turned and blessed him for his honesty. If the written word of God isn't central in our lives the God of the Word isn't central , and that is idolatry.

For your information, there is much in the New Testament that I completely agree with.Jake, if there is much of the NT you disagree with, and "much" you agree with, why do you use it?You are your own judge of the things that are written in the book so why is there any need for you to read it?But in the days it was (spoken) and then written people thought the world was flat (including, presumably, all of the Apostles).Isaiah 40:22It is he that sitteth upon the circle [khoog - sphere] of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:We have been given discerning minds for a reason. We are expected to use them, and not walk lockstep with rigid conformity to literalism.Jake, are you saying that nothing in the bible is to be taken literally?

Ron's dismissal of "Old Souls" without any examination is exactly what I expected. Such arrogance is rarely seen, except when insecure people are threatened with reality.Do you think Shroder's thesis is a new idea? If your 'witness' to my character is as accurate here as in the rest of your life you are in deep trouble.Do quarkers even test and try the spirit to see if it be of God?It is wrong to put the Holy Spirit to the test. You should know this.Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. (1Jo 4:1 KJV)But then that's probably another bit you don't believe in.

Jake, if I go to one "group" and they have a "visitation" which they say is the the Holy Spirit and this spirit says that x=1, what happens if I go to another "group" and they have a "visitation" which they say is the the Holy Spirit and this spirit says that x=2?Who do I believe?

There's a big difference between putting God to the test and testing against the Word of God those who claim to speak for Him.

Do quarkers even test and try the spirit to see if it be of God?I think it is important to reiterate my point that we are not discussing Quakerism here, but Jakeism. Jake is not representative of the Quakerism of George Fox and Robert Barclay. George Fox endorsed Robert Barclay, but Jake denegrates him.Jake is an 'unprogrammed Quaker' which means their meetings are open to the moving of the Spirit rather than following a prescribed service. In the UK most Quaker meetings are unprogrammed. My understanding is that most 'programmed Quakers' would have a greater sympathy with the evangelical position than does Jake.Orange County Friends Meeting is unprogrammed and has this explanation on its website.Outward differences in worship style mirror inward differences in belief and religious practice. Programmed meetings tend to profess an evangelical, Christ-centered message based on an infallible Bible; unprogrammed meetings tend away from these things. Unprogrammed meetings are often called liberal, unprogrammed conservative. This is probably a fair characterization if you're willing to overlook a lot of details, but is probably a mistake. The issue is complex.This acknowledge, by a unprogrammed Quaker meeting is very plain in that such groups 'tend away from' 'an evangelical, Christ-centred message based on an infallible Bible.'So there has been a double dividing of the ways in modern Quakerism. They have split on the pattern of worship and on fundamental authority. The George Fox Quakers would have been 'unprogrammed' in their meetings but professing an evangelical, Christ-centered message based on an infallible Bible.The real spirit of Quakerism which you can read in the Journal of George Fox was very different from the modern decadence. They confessed the incarnate Son of God, virgin born, crucified, dead and raised. I have not just picked that point out of the hat. The full quotation of which I quoted part reads; Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; (1Jo 4:1-2 NASB) The phrase 'come in the flesh' is a clear pointer to Christ's existence as God's unique Son before His incarnation. This is not rational for Jake so he will tell you it's not important to him. What he means is that he can't believe it.So you have a 'spirit' leading Jake which will not confess that Jesus Christ 'came' in the flesh. It is hardly surprising that Jake is not willing to 'test' it by this criterion.

In my case, as in many others, this characterization is not accurate, AND the text says so, but Ron conveniently overlooks this in order to distort and denigrate my beliefs.If I had wanted to distort I would have omitted it. This is why I gave the URL so that peopel could check it out. Your accusation that I endeavoured to distort is quite wrong. God is my witness.Ron, you are putting words in my mouth, and they are a lie. I freely confess that Jesus is Christ, Son of God, and you have known this for some time now. Moreover, it is a mystery that I accept; I know that I will never fully understand it.I know that you are happy with this form of words but I know that you are unhappy to say that God came into flesh by incarnation. You believe, I suspect, that He attained to godness but virtue of his life. Let me hear you say 'I believe that Jesus Christ is God become flesh' (not man become God, but God become man)I depend upon His promise to be available to us in the Here and Now through the presence of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, this presence is TRUTHFUL and is not to be tested, as Jesus pointed out. It is to be followed.His promise was not made to you, Jake. It was made to those who believed on him through the testimony of his disciples. That testimony is enshrined in the scriptures infallibly. You cannot reject their testimony and accept their Master.

"but I know that you are unhappy to say that God came into flesh by incarnation."Wrong, again. Jesus was God incarnate."His promise was not made to you, Jake."Another astonishing lie from Ron.I notice you still haven't used my words. Tell me Jake, do you believe that God became a man in the person of Jesus Christ through virgin conception? Let me hear you say 'I believe that Jesus Christ is God become flesh' (not man become God, but God become man)His promises are all specific and conditional. If you will not accept the testimony of His witnesses how can you claim His promises?

There are exercisies we must apply to spiritual gifts and to thoughs who make claim of being used in such.Where in the Bible(ie. Torah, Septugent) ,teaching of Christ or Oral tradition passed down through the centuaries is the testing of spiritual giftings prohibited. The spiritual man judges all things.In Matt 4:7 we see here that Jesus uses your illistration against satan but in the context of seeing if God will perform His word inorder to validate something Jesus already knew to be true. It is of interest to me That Jesus quotes scripture and seems to really enjoy the Book of Deut. Or the second rendering of the Law. From the begining instruction was given to test the words we hear or the spiritual things -- Deut.13:1-5 and so it follows through out scripture. If its from God the Holy Spirit He will in no way be offended if we seek to do right in testing that which has been recieved,I dare say He will no doubt reward us for our diligence as those who seek Him with an honest heart to know of a certainity the Things of the Spirit. To do other wise would be to show in some measure spiritual laziness , and open our selves up to deceptions of various sorts.I believe exercise is good for the body of Christ 1Cor 14:29-32 and must be applied at all times, no exceptions! Other wise we become blind leaders of the blind a most pitiful state and one which niether glorifies Jesus Christ or moves with His Power.

This has been interesting to me since its not to often I've seen the application of this word used in its literal sense, where confession of Jesus Christ as messiah- eternal God come in the flesh through the virgin birth , applied.That is in trying to get someone to confess it.BTW -As I was in prayer today, Ron , I was impressed to lift you up for prayer as well as the others here in on SI but you mostly as one who would be found faithful in the defense of the gospel and the integrity of God's Word.I found that interesting as I normally just pray in general for all of you but The Lord laid some specifics on my heart this time.I had a sensing of one who stood in protection over something.Just thought I'd mention that.

Jake, if I go to one "group" and they have a "visitation" which they say is the the Holy Spirit and this spirit says that x=1, what happens if I go to another "group" and they have a "visitation" which they say is the the Holy Spirit and this spirit says that x=2?Who do I believe?

I don't understand, can you expand on this please?

The trouble with hearing in this manner is totally dependent upon the personal holiness and seperateness of the individual and then there's no real judgement of the message . Here's an example: Some time ago the charismatic movement was using the angels announcement to Mary and her response (be it unto me as you have spoken--Luke 1:38)as a launching pad for false doctrine.I believe some of the word of faith teachers took hold of it also.They claimed that Mary's acceptance of the angels announcement made God's proclaimation true.BIG ERROR-- Note God is Soverien this false doctrine circulated because they wanted to interpet a section of scripture," being enlightened" , apart from the whole of the bible.Generally speaking this is the type false doctrine that comes when there is no standard of doctrine to measure against.In Acts The Bereans were more noble because they searched diligently to see if the things Paul taught were true.ACTS17:10-11 I supose the real question is do you want to be more noble or not?And if you don't believe the Word of God as infallible to begin with then there can be no real reasoning together.

dear brother,

The thing about baptisms, just follow Christ's example, and you will be safe?

In love