Hello, Steve. I do not think you and I have a disagreement (you were responding to Jack), but I would take issue with some of your examples. Thus, you use the example of Annanias and Paul and ask: "Did Paul demonstrate to Annanais any credible repentance or confession?" Surely this example does not assist us, Annanias had a command from God regarding Paul. We do not get those commands these days. Paul did not need to be "credible," because God was credible. :) Second, you refer to the example of Cornelius and note: "I suspect not many of us would consider magnifying God via speaking in tongues (even if REAL languages) as credible evidence...but Peter did, and once again the 'period' involved was a single sermon to these folks." Again, this is not an example useful for us. The gift of tongues in that manner *was* proof of regeneration and filling at that time, so that Peter acted properly. It is not proof now, so the fact that we would not count it "credible evidence" now is irrelevant. At the time, it was credible and was relied upon. In fact, you will note that (in that case) it was not mere expression of belief that led to baptism, but belief coupled with evidence of actual conversion. The example cuts against you more than for you. In regard to Christ's commission, you write: "Finally, doesn't Christ imply that baptism with disbelief results in condemnation?" I see nothing in the text that suggests that baptism "facilitates" condemnation. You properly note: "and if they express belief, we baptize," but this is my whole point. What constitutes an "expression of belief"? There must be some indicia of credibility in regard to the words used. We would not baptize a man who expressed belief with words while his body language signaled sarcasm, nor would we baptize someone who expressed belief while giggling or while intoxicated. There must be some threshold level of determination as to credibility. However, as I note, we do not really disagree, I think, in regard to baptismal classes. James W. Allen jallen@...