I figured someone would say 'Paul is unique', but the point is that Paul
didn't need to demonstrate even for himself some action other than belief in
Christ enough to want to be cleansed by His blood.  He didn't have to be
taught and tested first, which is extremely consistent in all of the
scriptural examples.

Regarding the tongues credibility, the point is not whether tongues is the
evidence or something else is the evidence today, the point is that after
one sermon, a large group demonstrated simple faith and were baptized
without a lot of individual scrutiny, delay, or skeptical investigation and
more complicated theological training prior to their immersion into Christ.
They showed basic faith, and were baptized.

You're right, I think we do agree.
The 'evidence' is belief, not words.  If a man says the words in a way that
indicates belief, and really wants to be cleansed, that's enough.  If he's
being sarcastic or drunk about it, he's already resisting it rather than
pursuing it anyway, and not a single example in scripture forces or coerces
the person into baptism.

Overall what I got from reading the scriptural accounts is that we aren't
given the job of protecting the lost from making false confessions.

We are given the job of:

A) Proclaiming Christ
B) Baptizing those expressing simple faith and desire to be cleansed
C) Discipling the baptized with solid, biblical, lengthy instruction ('all
that he commanded us') afterward - this is where the genuineness is proven
or falsehood exposed.
D) Not even eating with them if their life of sin continues unchanged
E) Exercising appropriate discipline when they are unrepentant

We are workers in the kingdom, not guards of the gate.  (and it is our
understanding of sovereignty that allows us to be at peace with this)

God allows fakes to enter the church, and in his own time-spanning way deals
with them.
What we fail at most is obeying our role within the church as God works it
out.  We try to be gate guards at step B so we don't have to obey our call
to steps C, D and E.

Why is it we always want to improve upon God's plan?

Grace brother,
Steve


-----Original Message-----
From: James W. Allen [mailto:jallen@...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 6:39 AM
To: soundofgrace@...
Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Re: Baptism - Jack to Jeff


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@...

--
Read the Sound of Grace pages at
http://www.soundofgrace.com

To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...

To view our online archive go to our web page at
http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace