[…] And that is exactly right. The Bible speaks of baptism in many ways (here’s my meditation on one of them) but never as a public witness of one’s faith. I often wondered where that came from and after reading Smith, I felt like I should have slapped my forehead and said, “Yea. Of course!” […]

You say, ” Baptism is an identification rather than salvation. ” yet 1 Pet 3:21 says baptism now saves you. And doesn’t it seem pretty clear that if we have been buried with Him in the likeness of His death that we will be raised with Him? And if that’s true, the opposite would have to be true. If we have not been buried in baptism (in the likeness of His death) we will not be raised with Him. Many today are trying to say that baptism is a sign or demontrastion to those around us of our salvation. I think the Bible makes it clear that it is a participation in His death, burial and resurrection. Your thoughts?

I don’t necessarily follow your syllogism. For example, the thief on the cross was not baptized and yet Jesus promised that he’d be in heaven. A possible explanation for that might be that the thief died the same kind of death Jesus did and so that counts. I’m assuming that’s where you’ll go because you said “in the likeness of His death”. And yet there were thousands of Christians crucified in the first century so why bother baptizing them if they’re going to be crucified?

No, there are a number of other texts that argue against baptism = salvation. I think immediately of Cornealus and his household. They received the Spirit before baptism. And in Acts 8 the Spirit had not yet fallen on the disciples yet they were baptized in Jesus name (8:16).

There are many other texts that discuss baptism and the issue is a complicated one. Instead of taking 1Pt 3:21 as the paradigm and then reading all the other texts in light of it, I recommend looking at them all, including Acts, as well as asking how one is saved. Then come up with a doctrine of baptism.

“Baptism now saves you!” I believe that these words can stand on their own merit without needing other Scriptural passages to make “Reformation Christians” feel “justified!” It’s in the Scripture, so live with it. What about the other passages in the New Testament which talk about whole households being baptized – gasp! – could they include small or infant children? Apparently! Whether Baptism begins at infancy or in the waning years – Baptism was a ritual which, through the symbol of water (meaning birth, life, cleansing, refreshment unto death and back to life) was carried into the Christian tradition from Judiasm. As long as we understand that Baptism grants us entrance into God’s kingdom, it also reminds us that each day of our lives, we are constantly reminded whose children we are, whose brothers and sisters we are and how we were redeemed by Christ’s blood through his teaching, suffering, death, resurrection and ascension. We must remember that Baptism is a lifetime road to God, filled with valleys, ruts, winding roads and mountains. Isaish reminds us that all of these will become the highway to God in anticipation of the One who could come to bring Salvation to the world. Didn’t Jesus say “Go ye therefore and Baptize…” How awesome and exciting!

Thanks for posting Steve. This looks like a drive-by comment so I doubt you’ll be back but I think I’ll reply anyway. It is my blog so I get the final word. If I want it. :)

The Bible also says Judas “hanged himself” (Matt 27:5), “Go, and do thou likewise” (Luke 10:37) and “That thou doest, do quickly.” (John 13:27) Those verses stand on their own pretty well don’t you think? Of course not. The Bible isn’t a gathering of random sayings like the Quoran, it is a collection of books. You cannot ignore the context.

As I said in my post “baptism now saves you” is in a context and the phrase “corresponding to this” means that the phrase cannot stand on its own. Period. It corresponds to something else.

And no, Jesus didn’t say “go and baptize.” The command is to make disciples. The rest of the commands, “go”, “baptize” and teach hang on the command to make disciples.

Just a quick observation: The passage says baptism corresponds to the “days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, EIGHT SOULS were saved by water.” It does not refer to Noah personally. You are making a mistake there. You are misconstruing the correlation. The correspondence is not between an appeal and Noah. Rather it is between the temporal salvation of Noah’s family by water and eternal salvation by water. Noah went through a temporal baptism, ours is an eternal baptism. Why? Not because it takes dirt off, but because BAPTISM is an appeal to God. I think the crux of it is where you maintain that Baptism is an identification RATHER than salvation. That is NOT in the text. Baptism saves BECAUSE it is an appeal and an identification.

Seems to me that you are advocating a works righteousness. Your emphasis is upon Noah’s act of getting into the ark which you say saved him, rather than the work of God which saved Noah by water.

I should also add that the idea that Baptism saves in no way conflicts with the idea that we are saved by faith alone. Any more than it the notion that Noah was saved by water conflicts with it.

Hey who am I to argue with a Church Father! :) Thanks for posting, obviously I don’t agree and stand but what I’ve said but I am glad you commented.

I expect a little more effort than that cop-out!

:-)

Sorry, I didn’t know if you were just a drive-by commenter or ready to discuss. I mean, you’re from Africa and so many centuries away! :)

I think you make some valid points about this verse and I do need to fit them into an overall Biblical picture of baptism. However, what I don’t see in that overall Biblical picture is your foundational premise of baptism being faith. I see people come to faith and then be baptized (Cornelius, Philippian Jailer, Ethiopian eunich, etc.) but I don’t see anything saying that it was faith.

Could you be a little clearer. I am not sure what you mean by “baptism being faith”. I don’t believe I ever said that baptism was faith.

I inferred it a bit. You’d said “eternal salvation by water” and “Baptism saves in no way conflicts with the idea that we are saved by faith alone”. If we are eternally saved sola fide and we are eternally saved by baptism then baptism must equal faith or we have to drop the sola. Or did I read too much into what you said?

I think the question that has been raised of whether or not baptism provides salvation is a little misguided. If the initial question is a little off, then the attempts to answer it are going to end up being a bit confused as well.

It is made clear that Christians are indeed supposed to be baptised. It was part of Jesus’s final command to us in Matthew 28:19-20, when he said “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you”.

The verse in question, 1 Peter 3:21, appeals to salvation through Christ when it says “through the resurrection of Christ Jesus”. So then, the original question of whether baptism provides salvation is unneccessary. Attempting to answer it becomes a frivolous exercise, as the answer bears no weight on what we as Christians are supposed to do as described in Matthew 28. He’s the one from whom salvation comes in the first place, regardless of the specific actions that we take.

Buried in the likeness… the likeness is the death of our old sinning man, raised again in newness of life. It symbolizes our death to sin.

Tim, it’s Steve and I’m on your blog again. I do come to your blog occasionally and not just for a “drive by,” though it may have seemed like it. I appreciate your insight into “Baptism now saves you.” Though I know what you’re trying to say, I believe that Peter is talking about Baptism from many levels – from Old Testament examples, transforming into its New Testament incarnation. I believe that Peter in this instance, is teaching the Church about Baptism in both specific and general terms – pointing always to the redemption of the world through Our Lord, Jesus Christ. Matthew spoke in 28:19 in a way that is similar to Peter, Matthew this time quotes Jesus the teacher, who in essence said “go and do likewise.” Go and make disciples and then in doing so, go and Baptize. I believe that Matthew’s words are clear, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (NIV) You can’t just stop at Jesus making disciples. His command is a two-fold command…go and make disciples AND go and baptize.
I don’t know how your comment on Judas hanging himself or being “excused” from the last supper in any way, is similar. Judas killed himself…period. Judas went and betrayed his Savior….period. Judas’ actions were self-inflicted actions. His being dismissed from the last supper to betray Jesus, was not a command performance but an acknowledgment by Jesus of what was about to take place. If I were a good Calvinist, at this time I would say that he was “predestined” to betray Jesus, and leave it at that.
I guess that we will have to simply agree to disagree and that someday meet in heaven and continue to discuss your blog, but in person. I wish you well Tim. You have many thought provoking responses on your blog. All we need to focus on is that Jesus is Lord…

Welcome back Steve! I’m really happy this wasn’t a drive by comment. So many are and that’s too bad because we miss the opportunity to talk. The internet can be so de-personalizing.

I appreciate your comment. It sounds much less like drive-by commenting. :) Baptism doesn’t sit in an isolated context in this specific passage. It is most certainly in a Biblical context that we’re fools to ignore. But I don’t think it is fair to Peter or his original audience if you start with the broader context instead of the immediate. And again, I’m going to insist that the words “corresponding to this” must be taken into consideration when interpreting “baptism now saves you.”

Granted, my Judas example was a throwaway comment, but hey, I didn’t think you’d be back! :) Let me try another, a better example. Imagine if we set aside the phrase “Now this may be interpreted allegorically” in Galatians 4:24 and then went on to interpret the rest of the chapter in a literal sense? We’d miss Paul’s point and come up with some weird ideas of covenants. An extreme example but I’m trying to make a point. We have to read the entire thought and not just the parts that support our theology. Our theology must bow to the authority of Scripture. Amen!

Finally, let me repeat, the command in the Great Commission is not “go” but “make disciples”. That means that you have to go in order to make disciples of all nations. And the two things that go into making disciples is baptizing them and teaching them. Everything in that sentence hangs on the command to make disciples. It isn’t a command to go nor teach nor to baptize. Those things are part of the disciplemaking processes.

Hope to hear from you again Steve! These kinds of interactions are good for us as they help sharpen our thoughts and words on important issues. God bless you.

I’m hoping that it’s never too late to weigh in on any Biblical subject. Been a member, Deacon, and Elder in the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ since March 9, 1969! Weighing in that I truly believe I Pet. 3:20,21. Yes, it is the act of baptism that saves us. (That would be baptism by immersion, for the forgiveness of sins — the ONLY baptism described in the NT.) Eph. 3:5 says, “One Lord, one faith, ONE BAPTISM.” My thinking is — that ONE BAPTISM had better be the one described in the NT. (Oh, yeah, one of the blogs said that there is descriptions of baptism in the OT. I’m from Missouri, the “Show Me” state, so SHOW ME!) Now, “true” baptism only comes after 1) faith — Mark 16:16 “Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved, (but whoever does not believe in the first place is already condemned).” And 2) “To be sorry for our sins — to turn away from our sins, and turn back to God” — all of which is wrapped up in the word, “repent” — Acts 2:38, “Repent, and be baptized FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS …” So, simply, if one has not been baptized (by immersion) FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS, they have no hope of salvation. (Will God save them anyway? Of course He could. That’s only His call. But without faith (“You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!” — the Apostle Peter), (“Whoever believes AND is baptized…”, repentence (“Repent, AND be baptized…”), well, you get the picture. TRUE baptism (I don’t like using that term, because it’s not Biblical), by immersion, for the forgiveness of sin (or, to wash away your sins, Acts 22:16 — “And now, what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on His Name.” — Ananias of Damascus to Paul) comes ONLY after Faith (Mark 16:16), and repentence (Acts 2:28). And it’s that TRUE (again, I apologize) baptism that actually saves us (I Peter 3:21). Baptism is not a sign or a symbol of ANYTHING, or else God’s Word would have said so. It is the ACT of baptism that actually saves us. Peter said so.

I think we need to remember one other thing: God’s Word was written by “Holy men of God, as they were carried along by (or told exactly what to say) by the Holy Spirit”. Also, it says, “All Scripture is God-breathed.” Personally, if we truly believe that, then when Peter says, “…baptism now saves you…”, I wouldn’t try to make that say something else. Here’s the thing: the writers of God’s Word (through the Holy Spirit) wrote what they meant, and meant what they wrote. When I quote I Peter 3:21, “Baptism now saves you.”, that verse INCLUDES belief in Jesus — Mark 16:16 (“Whoever believes and is baptized…”); and it includes repentance — Acts 2:38 (“Repent, and be baptized…for the forgiveness of sins…”). But those who choose to take, say, John 3:16 out of context, and create a belief system around it, totally IGNORE all the other Scriptures which speak of salvation. So the choice is laid before us all: INCLUDE all Scriptures which speak of salvation — or pick and choose one which suits your denomination’s teachings, and build a belief system around it, totally ignoring all other Scriptures that speak of salvation. Hey, God gave us free will, after all, didn’t He? Include or ignore? Which do you think will please Him?

Danny, that’s a defective view of inspiration. God didn’t dictate the Bible to men; he spoke through them in the circumstances and in their language. The Bible, like Jesus, is thoroughly human and thoroughly divine.

And I do believe in the infallibility and inspiration of Scripture. However, I don’t think that snipping phrases out of context honors the writers or God. We can’t exclude “baptism now saves you” from “corresponds to this” so I find it a little ironic that you’re complaining about people taking John 3:16 out of context. As I’ve said in my post, the immediate context of “baptism now saves you” demands more than a prima facia reading.

To understand 1 Peter 3:21, verse 20 must also be taken into consideration, which says “in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is eight souls, were saved through water.”
Baptism is an antitype. The Greek word ????????? (Strong’s #G499) which is translated as “antitype” is defined as “corresponding” or “representative”. Baptism is clearly a “representative” of the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus who literally does the saving (Matthew 1:21). Notice that Peter said “also”. This means Noah “also” had an antitype. His was the flood waters. The flood waters were an antitype to the Ark in the sense that they bore up the Ark which literally saved Noah and his family from the flood.
There is a great difference between the flood of Noah’s day and water baptism. The flood removed the filth of the world, water baptism does not remove any filth, and in our case “the filth of the flesh”. Peter immediately says “not the removal of the filth of the flesh” so that we do not make the mistake of thinking that water baptism washes away our wickedness as the flood washed away the wickedness of the earth. Ironically many use this passage to teach baptismal regeneration because it reads “There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism”. These teachers neglect that baptism is merely a “representative” which is “not the removal of the filth of the flesh”. The Scriptures teach that only the blood of Christ (Rev 1:5) washes away our sins through faith (John 8:24).
Baptism is “the answer of a good conscience toward God”. It is an answer of a good conscience which we already have before being baptized. The good conscience comes “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ”. See also Hebrews 9:14.
The Greek word ????? (Strong’s #4509) translated as “filth” is defined as “dirt, i.e. (moral) depravity”.
The Greek word ???? (Strong’s #G4561) translated as “flesh” is defined as “flesh, or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties [physical or moral] and passions)”.

Dear Baptist/evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ,
I ask you to consider these points:

1. When God said that he would preserve his Word, what did he mean?
Did he mean that he would preserve the original papyrus and parchment upon which his Word was written? If so, then his Word has disappeared as none of the original manuscripts remain.

Did he mean that he would preserve his word in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek only? He would not preserve his Word when it was translated into all the other languages of the world?

Or did God mean that he would preserve his Word…the message/the words…the Gospel: the free gift of salvation, and the true doctrines of the Christian Faith? Would God allow his Word/his message to mankind to be so polluted by translation errors that no translation, into any other language from the three original languages, continues to convey his true words?

2. There IS no translation of the Bible, from the original ancient languages, into any language, anywhere on earth, that translates the Bible as the Baptists/evangelicals believe it should be translated.

No Bible translation on earth translates Acts 2:38 as, “Repent and believe in Jesus Christ every one of you and you will receive the Holy Ghost. Then be baptized as a public profession of your faith.”

There is no translation that translates, into any language, Acts 22:16 as, “ And now why tarriest thou? arise, believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Then be baptized.” Not a single translation in the entire world translates that verse in any way remotely resembling the manner in which Baptists believe it should be translated.

Isn’t that a problem?

And this verse, I Peter 3:21 as, “Asking Christ into your heart in a spiritual baptism, which water Baptism symbolizes, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”

And Mark 16:16 as, “He that believes will be saved, and then baptized, but he that does not believe will be condemned.”

Why would God allow EVERY English translation of the Bible throughout history to be mistranslated or use such confusing language as to suggest that God forgives sins in Baptism? And not only all English translations, ALL translations of the Bible have retained these “mistranslations or confusing wording”.

Do you honestly believe that God would allow his Word to be so polluted with translation errors that EVERY Bible in the world, if read in its simple, plain interpretation, would tell all the people of the world that God forgives sins in water baptism??

3. Why is there not one single piece of evidence from the early Christians that indicates that ANYONE in the 800-1,000 years after Christ believed that: Water baptism is ONLY a public profession of faith/act of obedience; sins are NOT forgiven in water baptism? Yes, you will find statements by these early Christians that salvation is by faith, but do Baptists and evangelicals really understand how a sinner obtains saving faith? THAT IS THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION, MY FRIENDS! Does the sinner produce faith by his own free will or does God provide faith and belief as a gift, and if God does provide faith and belief as a free gift, with no strings attached, when exactly does God give it?

4. Is it possible that: Baptist-like believers, at some point near or after 1,000 AD, were reading the Bible and came across verses that read “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” and “Call upon the name of the Lord and you will be saved” and established their doctrine of Salvation/Justification first, based on these and similar verses alone, and then, looked at the issue of water baptism, and since the idea that God forgives sins in water baptism doesn’t seem to fit with the verses just mentioned, re-interpreted these verses to fit with their already established doctrine, instead of believing the “baptism verses” literally?

Is it possible that BOTH groups of verses are literally correct?? If we believe God’s Word literally, he says that he saves/forgives sins when sinners believe/call AND when they are baptized? Why not believe that God can give the free gift of salvation in both situations: when a sinner hears the Gospel and believes and when a sinner is baptized?

Should we re-interpret God’s plain, simple words just because they don’t seem to make sense to us?

Dear Baptist/evangelical brothers and sisters, your doctrine is very well thought out and very reasonable…but it is wrong. Do you really believe that God would require an education in ancient Greek or a Greek lexicon to understand what he really wants to say to you? And do you really believe that Baptist “Greek” scholars understand Greek better than the Greeks themselves? If the Greek language, correctly translated, states in the Bible that Baptism is only a public profession of faith as Baptists say, then why do the Greek Orthodox believe that the Greek Bible plainly says, in Greek, that God forgives sins in water baptism? Somebody doesn’t know their Greek!

Please investigate this critical doctrine further. Do you really want to appear before our Lord in heaven one day and find out that you have been following a false doctrine invented in the sixteenth century by Swiss Ana-baptists?

God bless you!

Gary
http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2013/06/the-early-church-fathers-believed-in.html

Baptists and evangelicals are absolutely correct…there is no SPECIFIC mention in the New Testament that the Apostles baptized infants. There are references to entire households being converted and baptized, but we orthodox cannot prove, just from Scripture, that these households had infants, and neither can Baptists and evangelicals prove, just from Scripture, that they did not.

One interesting point that Baptists/evangelicals should note is that although there is no specific mention of infant baptism in the Bible…neither is there a prohibition of infant baptism in the Bible. Christians are commanded by Christ to go into all the world and preach the Gospel and to baptize all nations. No age restrictions are mentioned. If Christ had intended his followers to understand that infants could not be baptized in the New Covenant, in a household conversion process as was the practice of the Jews of Christ’s day in converting Gentile households to the Covenant of Abraham, it is strange that no mention is made of this prohibition.

So, the only real way to find out if Infant Baptism was practiced by the Apostles is to look at the writings of the early Christians, some of whom were disciples of the Apostles, such as Polycarp, and see what they said on this issue.

And here is a key point: Infant Baptism makes absolutely no sense if you believe that sinners can and must make an informed, mature decision to believe in order to be saved. Infants cannot make informed, mature decisions, so if this is the correct Doctrine of Justification/Salvation, Infant Baptism is clearly false teaching. But the (arminian) Baptist/evangelical Doctrine of Justification/Salvation is unscriptural. Being forced to make a decision to obtain a gift, makes the gift no longer free. This is salvation by works.

Baptism is a command of God. It is not a work of man. God says in plain, simple language, in multiple locations in the Bible, that he saves/forgives sins in Baptism. We orthodox Christians accept God’s literal Word. We take our infants to be baptized because God says to do it. Our infants are not saved because we perform the act of bringing them to the baptismal font…they are saved by the power of God’s Word pronounced at the time of the Baptism. Christians have believed this for 2,000 years!

There is no evidence that any Christian in the early Church believed that sinners are saved by making a free will decision and then are baptized solely as a public profession of faith. None.

Gary
Luther, Baptists, and Evangelicals

Something for Baptists and evangelicals to think about:

The Baptist doctrine of the “Age of Accountability” is nowhere to be found in the New Testament.

Isn’t it strange that God provided a means for the babies and toddlers of his chosen people in the Old Testament to be part of his Covenant promises but is completely silent about the issue in the New Testament?

Jesus seemed to really love the little children… but he never mentions even once, if the Baptist/evangelical view of salvation is correct, how a Christian parent can be assured that if something dreadful happens to their baby or toddler, that they will see that child again in heaven.

In the Baptist/evangelical doctrine of adult-only salvation, God leaves our babies and toddlers in spiritual limbo! A Christian parent must pray to God and beg him that little Johnnie “accepts Christ” the very minute he reaches the Age of Accountability, because if something terrible were to happen to him, he would be lost and doomed to eternal hellfire.

Do you really believe that our loving Lord and Savior would do that to Christian parents??

Dear Christian parents: bring your little children to Jesus! He wants to save them just as much as he wants to save adults! Bring your babies and toddlers to the waters of Holy Baptism and let Jesus SAVE them!

The unscriptural “Age of Accountability” is the desperate attempt to plug the “big hole” in the Baptist doctrine of adult-only Salvation/Justification:

How does Jesus save our babies and toddlers?

Gary
Luther, Baptists, and Evangelicals

Can you really trust your English Bible to be God’s true Word?

Have you ever had an evangelical or Reformed Christian say this to you:

“THAT passage of the Bible, in the original Greek, does NOT mean what the simple, plain reading of the passage seems to say in English.”

It happens to me all the time in my conversations with Baptists, evangelicals, and fundamentalists on my blog. They state: “Repent and be baptized…for the forgiveness of sins” was mistranslated. “This is my body…this is my blood” is a metaphorical expression, “Baptism does now save us” is figurative speech for what happens to us spiritually when we ask Christ into our hearts.

What they are basically saying is that unless you speak ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek…you can’t read and really understand the Bible without the help of an educated Churchman!

This morning I came across an excellent article on this subject, written by Jordan Cooper, a Lutheran pastor. I am going to give the link to his article below. I have copied a couple of his statements here:

“So here is a question that we all need to ask ourselves when doing this (refusing to accept the simple, plain, English translation of a passage of Scripture): If a verse seems to disprove your theological beliefs, and you translate it in some way that doesn’t fit with any of the dozens of major English translations of the Bible, and that unique translation just happens to fit your own theological biases, could it be that it is in fact you who are in the wrong? Could you be reading your own preconceived theological convictions back into the text?”

” I know it can be frustrating when you are constantly told that Scripture can’t be understood unless you learn (an ancient) language or read ancient documents that you don’t have either the time or the energy to study. Honestly, if you have a few good English translations at your side, and you take the time to compare them to one another, you have all the tools you need to understand the meaning of the Bible.

Link to Pastor Cooper’s original article:

http://justandsinner.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-wrong-use-of-biblical-languages.html

BAPTISM NOW SAVES YOU

1 Peter 3:21 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:(KJB)

The Bible says baptism doth now save us …..by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Faith alone advocates say baptism has nothing to do with salvation. They say it is a simple act of obedience.

1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which is like that water, now saves you. Baptism doesn’t save by removing dirt from the body. Rather, baptism is a request to God for a clear conscience. It saves you through Jesus Christ, who came back from death to life.(God’s Word Translation)

The Bible says baptism….now saves you.
The Bible says baptism is a request to God for a clear conscience.

Faith only proponents say water baptism has nothing to do with salvation. They say baptism is only essential in order to join a denominational church.

Faith only enthusiasts proclaim that baptism does not save, but is only a testimony of faith to the community.

Faith only defenders state that men can get to heaven without being baptized in water, however they cannot join the local church without baptism.

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.(English Standard Version)

Jesus said whoever is baptized will be saved. Will be, is future tense not past tense.

Faith only champions say men are baptized because their sins have already been forgiven.

YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY CHRISTIAN BLOG. http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com