Posted on 10/19/2013 8:50:26 PM PDT by jodyel
Lighthouse Trails has watched in dismay over the past few years as Charles Stanley’s In Touch magazine has made the decision to promote contemplative/emergent names. When our editors picked up a copy of the August 2013 issue and saw a feature article written by Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove, we decided to call In Touch Ministries to find out who was responsible for the content in the magazine. Sadly, the response we received from the editorial department at In Touch left us with a sinking feeling that the evangelical church has been seduced and there was no turning back.
We’ll talk about the phone call in a minute but first a look at Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove.
In June of 2011, Lighthouse Trails free lance writer Mike Stanwood wrote “Contemplative Spirituality Lands on Charles Stanley’s In Touch Magazine . . . Again.” In this article, it was revealed that in the January 2011 In Touch magazine issue, Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove was featured in an article written by In Touch Managing Editor Cameron Lawrence. That article, titled “The Craft of Stability: Discovering the Ancient Art of Staying Put,” highlighted the “ intentional Christian community” at the Rutba House (Wilson-Hartgrove’s home) and their “daily prayer routine.” The In Touch article stated that Rutba House is an evangelical community rooted in the Protestant tradition and that Wilson-Hartgrove is an ordained Baptist minister, yet it also reported that Rutba’s community principles are borrowed from Benedictine monks and that all of their efforts are based on St. Benedict’s “rule of life.”
In Stanwood’s article, he points out that Wilson-Hartgrove is part of the “New Monasticism” movement within the emerging church. To help you understand just how serious this situation is with Charles Stanley and his ministry, read this following section of Stanwood’s article:
Wilson-Hartgrove is most recently known for co-authoring Common Prayer: A Liturgy for Ordinary Radicals with new monastic activist Shane Claiborne. Other books he has authored may also fall into the emerging/contemplative category. For example, one such book called New Monasticism: What It Has to Say to Today’s Church (1) has been endorsed by mystic proponents Brian McLaren, Phyllis Tickle, Tony Campolo, and Catholic priest and centering prayer advocate Richard Rohr. The mystics resonate with the “new monasticism” – this is plain to see.
On the surface, the new monasticism may look OK with its many good works of helping the poor and the needy. But the underlying belief system does not line up with biblical doctrine; rather it is about establishing an all-inclusive kingdom of God on earth now where individual salvation is replaced with a community salvation for the whole world. Atonement has less emphasis on Jesus Christ as the only atonement for man’s sins and instead becomes an at-one-ment where all of creation is “being” saved by coming together as one (and yes, seeing the divinity of man). This is the kind of “atonement” that McLaren, Tickle, and Rohr would resonate with.
It is important to see that they don’t just resonate with the good works coming out of the new monasticism; born-again Christians have been performing good works by helping the poor and needy for centuries and continue to do so. While this new monasticism supposedly distinguishes itself by its good works, in reality it is mysticism and the foundational beliefs of mysticism (i.e., panentheism, kingdom now, etc) that distinguish it. And it is that element that Tickle, McLaren, and Rohr embrace.
Additional resources on Wilson-Hartgrove’s website include a DVD called Discovering Christian Classics: 5 Sessions in the Ancient Faith of Our Future, a five-week study with contemplative advocate Lauren F. Winner (Girl Meets God) for high school or adult “formation.” A description of this DVD states:
“You will discover the meaning of conversion and prayer from the Desert Fathers and Mothers; how to love from the sermons of St. John Chrysostom; St. Benedict’s Rule of Life and how it became one of the foundations of Western Christian spirituality; how to have an intimate relationship with God according to The Cloud of Unknowing; and what it means to ‘pick up your cross” in the Imitation of Christ by Thomas A. Kempis.’”
Another book Wilson-Hartgrove has authored, called The Wisdom of Stability: Rooting Faith in a Mobile Culture, refers readers to the wisdom of Lao-tzu, the desert monastics, Thomas Merton, Benedictine spirituality, panentheist and interspiritualist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Benedictine nun Joan Chittister.
In a Beliefnet interview one year ago, Wilson-Hartgrove shared how “we need the wisdom of those who’ve gone before us.” This wisdom he is referring to comes not from the Bible, but from the contemplative “Benedictines (who) taught us to start the day with common prayer.”1
After seeing what is at the core of Wilson-Hartgrove’s spiritual wisdom, it is not surprising to learn that he recently made an appearance at the [very emergent] Wild Goose Festival .2 According to an article in the Christian Post, the Wild Goose Festival was a “four-day revival camp in North Carolina featuring music, yoga, liberal talk and embracing of gays and lesbians.”
The fact is, anyone who is drawn to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, as Wilson-Hartgrove is, has got to be following a different spirit and another gospel or at the very least greatly deceived. Chardin, who is attributed to the term “cosmic Christ,” did not hide the fact in his writings that he believed, not in the Christ of the Bible, but a christ consciousness in every human being.
While we do not challenge Wilson-Hartgrove’s sincerity or concern for the poor and needy, we must challenge his consistent promotion of contemplative mystics and emergent leaders, and he certainly does not seem like a proper fit with In Touch Ministries, that is unless In Touch is going emerging. The reason we say this about Wilson-Hartgrove’s sincerity has to do with the phone call we had with two editors of the editorial staff of In Touch magazine on July 24, 2013. One of the editors we spoke with was Cameron Lawrence, the Editor in Chief (and also the one who wrote the 2011 In Touch article featuring Wilson-Hartgrove). Lawrence asked us if we had ever spoken with Wilson-Hartgrove personally, suggesting that he was a sincere man who lived out the Gospel by helping the needy. We answered him by stating that the issue at hand was not a private matter but rather a public issue because Wilson-Hartgrove is a public figure (books, conferences, articles, etc). We said that it did not matter what he might say in a private conversation, but it did matter what he was teaching others. And it mattered greatly that In Touch was promoting him.
When we spoke with Cameron Lawrence, we told him we wanted to know who was responsible for putting the article by Wilson-Hartgrove in the magazine to which he told us “the entire editorial staff” made the decision. We asked him if he would be interested in seeing some of our documentation to which he answered, “I have been on the Lighthouse Trails website, and I didn’t find it helpful.” The other editor we spoke with, who wished to remain anonymous, said it sounded like we were on a “witch hunt” to which we responded, “No, we are part of a Gospel-protection effort.”
At times like this, it is difficult not to become discouraged by the lack of interest in Christian intelligentsia and leadership regarding the contemplative/emerging issue. What more can we say to show them what seems so obvious to ourselves and many other Bible believing contenders of the faith? A number of years ago, when the Be Still DVD (a contemplative infomercial) came out and we saw Charles Stanley’s name in the credits as someone who supported the DVD, we contacted his ministry and spoke with a personal assistant. He accepted our offer for a free copy of A Time of Departing but said that Charles Stanley would be too busy to read it.
If the mystics whom Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove gravitates to are right, then Jesus’ words that He is the only Way to the Father are wrong. You can’t have it both ways. The opposite view – the contemplative – is that God is in all things, including all people. This is what all mystics believe, across the board. And if that were true, then the need for a Savior would vanish, and there wouldn’t be any need for ”one way” to God because man is already indwelled with God and a part of God.
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6
Endnotes: 1. New Monasticism & The Emergent Church: FS Talks with Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove: http://blog.beliefnet.com/flunkingsainthood/2010/06/new-monasticism-the-emergent-church-fs-talks-with-jonathan-wilson-hartgrove.html.
2. Learn more about the Wild Goose Festival here: Left-Leaning ‘Wild Goose’ Festival Draws Ire of Evangelicals
Scripture:
1Co 5:7-8 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
Comment:
The remnant of the “old” (Eph_4:22-24) heathenish and natural corruption. The image is taken from the extreme care of the Jews in searching every corner of their houses, and “purging out” every particle of leaven from the time of killing the lamb before the Passover (Deu_16:3, Deu_16:4). So Christians are continually to search and purify their hearts (Psa_139:23, Psa_139:24). (from Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary)
Opinion:
The End of the Jewish Religion was at the Cross, where Jesus declared the Mosaic Law Covenant was "Finished!" (perfect tense = once done, with lasting consequences). The Jewish religion is now dead, because it was simply a pattern pointing toward the Passion of the Lamb of Calvary, which previous Mosaic law of sacrifices (that can never take away sin; Heb. 10:4) is never to be revived; and is replaced by the Crucifixion of Jesus, then fulfilling His role as Christ. By this Jesus literally and figuratively became our Pascha/Seder, and His act of atonement is now remembered (not reinstituted) at the Breaking of The Bread. (from imardmd1)
*********
And, BTW, what does 'regularly' mean?
Scripture:
Act 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Definitions:
proskartereō = continually with oft occurence and strong emphasis)
pros-kar-ter-eh'-o
From G4314 and G2594; to be earnest towards, that is, (to a thing) to persevere, be constantly diligent, or (in a place) to attend assiduously all the exercises, or (to a person) to adhere closely to (as a servitor): - attend (give self) continually (upon), continue (in, instant in, with), wait on (continually).
koinōnia
= for which the English word is "communion"
koy-nohn-ee'-ah
From G2844; partnership, that is, (literally) participation, or (social) intercourse, or (pecuniary) benefaction: - (to) communicate (-ation), communion, (contri-), distribution, fellowship. (These from Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon)
Opinion:
From the very beginning of the formation of the prototype Church of Jerusalem, the normative often-rehearsed symbolism of Jesus' sacrificial death was instituted by the Apostles' doctrinal promulgation and conduct of His Prime Ordinance, "This do (present tense, active voice, imperative mode = I order you to persistently keep on rehearsing this symbolic act of personally internalizing, using the ordinary wine and bread--unchanged in any ways and digestible--of this Passover performed according to the Galilean tradition of holding the meal eaten the night before the day of the slaughter of the paschal lamb, rather than that of the Judean/Sadducean tradition, as a mnemonic vehicle to keep fresh, through the coming ages, the memory of an event in which My actual body and blood are yet to be surrendered for an abuse to fend off the penalty for sin which each of you richly deserve, but which you need not suffer if you cling to me) in remembrance of Me." (from imardmd1)
Scripture:
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
Comment:
It is moreover hinted here, concerning this ordinance, [1.] That it should be frequent: As often as you eat this bread, etc. Our bodily meals return often; we cannot maintain life and health without this. And it is fit that this spiritual diet should be taken often too! The ancient churches celebrated this ordinance every Lord's day, if not every day when they assembled for worship.
[2.] That it must be perpetual. It is to be celebrated till the Lord shall come; till he shall come the second time, without sin, for the salvation of those that believe, and to judge the world. This is our warrant for keeping this feast. It was our Lord's will that we should thus celebrate the memorials of his death and passion, till he come in his own glory, and the Father's glory, with his holy angels, and put an end to the present state of things, and his own mediatorial administration, by passing the final sentence. Note, The Lord's supper is not a temporary, but a standing and perpetual ordinance.
(from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the whole Bible)
Opinion:
The spiritual health of the local church, and each of its constituents, depends on the often rehearsal of the "Last Supper," with a clear, simple explanation of its significance to reinforce the continual necessity of each believer to examine yourselves (both each individual of self and others, as well as the state of mind and operation of the whole local church), whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except=unless ye be reprobates? (from 2 Cor. 13:5)
Therefore, one's slate with the Lord through examination, confession, and absolution from The Father ought to be cleaned before even thinking of participating in the Breaking of Bread. (from imardmd1)
*********
This could be discussed at some further length, but I hope this will somewhat give a basis for you to answer your own question which comes, I presume, from a child-like ignorance and not from a tempter's sarcasm.
And that is why I asked the question about which you are inquiring.
With respect and cautionary advice --
how do you work out, or exercise something if you don't have it?
For example a farmer works in the field and behold, he has a crop. With God's help.
NOT talking about laboring to gain salvation but maturing our faith
... in order to "make sure our calling and election", aha.
That is not what the Lord said.
Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink?... (Matthew 25:37ff; check the context)
[6] [God] will render to every man according to his works. [7] To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: [8] But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. [9] Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. [10] But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 2)
I know it breaks the template for you, but this is what the Holy Scripture says.
No one is arguing that we are saved by our works alone, but rather by living Catholic faith that inspires us for good works, which God works in us. Abraham, for example, did not just have faith: he crossed the desert also.
Bad logic - argument from ignorance...
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
Thanks for a broad answer, but I should have indicated just how often is regularly?
Catholics do it every time the church doors open, Protestants do it at varying rates.
Jews did it once a year, with prescribed dates and rituals.
Just make sure that you are not encouraging anyone into sincerity and fideism in a false gospel with a false christ, rather than salvation through spiritual rebirth through the entry of the generative Word of The God.
1Jn 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Clarification:
Whosoever = pas ho; collective pronoun, nominative, singular, masculine; any human person whoever; referring to either males or females demands the masculine gender
is born = procreated; perfect tense, once done, that a new creature has been irreversibly begotten within the old human body, with continuing spiritual results; passive voice, action performed on/to one by another; participle; thus becoming adjectivial and declineable, a quality of begottenness
of = ek, from/out of
God = tou Theou, genitive, of The God; contextually, The Spirit
doth not commit = ou poime; negative of; work or perform present tense = habitually or constantly or perniciously, active voice, indicative mode, 3rd person singular
sin = hamartian; accusative, singular, thus Sin as a principle, not sins plural as acts, even though these will emerge as results
; = implied/interpretive punctuation
for = hoti, conjunction, though, since
his = pronoun; genitive, singular, masculine; whose referent is The God of the previous phrase, not the "whoever" person, because it is The God who begets the spiritual "whoever"
seed = sperma; indeclinable noun, singular, neuter, anarthrous; thus a quality, and obviously the generative Seed, the Word (logos = spoken and/or written coherent body of teachings) of God, figuratively (see Ps. 126:6, Mt. 13:18-23)
remaineth = menoh; abides permanently, integrated into
in him = en autoh; en-with-the-dative, the new spiritual (pneumatikos) human and quality integrated with the old man's body as a vehicle but supplanting the carnal (sarkikos) man-emotion and the natural (psuchikos) man-mentality as the controlling principle and agent
: = interpretive punctuation
and = kai; conjunction
can_not = ou dunatai; negative + to be able, to empower; present tense, middle or passive deponent voice, indicative mode, 3rd person singular, referring to the "whoever"; ha no ability or power to make himself keep on peniciously and habitually exercise (the sin principle) in his thoughts or actions
sin = hamartanein; present tense, active voice, infinitive; continue to exercise the Sin principle
; = implied interpretive punctuation
because = oti; conjunction
he is born = gegennaytai; perfect tense, passive voice, indicative mode, 3rd person singular; he was (and stays) begotten/procreated of = ek; preposition; from/out of God = tou Theou; articular, genitive, singular, masculine; of The God.
*********
Now, let me put that together, as explaining the significance to a first-century Greek-speaking person who needs no interpretatin, but understands it this way:
"Any human person who has been procreated by The God (The Spirit implied) does not persistently practice the Sin principle; since His (God's) generative seed, the spoken and written Word of God, His corpus of teachings, and by wich the new spiritual man was begotten, permanently abide integrated into his mind and will, displacing the old carnal impulses and intellectual reasonings and schemes, which are no longer his controlling principle: and this spiritually reborn person no longer has any desire or power to continue to exercise the Sin Principle as his personal chosen mode of existence; because he was (and stays) not only conceived out of The God (The Spirit), but the Word resides and is infused in his/her character and behavior, forever."
*********
Well, one may wish to contradict this, but it will be hard to find traction for a contrary approach to interpreting that passage with a literal hermeneutic.
BTW, this completely throws out any proposal that paedobaptism effects salvation, or that spiritual regeneration is a product of baptismal immersion, infusion, or sprinkling.
Effectual catechizing (beginning discipling) must precede regeneration, not as an education tool after spiritual rebirth. (See Rom. 10:8-10, 13-17)
And correct exposition of it does not claim sinlessness in this world, it only affirms the removal of a preference for, and a perpetual repentance from it by the entry of the Word of God.
So think of this, before intimating that one's faith does not have to rest on a progressively clearer knowledge of and incorporation of articles of The Faith. Otherwise, your stuck with an indefensible grounding of nere fideism.
With respect --
Candace, the Ethiopian official that Philip encountered, was sent back home without SOMEONE to administer the Eucharist to him; poor soul!
Candace was a queen, not an eunuch.
Act 8:27-28 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.
No one is needed to "administer" the tokens of the Lord's passion. The Lord himself only requires the ingestion of the unfermented blood of the cluster and the bread in a deliberate manner conjointly with another believer to remember the purpose of the fulfillment of the law through His substitutionary replacement for us as the objective of God'a justified wrath.
Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Doing what? Watching someone else trying to take His role in the drama? Christ will be doing the supervising of this memorial, as He did at the first, considering it is He Whom we are remembering and the scene which we are to be reproducing. For every regenerated believer-disciple is a priest,
Rev 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
as He wished for the entire family of Israelites but which they refused at that time.
Exo 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
To separate out a clergy class in the church, distinct from a "lay" class, is an abomination. (Rev. 2:6)
We all do, jodyel. Me, too, especially.
No. I mean, at least not in the Holy Scriptures.
There are seven baptisms mentioned in the nt5; actually eight if onew includes ritual washing in the mikvah. What baptism are you talking about? The one applied to believers is not for converts, as supposed. It is only for those who are inducted as practicing disciples committed to life-long instruction. It is a visible rite, a pledge as a disciple.
SEVEN BAPTISMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
BAPTISM OF DISCIPLES OR WATER BAPTISM
Water baptism is a funeral service, also.
Baptism is immersion.
I explained to you about water baptism in my last post to you, here it is again to refresh your memory:
It's an outward sign done publicly to symbolically show that the Blood of Jesus has cleansed us. It's His Blood that saves, not water.Jesus died, was buried and then rose up from the grave.
Baptism is symbolic of that process, we as Born Again Christians die to ourselves and are immersed (buried) and come out of the water (as Jesus rose from the dead) to show that we have salvation and have taken up our cross and are following Jesus as He commanded. (A baby can't do that, so cannot scripturally partake of baptism until he or she makes that Born Again commitment to Jesus. They can be sprinkled but that is not Biblical baptism)
Baptism saved of itself
Baptism doesn't save, Jesus does.
I have no "denomination". I am Catholic. I belong to the Holy Church that Christ my Savior founded.
I understand that is how you see things, that is a sign of a "good" Catholic to believe like that.
Protestants and nondenominational Christians see the Biblical church that Jesus created when he walked the earth as what it was called, universal--small "c" catholic.
Made up of all true Christians.
There were no Catholics back then, only Christians.
Catholicism came along some time later, and declared that they were (are) the "official" church that Jesus started.
When in actuality they are a denomination of the church that Jesus started.
Non Catholics (could be called 1st Century Christians) look it from the Biblical perspective.
We (if I may speak for others) have no problem with what Catholics believe and follow as long as they do not try to impose it upon us, but we prefer the more simple life as followers of Jesus.
Sainthood is a destination, not a departing point.
"Saints" appears about 67 times in the scriptures.
Some examples:
Acts 9-13 : ...Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:Ananias heard of a man that did evil to the saints in Jerusalem, Peter went to the saints who lived at Lydda, Jesus spoke of the "perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry."Acts 9:32 : Now as Peter went here and there among them all, he came down also to the saints who lived at Lydda.
Ephesians 4:12 : to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ
Sainthood is a position in Christ.
Nobody is saying that Catholics believe in salvation by 2works alone.
The problem is that the minute anyone adds anything to faith, then it's not through faith. It's whatever is added to faith, be it baptism, works, communion, whatever.
It should be clear what baptism of which I speak.
I presume you ask from child-like ignorance?
The one applied to believers is not for converts, as supposed.
It is only for those who are inducted as practicing disciples committed to life-long instruction.
As supposed? That doesn't compute with anything I have posted. If you “supposed” it did, but don't anymore, fine.
Oh, and converts from what to what?
The part of your post I quoted and bolded, do you have a scriptural reference?
Oh and lol@ the link from April Fools Day!
I love a sense of humor...
Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
This judgment tableau will take place just after the conclusion of the seven-year period of the great tribulation, and at the imposition of His thousand-year reign over the earth.
It is clear that almost no denomination obeys the Scripture illustration, which is once, each week, on the first day of the week, when the whole assembly gathers, to which all of its constituents are assembled for worship and collection of contributions to the ministry.
There is no worship without (a) sacrifice(s); of which the Remembrance Supper portion (in which we bear his reproach, Heb. 13:13, by showing forth His Death till He come, 1 Cor. 11:26, and identifying with him by figuratively eating/drinking the tokens of His shame) is one, the fruit of our lips giving praise to His Name (Heb. 13:15) is another, the offering of tithes and gifts (which is "communicating", Heb. 13:16b) is yet a third, and lastly the going forth to accomplish good things (Heb. 13:16a) for the coming week which concludes the regular summons to assemble.
The only manifestation I have seen regarding this is evidenced in the meeting of local Christian brethren after the Scriptural pattern of Darbyites, loosely known as "Plymouth brethren."
All Romanists, nearly all Reformants, and most Rebirthers get it wrong, IMHO, and do suffer from it for their lack of discernment (as well as allowing unregenerates and/or unconfessed constituents to partake).
Neither do I, except it is a mistyped "NT" (for "New Testament") which escaped my editor/copyreader's eye. Sorry.
As supposed?
Wrongly supposed, in immersionist circles, that this baptism is just a rite recognizing post-salvation evidence of the "believer's" decision.
Oh, and converts from what to what?
Converts claiming transition from spiritual death to spiritual life --
The part of your post I quoted and bolded, do you have a scriptural reference?
I gave you whole documents full of references, Scripture, and the explanations. Did you not peruse them before responding?
Oh and lol@ the link from April Fools Day!
I love a sense of humor...
Your sense of humor is misplaced. One who thinks that the concept that this baptism, as a funeral rite, is a joke either has not read Romans chapter 6, or does not understand it.
Respectfully --
Works AND living Catholic faith are criteria for salvation?
Biblically, no not at all.
Neither one are necessary for entering a place where we can say "we are saved"---The Bible makes that perfectly clear.
The salvation message and acceptance of the same are made quite simple so it is so important for folks to understand it.
Faith of a child etc
Oh it is much more than that, see my post to another member a few replies back.
Oh and why quotes for this word?: "believer's."
If we are speaking of "post salvation" the one being baptized would be a believer.
Converts claiming transition from spiritual death to spiritual life
Seems like that is why Jesus came so sinners could make that transition.
Yes I perused the links you sent me, but it was difficult to find what I was looking for. The dissertations were was a bit wordy, more for an academic type.
Instead of inundating me with pages and pages of mostly words not related to our conversation, perhaps you can give me a specific scriptural reference (from the Bible) for the bolded area I asked you about. Here it is again:
It (Biblical water baptisim)is only for those who are inducted as practicing disciples committed to life-long instruction.You stated it "applied to believers (and) is not for converts", but converts are believers.
Lets not get lost in semantics, but get to the simple Biblical truth OK?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.