Peter

In Luke 22:32, Jesus tells Peter what to do “after thou art converted.” This seems like an odd thing for Him to say, Peter has been part of His ministry for three years. Peter has walked on the water; he has witnessed the transfiguration, and seen Jesus with Moses and Elijah (how did Peter know who the other two men were?); he has proclaimed Jesus to be the Christ, to which Jesus responded that that was revealed by His Father. Peter was the Rock on which Jesus would build His church. How is it that Jesus is talking about Peter’s conversion in future tense?
There are a lot of things in the Gospels that would indicate that Peter was a minister of the Gospel. He witnessed a lot of miracles: a coin in a fish’s mouth, that Peter himself hooked from the sea; his mother-in-law healed of a grave illness, a fig tree that withered because Jesus cursed it. He was right by Jesus’ side for most of the three years of Jesus’ ministry. He himself cast out demons and healed the sick.
At the same time, there are instances that showed that Peter really didn’t understand what Jesus’ ministry was all about. Once Jesus rebuked Peter sharply, because Peter promised to defend Jesus if anyone tried to hurt Him. Even after being rebuked for that, when the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, Peter grabbed a sword and was apparently ready to fight off the entire Roman army. Peter didn’t want to let Jesus wash his feet (but then when Jesus explained to him that He had to wash his feet in order for Peter to have a part in Jesus, then Peter wanted his head and hands washed, too). Peter fell asleep at the Garden of Gethsemane, during a time when Jesus most needed the support of His disciples. Peter was also the one that denied that he knew Jesus.
So what happened to cause Peter to be converted? What was the event? The big thing that happened after Jesus made that statement was that He was crucified. Remember that Jesus told Nicodemus that he had to be born again. How does one get born again? Romans 6:4 says that we should walk in newness of life after we have been buried with Him by baptism unto death. 1 Corinthians 5:7 tells us to purge out the old leaven, and become a “new lump” and makes reference to Christ being our Passover sacrifice. 2 Corinthians 5:17 says that we are new creatures in Christ; all things are become new. Hebrews 10:20 tells us that we have a new and living way, through the flesh of Jesus.
It becomes clear that being born again has a lot to do with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, that, really, there were no Christians prior to the death, burial, and resurrection. There were followers of Jesus, but they didn’t have the whole Gospel truth, because it hadn’t happened yet. If Peter had his way, then Jesus would never have been crucified, and we would all be in our sins. Of course, Peter was converted when he understood the why of it all: that Jesus came as a sacrifice to save us from our sins.

Philip and the Eunuch

In Acts chapter 8, we are told about an eunuch from Ethiopia, who had traveled to Jerusalem, and was returning to Ethiopia when Philip the Evangelist was led of the Spirit to go out into the desert and meet this man. Philip shared the Gospel with him, and they came across an oasis in the desert, and Philip baptized him.
There are several points that I would like to make here. First of all, a lot of people have come to the conclusion that this eunuch was the first Gentile to become a member of the early church. I don’t think so. The Bible tells us that the eunuch was in his chariot reading Isaiah the prophet. It seems to me that this man must have been a Jew, or he wouldn’t have been reading the Jewish text. It would seem that he was already a Jew, and had received special dispensation from his queen, Candace, to travel to Jerusalem to worship at the temple. I don’t know of any Ethiopian religion that would have required him to go to Jerusalem to worship.
Additionally, Peter is the one who was given the keys to the kingdom, and Peter is the one who, amid much criticism, baptized a Roman citizen later. Much of the time, the early church seems to divide people into two basic categories: Jews and Gentiles. Sometimes the terms used are circumcision and uncircumcision, sometimes Jews and Greeks, but, in context, it is pretty clear that the early Christians really only recognized two ethnic groups. Peter preached a sermon on the day of Pentecost that led to baptizing Jews from every nation, and Peter preached to Cornelius, a Roman, which led to, what would seem to be, the first Gentiles becoming Christians.
Another point that I would like to make is the fact that, although the Bible doesn’t tell us what Philip preached to the eunuch (it only says that he preached unto him Jesus), by the time they came to a place in the desert where there was water, the eunuch had decided that he wanted to get baptized. I have had people ask me the question, “What if you were in the middle of the desert when you realized that you needed to be baptized?” Well, of course that is exactly what happened to the eunuch. When I point that out, though, then these people generally scoff, “Oh, I suppose you think God put that water there just so the eunuch could get baptized!” I am always tempted to point out that it would be foolishness to think that the devil put that water there so that the eunuch could get baptized (okay, I admit it, I have told people that a few times. It never helps the situation, though). I certainly don’t think that it was coincidence that, just about the time the eunuch decided that he needed to be baptized, they came across a place in the desert where he could be baptized.
Another thing, too, Philip told the eunuch that he wouldn’t perform a baptism, unless the eunuch believed. It seems to have become common practice these days, most churches don’t seem to really care if you believe or not. I have heard of churches where people have been talked into getting baptized simply because the church only performs baptismal ceremonies every so often. Sometimes it is because the church is trying to set a new record (“We’ve never baptized fifty people before! Right now there are forty-nine, you could make it fifty! Come on, get baptized!”). Of course, I have known of other churches who swing the other way, refusing to baptize someone for at least three weeks using the philosophy that it is better not to get baptized than to get baptized and then lose interest within a couple of weeks. There may be some truth in that, but I can’t help thinking that it could go the other way: if I had been forced to wait three weeks to get baptized, I might have started to think that baptism wasn’t that important (particularly since the church that taught me about baptism was now delaying the event), and probably would have gone back to my old ways. I’m not sure where I would be now if that had been the case, but almost certainly I would not be a Christian now.

What About the Thief?

I promised Friday that I was going to stop blogging about the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ this week, but, then I touched on the (in)famous thief on the cross on Friday, and realized that that topic alone deserved more discussion than I could possibly include in that post, so, once more, but tomorrow, something completely different, I promise.
Luke 23:39-43 gives the account, although Luke is apparently less convinced than Matthew that the individual involved was a thief, he uses the more generic term, malefactor. Basically, the story is this: at the crucifixion, Jesus and two others that had also been condemned to death. At first, the other two mocked Jesus, knowing that He had claimed to be the Messiah, and believing that God would not allow something this horrific to happen to His Messiah. Sometime during the crucifixion, though, one of the men had a fit of conscience, and defended Jesus, realizing that He didn’t deserve the same fate.
Where did this attack of conscience come from? Did this man, knowing that he was going to die, suddenly decide that he wanted to do something noble? Perhaps he thought history would remember him more favorably than the other… I can’t help but think that this was something more along the lines of Matthew 16:13-17, where Jesus asked the disciples who He was, and Peter told Him; leading Jesus to say that flesh and blood had not revealed it to Peter, but the Father. I’m not sure what the thief on the cross prayed, but it seems to me that whatever it was, led the Father to reveal to him that salvation was on the next cross over.
Now, a lot of people theorize that since the thief on the cross clearly believed in his heart, and confessed with his mouth, just as we are told to do in Romans 10:9, that it proves that belief and confession are all that is required for salvation. I have blogged before salvation being more complicated than that. Let us consider for a moment that this was a pretty extreme situation. For one thing, Christianity was a fairly new idea. Jesus’ followers weren’t even known as Christians yet. How many opportunities did the thief have to accept Jesus as his personal savior prior to finding himself dying right next to Him? Further, we know that the thief was a sinner (aren’t we all?); he wasn’t being crucified as a follower of Jesus. Now we have been taught that baptism is for the remission of sins (Luke 3:3, Acts 2:38). Obviously, the thief didn’t climb down off of his cross, get baptized, and then get back on his cross, but it’s equally obvious that he had the kind of sin in his life that would have kept him out of Heaven, so what happened? Surely Jesus knew what kind of man He was talking to… In Luke 5:24 (and Matthew 9:6, and Mark 2:10), Jesus demonstrates that He has the power on earth to forgive sins.
Further, in the book of Romans (often referred to as the book of salvation), Apostle Paul explains to us the mechanism of baptism: When we are baptized into Christ, we are baptized into His death, the body of sin is destroyed, for he that is dead is freed from sin. In other words, our baptism represents the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The thief didn’t have to go through a rite representative of dying with Christ, he literally died with Christ.
How many of us can say, honestly, that the first time we ever had the opportunity to accept Jesus was when we were in the process of already dying, that we were dying with Him, and that He personally forgave our sins? Not too many, I would think. Yet, I have heard an awful lot of people use the thief on the cross as an excuse not to get baptized. I don’t think God likes excuses (I’ve certainly never gotten a warm, fuzzy feeling when I have tried to use one on Him). The Bible also tells us that (in James 4:17), to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. So, while the thief on the cross clearly didn’t need to be baptized, the rest of us do; not only would it be a sin to not get baptized, given the opportunity, but we would still face every other sin that we ever committed in judgment…
By the way, one other thing, in John 10:1, Jesus said that if anyone comes up any other way, the same is a thief and a robber. Now I have sometimes wondered if He didn’t say that, knowing that there would be a thief that would end up in Heaven by a little bit different route than the rest of us. Really, though, Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, so the thief did make it to Heaven by the same Way. Really, though, too, if you read John 10, Jesus isn’t talking about getting to Heaven some other way, He’s talking about someone coming into the sheepfold (the church) pretending to be the Shepherd, and that’s a whole different situation.

Baptism for the Dead

In First Corinthians, Paul finds himself in an interesting position. The church at Corinth was apparently in a sorry state, they were calling themselves Christians, and worshipping together, but somehow had missed a great deal of what makes a Christian a Christian. Paul admonished them about many things, not the least of which was the fact that many of the Corinthians did not believe in the resurrection.
There are some who refer to Paul’s question, “Why are they then baptized for the dead?” as evidence that, in the early church, people were sometimes baptized by proxy. In other words, one could go to their pastor and say, I just know that if my Aunt Sally were alive today, if I could show her what I’ve been shown, then she would want to get baptized. Can I get baptized for her?” and presumably, the pastor of the church at Corinth would say, “Why, sure, just step on up into this tank and we’ll take good care of Aunt Sally.” I don’t think that is what Paul is suggesting at all. I think that he is reminding the people of Corinth that they were baptized into Christ, and if Christ did not rise from the dead, then their faith is useless. If Jesus wasn’t resurrected, then what hope do the rest of us have of a life to come? What is the point of living the life that we live, if we have no hope of a better life to come?
If you read the whole chapter, it becomes fairly clear that they had an argument with the idea of resurrection from the dead. Paul reminds them that they have been taught the resurrection story; they know that Peter saw Christ (the Aramaic equivalent of the name Peter is Cephas), and then the rest of the disciples, and then others. For whatever reason, these people have decided that this can’t be true. The whole chapter is devoted to the idea that Jesus rose from the dead to show us the way. It wasn’t about getting baptized for the sake of someone else.

A Recipe for Success as a Christian

Let’s suppose for a moment, that I were baking a cake, and I asked you to go to the store for me and pick up some eggs, buttermilk, heavy cream, and a pound of Callebaut chocolate, would you then assume that those ingredients are all that goes into a cake? Probably not, in fact, you probably have a pretty good idea, that some of those ingredients I don’t actually need to make a cake, I just need those for this particular recipe. What if I asked you for all-purpose flour, baking powder, vegetable oil, and vanilla? I might be able to make a cake with those ingredients, but it probably wouldn’t be very tasty. More likely, though, you would realize that I already had most of the ingredients I needed for the recipe that I was using. (By the way, I don’t carry around cake recipes in my head, the one that I used for this illustration can be found here.)
Sometimes people get hung up on the idea that in various places in the gospels, Jesus told one person that they had to one thing to be saved, but told another to do something else. Keep in mind that Jesus knew what state each of those people were in. He knew, so to speak, which individuals had flour, milk, eggs, vanilla, baking powder, or vegetable oil. He was telling them what they needed, and, in some cases, He was telling them one thing, knowing that it would lead to other things. In Luke 7, there is a beautiful story about Jesus being invited to dinner at the home of a Pharisee named Simon, but, a woman, whom Simon didn’t approve of, followed Jesus in. After some discussion, Jesus tells the woman that her faith has saved her. In Luke 8:12, Jesus, in explaining the parable of the sower, says that the wayside represents people that hear the Word, but don’t accept it, lest they “…believe and be saved,” which would imply that belief is the only ingredient of salvation. That doesn’t necessarily follow, although if one truly believes, there will be other actions that follow from that belief. John 10:9 makes it clear that Jesus is the only way to be saved, but He doesn’t really talk about how to be saved, just that He is the way. Now, in Matthew 10:22, Matthew 24:13, and Mark 13:13, Jesus says that one must endure to the end to be saved. Endure what? Well, reading Matthew 24 and Mark 13, we see that Jesus talks a lot about His followers being persecuted. We have a bad tendency to think that because we live in a country that is predominantly Christian, that was founded on Christian principles, where freedom of religion is the law of the land, that we will never have to endure persecution, but there are those around us who won’t like us living a Christian life, and will give us problems (certainly not to the extent that the early church had problems, but still). Now, Mark 16:16 says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Now, some people look at that and say, “Oh, but it doesn’t say that he that is not baptized is damned,” but, again, that’s part of a recipe.
In Romans 8:24, Paul tells us that we are saved by hope. Is hope better than faith? Or does hope lead to faith? In Romans 10:9, Paul says, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” Now Jesus never said anything about confessing Him, should we then ignore what Jesus said and just go by what Paul said? Of course not, but neither should we ignore Paul, either.
What we definitely don't want to do is try to live by part of the Scripture, and ignore the rest. This is not a cafeteria. although I think we all have a tendency to be cafeteria Christians.

Circumcision and Baptism

I have heard some people say that baptism is like circumcision, and since you don't have to be circumcised anymore, you don't have to be baptized anymore, either. I always want to ask them if they have a starter in their car, and if they do, then, why? the starter is just like the old-time hand-cranks, so if you don't need a hand-crank anymore, then you must not need starter, either.
Realistically, the reason that circumcision was required to be a Jew, but not required to be a Christian has a lot to do with the fact that, although Christianity grew out of Judaism, they are two different religions. And, yes, there are many times in Scripture where it compares baptism with circumcision, it is pretty clear that while circumcision is a requirement for a man to be a Jew, baptism is a requirement for anyone to be Christian. Isn't it convenient that we know have something that women can do, too?
Let’s look at circumcision first: This was actually one of the earliest commandments, God told Abraham, long before He gave Moses the law, to circumcise all the baby boys among his descendents. Now, Moses, having run away from Egypt into Ethiopia, but now having seen the burning bush, and is going back to Egypt to set his people free, gets partway back, with his Ethiopian wife, Zipporah, and God demands that Moses’ son be circumcised—God seems to be prepared to kill Moses over this. Keep in mind that this is totally foreign to Zipporah (it probably seemed completely barbaric to her), and Moses, not really having been raised as a Jew, himself, never really pressed the issue with her, but now that they are away from her people, and heading back towards his people, God wants Moses’ family to be right. Obviously, this was an important commandment if God was willing to kill Moses over it. Keep in mind, also, that Moses was in a unique position; he was raised as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, so he knew the palace, and, even though he may not have the most favor of the current administration, they knew him, and probably thought of him as family (the black sheep of the family, no doubt, but he could make requests that ordinary Hebrews would be killed over). So God has this individual that fits the current situation perfectly, except for this one little thing, and God is ready to kill him, and raise up another one to take his place, unless he circumcises his son.
Now, baptism is generally thought to have begun with John the Baptist. Of course, John was sent to prepare the way for the Christ. Now we have four different accounts of the Great Commission, each of them at least a little different, but both Matthew and Mark agree that baptism is part of the Great Commission. That makes it sound like baptism is pretty important, too. Now, in Colossians 2:11-12, Apostle Paul makes the comparison between circumcision and baptism. In Romans 2, Apostle Paul attempts to explain why, in this new covenant, that physical circumcision means so little, but the circumcision that matters is the circumcision of the heart—which would have to be circumcision “made without hands.” In First Corinthians 7, Paul also explains that, in Christ, it really doesn’t matter whether one is circumcised or not, what matters is obedience—keeping the commandments. We have already established that Jesus commanded baptism in the Great Commission, so any attempt to disavow baptism is really an attempt to disavow what Jesus said.

Baptism

Yesterday I posted about the importance of water in the scriptures. I used almost all Old Testament scriptures in that post. In the New Testament, water takes on a new importance, which is foreshadowed in the Old Testament. Let me start by pointing out what Jesus said to Nicodemus: "Except a man be born of water and of spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." There are basically two schools of thought on what Jesus meant by that. Jesus had already told Nicodemus that he needed to be born again, and Nic asked a question that indicated that it seemed to him that Jesus was talking about a physical birth. Of course, we know that Jesus was not, but this was a whole new idea to Nicodemus. So, one school of thought is that Jesus was answering Nic's confusion by making a reference to the 'water,' or amniotic fluid, that is released at childbirth. The other school of thought is that, certainly Nic would have known about the water of childbirth, so either Jesus is treating him like an idiot who doesn't know, or Jesus is deliberately trying to confuse Nic by making an obscure reference to physical childbirth. The point is, Nicodemus came to Jesus by night. He wanted to know what Jesus had to say, and he seems to have had a good idea that Jesus had some answers; that He knew something (perhaps several things) that the Sanhedrin didn't. But Nic also didn't want the other Pharisees to know that he was seeking out Jesus. So Jesus isn't going to send him to John the Baptist; to be honest, I'm sure Nicodemus knew about John the Baptist's ministry, anyway, but, again, he wouldn't have wanted his peers to know that he was seeking something from these rabble-rousers. Quite frankly, in the long run, John's baptism wouldn't have done Nic much good, anyway. In Acts chapter 19, Paul found a group of 'believers' who had been baptized by John, but had never been baptized into Christ. Paul pointed out that John taught them to believe in Him that should come after, that is, Jesus. So they got baptized all over again. John's baptism was all there was until the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but then it really didn't even apply anymore. There was this new baptism, not of repentance, but of remission of sins, which is a whole lot better.

Moving on, we find that baptism is something that Jesus didn't talk about until after His death, burial and resurrection, other than His own. The apostles, in the Book of Acts, certainly seemed to think that baptism was important: Each time they made a new convert, they baptized him or her immediately. They didn't wait until they had 50 people that wanted to get baptized, or wait until the annual baptismal gala, or wait three weeks to see if the new convert was really serious; they always baptized immediately (or, straightway, in Biblical terms). In Acts chapter 2, Peter preached a sermon to a large group of people, and then they baptized them. In Acts 8, Phillip preached to a group of people, and baptized them; then went on to preach to a Eunuch on his way back to Ethiopia, and baptized him. In Acts chapter 10, a Roman named Cornelius was praying, and an angel told him to send for Peter; when Peter got there, he preached the word, and baptized Cornelius. In Acts 16, Paul and Silas were imprisoned in a Thessalonian jail, and were able to share with the jailer, and baptized the jailer, and the jailer's family at an unreasonable hour of the morning. I think that it is very clear that the Apostles believed that baptism was important.

So, we have baptism as an extension of the ritual washing in the Old Testament. It again symbolizes cleansing, and purification, and again, is something that must be done in faith for it to have any effect. Some have referred to the rite of baptism as simply being an outward sign of an inward change, but I have to wonder, can one have the inward change without the outward sign? I understand that one can have the outward sign without the inward change, in which case one has simply gotten wet. But, if one truly believes, and is willing to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior--knowing that Jesus taught baptism--why would one not get baptized? I also know that some people like to get into hypothetical situations (what if I got hit by a car before I had a chance to get baptized? etc.), but I'm not going to get into that right now. If you have accepted Jesus as your personal savior, and you have the opportunity to get baptized, why in the world would you fight against getting baptized?

Baptism

There has been a lot of discussion and disagreement in Christian circles about what baptism is and what it is for and when it is needed.

Let me start with what it is. The dictionary definition is: "a ceremonial immersion in water, or application of water, as an initiatory rite or sacrament of the Christian church." Some churches teach that there is a baptism of the spirit, also. If you look at the ancient Greek, however, the word for baptism, baptisma, actually means to be overwhelmed, or fully immersed in a liquid. Certainly you could be overwhelmed by a spirit, but if you look at Acts chapter 10, Peter gets a chance to use the 'Gentile' key on his keyring, and the Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Peter asked the Messianic Jews that were with him, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" If being baptized in the spirit were the desired outcome, well, they've already been overwhelmed by the Spirit. Personally, I think that God wanted all of these Christian Jews to know that He was ready to accept Gentiles--He had already shown that to Peter, but there were others with him that might have thought that Peter had just lost his mind... The point is, that these men received the Holy Ghost and then got baptized in water. Usually we do it the other way around, but if being baptized in spirit were what Jesus had commanded, then Peter was wasting his time getting these men wet for nothing.

So, talking about water baptism, is it full immersion, partial immersion, or having water applied to the individual? Again, the Ancient Greek word referred to immersion. It has been said that this word was used for many different things. That is true, however, all of them involved immersion. It was used in reference to dying garments (immersing a garment in a liquid dye--not tie-dyeing), or washing (taking a bath, not a shower). Actually there are other words for applying a liquid to something or someone, 'ekcheo' for pouring, and 'rantizo' for sprinkling. One of the objections people have its that Jesus, our perfect example, was baptized in the Jordan river, and, in many places, the Jordan isn't deep enough to immerse a person. That is also true; but, in many places it is deep enough... John 3:23 says that, "And John also was baptizing at Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized." How much water does it take to apply a little bit of water to a person? What if you were going to baptize a lot of people? How much would you need? Well, if all you are doing is applying a few drops to each person, you can 'baptize' a whole lot of people from just a puddle. If you are baptizing by full immersion, then you need to find a part of the Jordan where it is deep, where there is much water--which is what John the Baptist did.

What is it for? The book of Romans has been referred to as 'the book of salvation.' In chapter six, Apostle Paul talks about the necessity of baptism. The act of baptism is symbolic of taking on the death of Christ, allowing us to be born again, and to live a new life in Christ. Jesus said, in Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned." Some people get hung up on the fact that he didn't say that if you weren't baptized that you would be damned. I can't imagine why anyone who didn't believe would get baptized (unless, of course, their parents took them to church as a baby... but I mean, why would you choose to get baptized if you didn't believe the gospel?); I also don't think anyone who truly believed would refuse to get baptized. Some people say, well, what if you believed, but got hit by a truck before you could get baptized? Well, I don't know what church you grew up in; my church doesn't get much traffic between the altar and the baptismal tank. But, in all seriousness, do you really think that God would ordain a plan of salvation and then not keep those that were legitimately seeking to follow that plan? We could look at it the other way: If you believe that all that is required for salvation is to believe in your heart and confess with your mouth, what if you are out on the street sharing with someone, and they believe in their heart, but, as they open up their mouth to confess Jesus as Lord of their life, a truck jumps the curb and kills them? It seems to me that's considerably more likely to occur than a truck drive through the church and kill someone who is preparing for baptism. Yes, I realize that a lot of churches don't baptize people right away, but those are churches that don't believe that baptism is essential to salvation. After all, if something were absolutely necessary to get to Heaven, you wouldn't put it off until you had fifty people, or only do it once a year. When you understand the necessity of baptism, you do it right away.

There is more to be said about when baptism is to be performed. Referring once again to Mark 16:16, Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved..." Which would suggest that belief is a prerequisite for baptism. Some churches baptize infants, some churches won't baptize until the age of accountability (usually reckoned as twelve), some churches will only baptize adults. Going with the idea that belief is a prerequisite for a moment, an infant cannot believe. At what age can someone believe? I think twelve is an arbitrary number. Some kids are quite capable of believing and understanding younger than twelve, some aren't until they are older. It seems to me that if a child wants to get baptized, then they should be (and I don't mean if someone pushes them into getting baptized); if later on in life, they feel that they didn't really understand, then they can be re-baptized. Let's look at this from another angle: Can you get credit (or blame) for something that you did (or that you allowed to be done to you) out of sheer ignorance? Only if the ignorance was willful (as in, I know the Bible has the plan of salvation in it, but I refuse to read it because I don't want to be held responsible--sorry, pal, it doesn't work that way). Does a baby have any understanding at all of its own baptism? Let's be honest about it: baptizing babies is something that it done to make the parents feel better, it has nothing to do with that child's salvation.

There is much more that I could say about baptism, but this has already gotten to be one of my longest posts ever (if not the longest post), so I will stop now, and blog about baptism more in a future post.