Mark Clarke

At risk of going round in circles Mark..which 'baptism' are you talking about.?

There is 'water' 'spirit' 'fire' 'sufferings' to mention some.

I'll go for the 'spirit', works for me. One Lord, one faith, one body, one baptism etc..

Reading the gospels one gets a general sense of Jesus trying to get people to move in a new direction and the church epistles has Paul trying to do the same.

In that respect I guess the book of Acts could be looked at as 'transitional.'

One of the reasons 'baptism' is still a dilema for some maybe is that as soon as they read the word 'baptism' they immediatey associate it with water when in reality the word used in the greek denotes 'immersion'.

Used mainly when talking about water or dyeing it becomes 'hard' for people to understand a 'spiritual immersion'.

When the word baptism is used with the words holy spirit, it is referring to the baptism of holy spirit. But there are a number of places where the word baptism is used by itself. VPW always used to point out "it doesn't say water there." But when you carefully examine how it's used in Acts, you find that the word baptized without any other qualifier is a short way of saying baptized in the name of Jesus, or baptized in the name of the Lord.

Now we were taught that to be baptized in the name of Jesus was the same as being baptized in the holy spirit. But this can't be if you read Acts 8:15,16: "Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)"

Acts 2:38 also makes a distinction between baptism in the name of Jesus and receiving the holy spirit: "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Also, Acts 19:4-6: "Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."

Plus there are records which specifically identify it with water, such as Philip and the Eunuch in Acts 8, and Peter's command to baptize the Gentiles in Acts 10.

By the way, I pointed out in another post that "one baptism" in Ephesians 6 has nothing to do with different types of baptism; the context is unity in the church because we all have the same faith, same Lord, same baptism, etc.

We must be careful not to dismiss something based on just a couple of verses. I was gradually convinced of the error in The Way's doctrine about baptism, when I studied the whole subject and considered how many passages of scripture relating to the subject fit together.

What the Hey,

Not that I have much to offer in this debate we have going on, but your last post made me have a flashback of reading loyboy's book he wrote about Acts. Sounded awfully familar...does anyone else beside twi teach that Acts was a transitional book? (I am asking this sincerely since I don't have a clue.) :blink:

There are some TWI offshoots that teach it in various forms. But I don't believe there is any real Scriptural proof of such an idea. If the meaning of baptism changed after the day of Pentecost, there is nothing in Paul's or any of the other Epistles.

So, Mark C, how about joining me and Mark O. for a "we're not going to convince each other" adult beverage?

OK. Cheers!

The Romans Peter witnessed to were saved before they were water baptized. The subsequent baptism in that case was normal, agreed. Expected, agreed. But they were not saved "pending subsequent water baptism." They were saved. They were filled with the holy spirit. And they were not water baptized. It is therefore possible.

Part of the difficulty is, as you said before, a difference in the definition of "saved." From your quote, it seems like you are equating receiving the holy spirit with being saved. Would this be a correct assumption?

That's why I did it. But I was saved long before that.

I don't understand. You say you did it to demonstrate your faith in the way that he tells us to. Yet you say it's not necessary. That seems like a contradiction. If making Jesus Lord is necessary for salvation, and making him Lord involves obeying his commands, and baptism is a command of the Lord, how can you say it is not necessary?

Expected, yes. Normal, yes. Necessary, clearly not.

What Scripture do you base this statement on?

Peter when recanting the story went on to say.." Then (denotes time) REMEMBERED I how Jesus said John indeed baptised WITH WATER, BUT you shall be baptised with HOLY SPIRIT...etc..."

Please read those chapters again in context. It does not say he recanted; we were taught to look at it that way. When he said "Then remembered I," he was remembering the words of Jesus. I already dealt in a previous post about why "John indeed baptised with water, but you shall be baptised with holy spirit" is not saying that one would replace the other.

The whole point of this passage is convincing the Jewish Christians that the Gentiles would now be able to be members of the Church as well as they. That there was some conflict between forms of baptism in the first century church is simply not the issue in these chapters. Remember, Peter commanded them "in the name of the Lord" to be baptized in water.

My question before was..am I saved even though I have never been water baptised, it's a simple question isn't it ?

The scriptures tell us that salvation depends on believing the gospel, and then repenting and being baptized for the remission of sins. Perhaps, as Raf pointed out, we have a different definition of saved. If I have truly made Jesus my Lord, why would I not want to demonstrate it the way he has told me to do? Isn't that the definiton of making him Lord?

So Mark..using your statement of the OT 'baptism' being a 'foreshadow' of Johns' baptism..why is it not possible that Johns' baptism (of the gospel period) was a 'foreshadow' of the new birth, pentecostal baptism of spirit ?

It would be possible if there were scripture that said so. But the scriptures don't say that John's baptism was only a forshadowing of the new birth. As I have pointed out, the records in Acts indicate that Christian baptism included both elements of water and spirit.

Can I show any scripture that says it's an optional extra? Sure I can. The Romans Peter witnessed to were saved before they were baptized in water.

If you read Acts 10 and 11 in context, you see that the whole point was that the Jewish Christians had to be convinced that Gentiles could receive the same salvation. Only the receiving of holy spirit would have convinced them of that, which is why it came first. But Peter, when he saw that they received the holy spirit, said "Can any man forbid water..." In Greek it literally reads, "Can any man forbid the water..." This shows that water and spirit were the normal and expected elements involved. (Add to that the record in Acts 8 where they had been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ but had not received holy spirit. Both instances were considered unusual.)

Because Paul was not sent to baptize!

The immediate context is entirely in keeping with the remote context. Your shock is utterly misplaced. The fact that Christ sent him not to baptize explains why he did not baptize so many of these people. People were using "who baptized whom" as evidence of some kind of greater spirituality, and Paul is telling them that the person performing the baptism is of no importance. Why? He wasn't even SENT to baptize! They were putting the emphasis on the physical, the carnal, rather than the Christ, who performed baptisms on none of these people. He was putting the focus back on Christ and taking it away from the ritual.

True, the problem was that they were putting emphasis on who baptized them. He was putting the focus back on Christ into whom we are baptized, rather than the person who performed the baptism, which was of no consequence to him.

The fact that he was not sent to baptize doesn't prove that we are not supposed to be baptized. Not everyone that preaches the gospel will have occasion to perform a baptism. But the proper response to believing the gospel is to repent and be baptized.

***

Many of you seem to have a problem with the idea of an outward symbol being required. But this is because of the way our thinking has been so dominated by Greek thinking. It was Greek philosophy, and especially Gnosticism, that put such a division between the physical and the spiritual. To the Hebrew mind, one's faith was demonstrated by one's actions, and without those actions there was no faith, even though there could certainly be actions without faith. True faith involves the heart and the action; either one without the other is not true faith.

Jesus said we should remember his suffering and death in the practice of communion. Would anyone suggest that it is sufficient to just use "spiritual" bread and wine (whatever that may be) as long as our heart is in the right place? I doubt it. But does that mean the bread and wine have power in and of themselves? No. It is what they represent that gives them any significance. But there is still the need to have bread and wine, because that is what our Lord commanded.

Would anyone suggest that a wedding is not necessary, as long as they are married "in their hearts?" Of course, this is what the world promotes all the time, but I think we agree that it is not God's will. It is only an outward ceremony, but it is what it represents that gives it significance. The same is true with baptism. And we can see this from the records throughout Acts, as well as references elsewhere.

***

By the way, for the sake of clarity, there are two Marks posting here. I post as Mark Clarke, and the other one (whomever he may be) posts as simply Mark.

As for whether or not I persuade anyone, my hope is that people reading this will take a serious look at what we always thought was a "given." Like so many other Way doctrines, I have discovered that when you allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves without preconceived notions, there turns out to be no basis for many of the beliefs we were taught. I don't expect to persuade anyone with my words, but if we can take an honest look at just the scriptures, and see how our previous understanding of them may have been wrong, it will be worth while.

Nothing conclusive? I agree. Nor do I see any conclusive proof that they should be accepted. I certainly wouldn't use them as proof texts.

Luke 23:47 does not say what you say it says. You're thinking of a different verse.

Luke 24:47. One chapter off. No biggie. A little running start:

He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

You can add water, if you'd like. But you're not adding substance. Isn't that the point? That it's our faith and love for God that counts on this matter, not the physical act of immersion or standing under a hot shower, or a cold one? You've turned the act of baptism from a voluntary act of loving worship to a compulsory ritual. And you're missing the beauty of it.

What the Hey:

One could take your information and come to the conclusion that both John and Jesus were pagan influenced in using water for baptism.

I didn't add water. Water was part of the outward sign of repentance from John onward. Jesus added spirit, but it didn't replace water. And it was Peter and the other apostles who confirmed that baptism was the proper response after believing the gospel.

As for being a voluntary act, it is still voluntary, just as accepting Jesus as Lord is voluntary. You say it's our faith. To paraphrase James' admonition, show me your faith without works and I will show you my faith by my works. Faith without action is not really faith. The beauty of it is that rather than have to suffer and die as Jesus did, or cut up animals to shed blood sacrificially, all we have to do is demonstrate our repentance and sharing in the Lord's sacrifice by this simple rite.

You can cite many reasons why it seems wrong to you, as I did for many years. But can you show me any scriptural proof that it is just an "optional extra?" If there were any Scripture that said that, it would contradict the many passages of Scripture that present it clearly.

***

As for spiritual purity and cleansing through water being a pagan concept, I agree. But while scholars recognize that there were pagan rituals which involved water, they also recognize that John's baptism was something new, in that he preached the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And the baptism in the name of Jesus which followed was also a symbol of repentance and change in heart. The NT does not say it is the water that cleanses. It is the change in heart, accompanied by the power of the holy spirit, that makes you spiritually pure. But the outward symbol is as necessary as the spirit inside, because it has to do with demonstrating your faith, and entering into a sharing in Jesus Christ's sacrifice and shed blood.

While scholars recognize the existance of pagan rituals, my point was that Biblical scholars have always recognized that baptism was the commonly accepted rite of initiation into the Christian Church and into Christ, and that it involved water and spirit. You don't have to look for obscure scholarly writings either. Look up baptism in any Bible dictionary and you will see this pattern. The whole idea that baptism of the holy spirit made water obsolete is a recent invention, and very few outside of TWI and its offshoots hold to this belief. We were taught to accept what VPW said and avoid reading the works of other scholars, and as a result our whole system of Biblical interpretation was largely esoteric and elitist.

Exactly CWF..Peter also said in Hebrews 6: 2 about 'moving on' from doctrines of baptisms etc..

maybe we should to. I wonder if it is discussed by people who are not sure if they are actually born-again, saved or whatever. ??

Hebrews 6:2 does not say we should move on in the sense of not talking about things that don't matter. It says we should "go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment..." These things (including baptism) are THE BASICS, and we should not be laying the foundation again, but growing beyond the basics. The epistle is actually reproving those to whom it is addressed, because they were not even upholding the basics. "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat." (Heb. 5:12)

I again want to highly exhort anyone reading this to put aside Way doctrine and thinking patterns, and search the Scriptures to see if these things are so.

And there may not be a verse that says that either. Do a bit of research into the conclusion of Mark 16. I am not convinced it belongs in the Bible (nor am I convinced it does not).

Actually, I have done quite a bit of research, and find that there is nothing absolutely conclusive to prove that the section does not belong.

But even if there were, it does not contradict any of the other clear indications from Scripture that baptism was a command of the Lord. Despite what Conybeare said about Eusebius quoting Matthew 28:19, there is no manuscript that does not include the reference to baptism in that verse. And Luke 23:47 clearly states that Jesus commanded repentance and remission of sins be preached in the name of Jesus Christ, which Peter links with baptism in Acts 2:38, as well as the pattern of baptism seen throughout Acts. It can't be just tossed away because of a couple of verses.

I exhort anyone reading this to put aside all previous notions about the subject that were learned from TWI and consider the Scriptures as if you had never taken any classes. Virtually all Biblical scholars have recognized that Christian baptism is not just spirit to the exclusion of water. The very idea that spirit replaced water is actually a recent one, only seen in this century.

So I have never been water baptised, yet I have obeyed Romans 10: 9,10. I speak in tongues ( fluently, distinctly, enunciatedly (!) my question is..what am I missing out on by not having been 'water' baptised. ??

I believe I answered that already. Please reread my previous posts.

The same way speaking in tongues is an expression of obedience but not necessary. The same way witnessing is an expression of obedience but not necessary. The same way cleaning up your act and getting together with other believers are expressions of obedience but not necessary. The same way daily prayer, and hourly, if you're so inclined, is an expression of obedience but not necessary.

When I say necessary, I mean for salvation. I think all those things are important and vital to maintaining a relationship with God in Christ. But to call them necessary FOR SALVATION mocks the sacrifice of Christ.

Perhaps we have differing views on soteriology, which would explain our difference of opinion on this subject. As I said, for me, it's academic. I got baptized, praise God, not to become saved, but because God in Christ already had saved me.

But there is no command that says, "He that believes and speaks in tongues shall be saved and he that does not shall be damned." Nor is there any such command for the other things you mention.

I think we might have differing views on soteriology, as you say. Salvation depends on believing the gospel message, repenting (that is turning your heart toward God) and confessing Jesus as Lord. If one were to say "I believe in Jesus" but never do any of the things he commanded, has he truly made Jesus Lord?

Hi Mark..in your reply to Jerry you asked if Jesus did not teach things very well for the disciples to 'miss' things.

You can see by reading the N.T. that there were many things they 'missed' and 'forgot'. The two on the road to Emmaeus is one example.

Also remember because of travel obstacles and 'media' limitations one can understand why Phillip for example was 'still behind the 8-ball' in his thinking.Also one reads of Apollos being shown a more 'perfect way' of baptism by Aquilla and Priscilla in Acts 18.

On the road to Emmaus, they (like the other disciples) had not yet seen the significance of Christ's death, and did not yet believe he was risen. However, the disciples were fully instructed in those things by Jesus himself afterward.

Apollos was shown a more prefect way, and what Paul shared with him regarding baptism in the name of Jesus is in harmony with other scriptures that teach this. But there is no clear teaching by Jesus, Paul, or anyone else, that baptism in water became obsolete with the coming of the holy spirit.

Besides, the point I was making is that the only way TWI could make the records that clearly show baptism in water fit with their doctrine, was to say that the apostles were wrong when they did it. This does not fit with anything in the scriptures. Sure they made mistakes, like when Peter acted like he should still not eat with Gentiles, as described in Galatians. But we don't have to guess which things were right and which were wrong. The scriptures plainly tell us that we are not under the Mosaic Law and that Gentiles are of the same body. But as I said, there is no clear teaching that baptism in water became obsolete with the coming of the holy spirit. We were taught to read this into the records by TWI, and must be willing to rethink and reevaluate this topic, just as we have with so many others that turned out to be wrong.

Raf,

You wrote, "I agree, baptism is an act of obedience. But it does not save." But I Peter 3:21 says, "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:"

The reason Peter could say that baptism saves us, is that rather than washing the flesh as ordinary water would do, it is the "answer of a good conscience toward God." You have that good conscience toward God when you believe His gospel, accept His Son, and do what He tells you to do.

You say it's "an outward expression of obedience, praise God, but no more necessary than speaking in tongues." But if obedience to God is necessary for salvation, and baptism is the outward expression of it, then how can it not be necessary? That's the same as saying that believing is necessary, but you don't have to really demonstrate your faith, which is the exact opposite of what James says about faith: "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:18)

If salvation depends on making Jesus your Lord, then how can we not obey him? "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46) How much plainer could Jesus have made it? "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16)

Mark

JerryB,

You wrote,

Unfortunately, we were taught how to read into the Scriptures what VPW and others said, instead of reading in context, and letting it speak for itself. The following is the context of Ephesians 4:

Notice that it is talking about unity in the Body, not about different types of baptism. We are to endeavor to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, because there is one body, one spirit, etc. We should try to maintain unity because we all have the same spirit, the same Lord, the same faith, the same baptism, the same God. That there were two forms of baptism, or a question of which form was correct was not an issue.

In another post you said,

But on what are we to base the conclusion that God didn't want it done? In order to make this idea fit, VPW and all his followers had to assume that the apostles messed up and got it wrong. This doesn't say much for Jesus' ability to teach, does it? Not only that, but it is reading something into the records that is nowhere explicitly stated. If the word "baptism" when used without any other qualifying words, meant water in one place, and spirit in another, there would be major confusion, unless a change in meaning was specifically stated. Paul does, in fact, specifically state many changes in meaning from Old Testament practices, but baptism is not one of them. There is nothing in the New Testament that specifically says that water was replaced by spirit.

Jesus himself even authorized his disciples to baptize in water, early in his ministry (John 3:22,26; 4:1,2). When he comissioned his disciples after his resurrection, he instructed them to baptize (Mathew 28:19, Mark 16:16) and they followed his commandments, as we read throughout Acts. There is nothing in any of the records on which to base the conclusion that spirit was supposed to replace water. We just were told that, and learned to read Acts with that viewpoint.

To be baptized in the name of Jesus was a baptism that the disciples performed, using water as the symbol of the person's repentance and sharing in the death and resurrection of Jesus. It was usually accompanied with the baptism in holy spirit, which Jesus himself does, not any man. John said that Jesus would baptize with holy spirit, in contrast to what he or any man could do. But nowhere in the Bible does it say that spirit would replace water. Rather, it was added to water.

There are two aspects of it, but it is still one baptism. Water baptism from John onward was a symbol of repentance for the forgiveness of sin. But it was incomplete until Jesus shed his blood, which is why John said that his baptism pointed to the one who was to come after, namely Jesus. (Paul said the same thing in Acts 19). When the spiritual aspect was added, the rite became complete, and it was what Peter and the others declared must be done for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). They baptized with water, now in the name of Jesus Christ instead of by John's baptism, and when they did so, Jesus baptized them with spirit. Both aspects are necessary, and both were the norm in the Church. When they were baptized in the name of Jesus but didn't receive the holy spirit in Acts 8, this was unusual. Likewise when the Gentiles received the holy spirit without being baptized in water, in Acts 10, which the context shows was necessary to prove to Peter and the others that the Gentiles should be allowed to partake of the rite and be members of the Church.

As for making it necessary for salvation, is forgiveness of sins necessary for salvation? We are told that we must repent and be baptized in order to receive forgiveness of sins. It is not salvation by works if we are demonstrating our faith and repentance with this act which the Lord prescribed. It is simply a matter of obedience. If we call him Lord, why would we not do what he has commanded us to do?

Mark

I haven't posted on this site in quite a while, but I would like to make a few observations, as this is a subject I have been studying for a while now.

First of all, the most common argument against water baptism being necessary is the reference to "John baptizes with water, but you shall be baptized with holy spirit." The verses that say this were thought by VPW and TWI to be setting spirit against water, and making them mutually exclusive. (Many TWI offshoots still hold to this understanding.) But this is not the point of those verses. The point is to contrast the ministry of John with the ministry of Jesus. Jesus would baptize with the holy spirit, which would make an inner change in the believer, in contrast to John's baptism which was only outward. But it is not saying that one would make the other obsolete.

When the word “but” is used to set two things in contrast, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they are mutually exclusive. It is similar to I Cor. 8:1 where Paul writes, “Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth.” This verse doesn’t mean you should have love without knowledge. It is simply contrasting the aspects of each. In fact, in this case, it is implying that knowledge without love is insufficient, and that love must be added to knowledge. Similarly, John’s baptism involved water, while Jesus’ baptism would also involve spirit. But it doesn’t automatically follow that spirit and water are mutually exclusive.

Theologians have recognized this for years. Reading through the records in Acts, one sees that the typical Christian baptism involved both water and spirit. The disciples baptized with water in Jesus’ name, and Jesus baptized in holy spirit, usually at the same time. In fact on the occasions where one was present without the other, it was considered unusual, and the apostles got involved to rectify the situation. Certainly John’s baptism in water alone could not produce a change on the inside, as the holy spirit could do. But there was also a purpose for the outward sign of water. Rather than spirit replacing water, it was added to it, making Christian baptism complete.

When Peter said that he remembered the words of Jesus, that John baptized in water but they would be baptized in holy spirit, we were taught that Peter had made a mistake by ordering water baptism, but then came to his senses. But the fact is, believers in Acts were usually baptized in water and received holy spirit. Peter would never have believed that Gentiles would receive and become part of the Body of Christ, unless he had seen specific indication of their acceptance from God. When he saw that they received holy spirit, he said, "Can any man forbid water...?" In the Greek, it is literally "the water," that is, the well-known water, which was a regular part of Christian baptism. When he said "What was I that I could withstand God" we were taught that it meant that withstanding God would have been to continue baptizing in water instead of holy spirit. But this is not what the whole passage is talking about. Read Acts chapters 10 and 11 in context, and you see that the whole point was God showing them that Gentiles could also be part of the Church too. To withstand God would have been to deny the Gentiles the right to be baptized into the Church.

There is a lot more to this subject, but the main point of baptism that TWI and many of its offshoots miss, is that it is our entrance into the New Covenant relationship, which includes our sharing in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is his shed blood that gives us forgiveness of sins, and we share in that through baptism.

The objection many have about water baptism is that it is an "outward sign" and we are supposed to be saved by faith and not by works. But as James writes, faith without works is dead.

Does this contradict what Paul writes about salvation by faith? Certainly not. But there is a difference between works that are done to try to earn salvation, and works that are done as a demonstration of your faith. Remember the old saying in TWI, "Believing is action?" You can say you believe all you want, but until you put it into action, it is not really believing. To ratify the New Covenant, Jesus shed his blood; we have to take some kind of action to enter into that covenant and partake of the sin-cleansing power of his blood.

Another important point, John the Baptist did not preach the same dipping practices that proselytes were doing. That was a man made practice that was not commanded of God. Nor was he preaching any washing rituals from the OT Law. They involved washing parts of one's body, or utensils, rather than complete immersion, and it was to be done on a regular basis. John's baptism, on the other hand, was total immersion, and done only once as a sign of repentance. He preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). But it was not complete, since Jesus had not yet shed his blood for that purpose. Once it was complete, the disciples were instructed to preach repentance and remission of sins in the name of Jesus Christ. Peter did so on the day of Pentecost.

Notice it doesn't say "repent and be baptized in the holy ghost." If you read the records in Acts carefully, without preconceived ideas, you see that to be baptized in the name of Jesus is not the same as baptized in the holy ghost. It is actually to be baptized in water, but in the name of Jesus Christ, rather than in the name of John the Baptist.

Water baptism was an outward sign, which demonstrated one's faith in the gospel and one's decision to repent and turn one's heart to God. Is an outward sign just an "optional extra" as we have been told? Consider the words of our Lord.

I'd say it's pretty clear that we need to demonstrate our faith and repentance, to enter into the covenant and partake of what Jesus made available.

My wife has been sick for over a month. She has had several different infections (sinusitis, bronchitis, etc.) and they have held on for an unusually long time. Doctors are trying to figure out the root cause, but they are stumped. She has a chronic disease called sarcoidosis which affects her immune system, but the doctors are not sure whether that is the only reason these infections are staying around so long.

When they first came out, I was turned off by all the screaming girls. I saw "A Hard Day's Night" in the theater when it was released, and I couldn't hear a thing. It was about the time of Sgt. Pepper that I began to appreciate their music. It wasn't until the mid-seventies that I came to appreciate the actual music from their early years, and it made me wish I'd been able to hear it back then.

Then there's the one about the first nicotine fit in the Bible.

Acts 16:29

Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas...

I saw Robert Wilkinson last year at Vince Finnegan's yearly get-together. He and his wife are doing well and have apparently been keeping in touch with with Vince.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:

Mark,

I was often, in the 70?s, accused of making Paul my Lord instead of Jesus Christ, because I paid more attention to the epistles than the gospels.

If you ever did a lot of witnessing to other Christians, like I did, then surely you have run into this same accusation. How did you handle it? Is Paul your Lord?

---

Yes I made the mistake that so many have made and still make. We used to place more importance on the words of Paul than the words of our lord, under the false belief that Jesus Christ's words were only addressed to Israel. I have since repented of that foolish practice. Paul's words can only be correctly understood in light of the words of Jesus Christ. And Paul consented to his words according to I Tim. 6:3-5, "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."

Jesus frequently said we must believe his words, one example being John 12:47, 48, "And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."

This is why I say you should be studying the words of Jesus Christ with the same minuteness with which you're studying a man's words.

[This message was edited by Mark Clarke on April 03, 2003 at 22:32.]

Mike---

Who's your Lord? VPW or JC? You ought to be examining Jesus Christ's teachings with the minuteness that you're using on the writings of a man. A man, by the way, who always said, "Don't take my word for it-- read the Bible."

Regardless of what anyone thinks about VP and his teaching, he always told us to go to the Word, and some of us who have actually done that have found that much of what he taught was wrong. But most of us spent years studying the Word of Wierwille instead of the Word of God, and as a result got sucked into believing the wrong doctrine. If you really believe that "the Word of God is the Will of God" you need to study IT and not the word of any man.

PS,

The whole idea of a dichotomy between the physical and the spiritual comes from Greek philosophy, not from the Bible. Check your church history.

[This message was edited by Mark Clarke on April 01, 2003 at 9:19.]

I was born and raised in Rye, and after my family moved to Peekskill I got involved with TWI. Remember the "Groovy Christians of Rye, NY?" Took PFAL in 1971 in Toni Cornwall's basement. Anybody remember that name? Chris Geer ran my first class.

Went WOW in 1978-79 to San Francisco, College Division at WC of E 1980-81, lived in Chicago 1982-83 and went WOW again 1983-84 to Providence, RI. I lived in RI for 14 years, but now I'm a Noo Yawkah again, albeit upstate (Syracuse).

I have some great memories of those days. Steve Heefner before he got canned...Pressed Down before they went "country"...Remember Brian Bliss in Daystar?...How about the Rock of Ages '72 film with Pastor Bishop from the Rye Presbyterian Church..."God bless you, and may your tribe increase!"...Johnny Townsend was Limb Leader for awhile too. He was one of the good ones. I Remember on the ROA '71 album, he said, "What if the whole Way ministry goes down the tubes and you're the only one left standing? Who's your strength? God!" At the time we thought he was speaking hypothetically...who'd'a thunk it?

Yes there are good memories, probably because I was young and naive then. But even the bad stuff, God can turn into a learning and growing experience if you let Him.

Mark Clarke

As soon as I heard that the new party leader's name was Hu, I knew it was just a matter of time before we heard something like this!

Thanks for the laughs!

Mark

I can relate. I'm a terrible procrastinator.

Someday I'm going to do something about it!

I remember VPW saying something to the effect that John Lennon was personally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people that died of overdoses because he had promoted drug use.

Of course there is such a thing as personal responsibility for your actions, but what would TWI leaders know of that?

*******

I also remember the first time I heard that John Lennon had been killed. I was in the College program at Emporia and some Corps guy (I don't remember who) stuck his head out of a door in the dorm and said "John Lennon was shot...dead!" At first I thought he had said John Lynn. That was bad enough, but when he repeated "John Lennon" he was laughing and made some callous remark along the lines of "Serves him right!" I didn't say anything at the time because I felt like I wasn't supposed to feel bad about the death of an "unbeliever."

Eze 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

It's not my place to judge a man's heart, and I still liked his music. It was in December and I still get a lump in my throat when I hear "Happy Xmas (War is Over)."

At a family reunion I went to in May, the husband of my niece Debbie (who is blonde) told this story, and had us going until the punch line.

Debbie was out taking care of the horses in the barn when a fire accidentally got started. It flared up quickly before she could stop it, and soon the barn was in flames.

She ran to the house and called the fire department. "You've got to come quickly," she said. "My barn is on fire and it's burning out of control and the horses are in there!"

The man from the fire department asked, "How do we get there?"

Debbie replied, "Duh! The big red truck!!!"

That line became a running joke all weekend.

A poster called Oakspear has an interesting signature line. It goes,

"In theory, there is no difference between theory & practice, but in practice there is."

This reminded me of a theory I devised a number of years ago...

CLARKE?S THEORY OF EXCEPTIONS

There is an oft-quoted rule that says that there is an exception to every rule. If this is literally true, then there is no rule that has no exception. This being the case, the very rule that there is an exception to every rule is itself without exception. But if it is without exception, then it is the exception to the rule itself (that there is an exception to every rule). Since it is the exception to itself, it actually does have an exception (i.e. itself) and therefore the rule that there is an exception to every rule is proven true, and is without exception. However, being without exception, it is the exception to the rule itself and therefore the rule, having this exception, is not an exception to itself. Since even the rule itself has an exception, there is no exception to the rule and thus the rule is without exception. The rule being without exception, however, makes it the exception to the rule itself (that there is an exception to every rule) and therefore the rule is without exception, making said rule exceptionless. But this exceptionless rule is automatically the exception to itself, and so the rule has no exception, and this being the case, the rule is the exception to itself and therefore is without exception, for it is not the exception to itself if it has no exception, but since there is no exception to the rule itself, then it is itself an exception to the very rule itself, thus making it without exception and therefore the exception to itself??etc. etc. etc??.

Wrap your brain around that one sometime and you?ll understand why I can?t sleep at night. (Actually it?s because I work third shift, but that?s beside the point!)