Al gives me to understand that I have received from him as well as the readers (meaning the Religious Debates List members), unmerited favor due to my "special circumstances." He said that as a result of that unmerited favor that there was no insistence upon "strict compliance with procedural rules and regulations." Another result of this unmerited favor then was he states, that "love triumphs over law!"

However, the fallacy of this argument was that there was no "special circumstances." I was ill and my wife was in the hospital, this is true. There was however no need for these circumstance to be considered "special" in relationship to the debate. In fact, it would not have mattered if I had purposely chosen to not respond for however amount of time that I may have chosen, because my dear readers THERE IS NO STANDARD!

That's right, look at the list rules. I will not post them here (I will make them available to other readers outside the list). There is not one rule that states how much time a disputant is allowed to send an article to the list. Without a standard, there can be no "special circumstances" or more accurately an exception.

This is a moderated list and it is the responsibility of the moderator(s) to determine whether an excess amount of time has been taken by a disputant, but that is an arbitrary decision that does not base itself on a standard. If a moderator exercises their responsibility and states that a disputant must respond within a particular amount of time then that disputant gives reason as to why that is not possible for him, even then, though the moderator may grant an extension, it is based upon arbitrary decision making, not law. It may even be a granting of a favor, but not unmerited, for the moderator has determined that the circumstance warrant the extension of the original arbitrary deadline.

If Al granted me "grace" it was because I did not respond in the particular amount of time that HE thought I should have. I did not however need his grace.

Oh, by the way, gracious Al who stated, "What I would NOT do is demand that the moderator of this debate declare Michael to be in default by virtue of failing to post his response in a timely fashion. What I would NOT do is declare Michael a loser in this exchange by virtue of some rule of regulation. I would evidence LOVE over LAW." Well, dear reader, I am here to tell you that Al's grace did not last very long. Just this week in an e-mail to Jeri Dentel (who is moderating this debate) he requested just exactly what he said he would NOT request. Oh, what amazing grace! Oh, what wondrous love!

I do however need God's grace which is precisely why I need to do those things which God has determined that I MUST do to receive it. I have yet to find in the scriptures any exception to what God has said man must do. Al certainly didn't find one in the affirmative, neither will he in the negative.

Al missed the point concerning exceptions in the Bible. He tries to argue essentially that since God has stated certain exceptions that there will therefore be certain exceptions in other areas than the ones that He stated. Al, the argument that was presented and that you need to deal with is that God has already stated the ONLY exceptions that He makes. I even listed them. There is no exception to the necessity of baptism. You can not find one. Until you do you cannot say that one will be saved without it. Not with God's approval anyway.

Al still wants to argue that obedience occurs in the heart before that actual compliance. (Look at paragraphs twenty-four and twenty-five of Al's second negative). This is not true. It is the willingness to obey that occurs in the heart that brings about the obedience. I believe that is exactly what James teaches concerning sin and its actions. It conceives in the heart as lust, which then bringeth forth sin, which then brings forth death. (James 1:13-15).

Al, just out of curiosity, a man has been a faithful Christian for twenty-five years. Prior to that however he was a drunk (what we today call an alcoholic). For all these years he has been faithful, then one day something terrible happens. It doesn't matter what it is, just that it sends him into a whirlwind. In desperation to try to deal with it he can only think about having a drink, so he heads to the store/bar in order to get a drink. On the way he gets into a fatal accident and is killed. Is he lost forever now? Do not cop out by saying that you don't know what is he might have done had he survived. You are presuming intent on baptism, so presume intent here as well. If you say no, then you will have to concede the issue on baptism as well. If you say yes, Well, can you really serve such a legalistic, vindictive God as that?

It is obvious that Al does not understand implication when in paragraph twenty-eight he claims I go far afield by stating that God would have to save one that never heard the Gospel based upon what their intent would have been had they heard it. He does not understand that if it is true that God would save one based upon intent of the heart at the time of death then to not save every person who would have had that same INTENT would make Him a respecter of persons. Which is why there are no exceptions found in the Holy Scriptures. God is NOT a respecter of persons just as Peter so aptly learned (Acts 10:34). Therefore God's plan of salvation is the same for every person. "He that believeth and IS baptized shall be saved . . . " Mk 16:16.

Now, I promised near the end of my last affirmative article that I would show in this article the reason why God said what He said regarding the necessity of baptism. We want to do this by looking at what occurs to one that is baptized.

Let us first look at Acts two. Acts 2:38 KJV "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." Act 2:47 KJV "Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."

There are two things that need to be seen here. The first is that when one is baptized their sins are forgiven. Ananias said they were "washed away," Acts 22:16 KJV "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." This is so very essential because Isaiah tells us that our iniquities have separated us from God and that He will not here us (Isa. 59:1-2). Paul tells us in Romans that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and that the wages of that sin is death (Rom. 3:23; 6:23).

It is therefore necessary for every person to somehow have that sin taken care of. God devised baptism to accomplish that. We are told that nothing will enter into the kingdom or into heaven that defiles. Rev. 21:22-27 KJV "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honor into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honor of the nations into it. And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." Since I find absolutely no exception to these statements, I must conclude that God will not save one that has not been baptized because their sins have not neither remitted nor washed away.

Now let us look at Romans. Rom. 6:3-5 KJV "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:"

I believe this to be one of the wondrous passages of the New Testament. Jesus told us in John 3:3-5 that a man must be born again to enter the kingdom of God of both water and Spirit. B.W. Johnson says regarding this passage:

• "Whatever this may mean, it will be admitted by all (1) that no one is a member of the kingdom of God until he is born again; (2) that the Savior declares the impossibility of one entering who is not born of water and of the Spirit. All agree that the birth of the Spirit refers to the inward, or spiritual change that takes place, and all candid authorities agree that born of water refers to baptism."

Index