And my point, whether you realize it or not, is that you are limiting God in time. Viewing God as being acted upon and responding in temporal fashion. What seems to you to be a limitation is his eternal purpose. It is in fact the opposite of limitation. If God were ever able to be put in the spot where he had to ask himself "Should I break my word to save this guy?" then would he be limited. And that is the spot that Jay is saying that God is CONSTANTLY in. What a boxed up and caged in God. But God can truly never be in that situation since he has an eternal purpose that he is fulfilling and is not living in mortal time and responding in time according to the laws of temporal physics. God's purpose to save me precedes me. I am not the initiator of salvation, and therefore God is not merely responding to what I do and determining whether he will save me or not. I am the one in time, God is not. When you talk of God making exceptions you lower him and cease to conceive of him as the one who declares "I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:" (Isa 46:10) Instead you cage him up in the universe and bind him with a fixed temporal spot. The point is that the "all my pleasure" that he speaks of is not changing nor unfixed, but was determined by him of old. To say, therefore, that he has not so worked providence in favor of his elect so as that they will obey his gospel and not a false gospel, is to make for yourself a new god.

But why would he ever be in a situation where he would be forced to make an exception contrary to his word? He is God after all. Look at the conversion of Cornelius. He made an exception, but one that was wholly consonant with his word and not one wit contrary to it. Think about it carefully. God sent an angel to tell him to call for Simon Peter by name and told him that Peter would tell him words whereby he and his house would be saved. Did God just say, "Well, Cornelius is a good guys, so I'll just excuse his ignorance"? No, but he did something spectacular to get the knowledge that Cornelius needed to Cornelius. This is God's way of making exceptions. Again, look at Paul. Did God leave Paul to linger in ignorance and say "Paul's got a good heart, so I'll just sneak him into heaven in the end"? No, but Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus and told him to go into the city and there he would be told what he must do. And then the Spirit send Ananias to tell Paul what he must do, and 3 days later Ananias comes and tells him what to do. But what is it? "Get up and be baptized as a mere sign of salvation you already received"? No. "Be baptized merely 'to obey God'"? No. "Get up and be baptized and have your sins washed away calling on the name of the Lord." See how God does not leave Paul in ignorance? See how he gives him the knowledge he needs? It is my contention that this is God's mode of making exceptions, if we will have them called exceptions. But I would rather not call them exceptions at all, because God is not under constraint to work within time merely, but has already been working in eternity past to the salvation of those who will be saved, as Paul speaks of in Romans 8:28-31. It was no coincident or last minute decision that God sent that angel to Cornelius or that he appeared to Paul and then arranged for Ananias to preach to him–it was all planned by God before hand. This notion of a haphazard God responding merely to the here and now, having no plan whatsoever but just kinda "Oh, I just now notice this guy named Joe. He's a good guy, so I suppose I'll make an exception and save him." That is not the Biblical teaching of what salvation is. If God will save this Joe, then God has planned on getting the truth to him already and will do it–he will not haphazardly save him in ignorance of the truth.

I just don't think it's as cut-and-dried as you make it out to be. Let me state that I do not agree with those who simply want to "invite Jesus into their hearts" in order to be saved and leave baptism out altogether. That is wrong. However, I also believe that God is able to make exceptions in different cases. To me, I am not prepared to limit God in any way. He can do what he wants when he wants. I just wonder if your view, while not entirely wrong, doesn't limit God. Just a thought.

You kinda made my point with your reply. I don't know you personally. I am sure that you are a fine Christian gentleman. It's just that I read through the threads and read your comments and the comments of others and you come off as one who is unwilling to consider any opinion other than your own. I come to a site like Jay's to learn and to grow. I believe I know the truth of Jesus Christ but I am not so arrogant as to believe I have everything figured out perfectly. I try and leave room for growth. Spiritual transformation is a very Biblical idea when you read the New Testament. So, I do apologize for calling you "hard-hearted". I shouldn't have done that. But I find your approach disturbing as well as the approach of other conservative thinkers like yourself. You have to defend, defend, defend and fight your position to the death it seems because if you are proven to be wrong on something then your entire faith is put in jeopardy. That's a dangerous line to walk.

I have been in some of the most progressive churches in our fellowship and have worked in some of them and I have never once heard or read anyone attack baptism. You presume too much. Instead the ones who you believe are attacking baptism are the ones helping us come to a healthier view of it. I know, though, that you will not be convinced of anything I say. You have made your mind up and I know I am talking to a one whose heart is hardened on this subject.