Wednesday, January 28, 2009

The Fall of Christian Evangelicism?

Check out this post from the 'Internet Monk':

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/my-prediction-the-coming-evangelical-collapse-1

I thought it was a scary analysis for the Christian Church in America. Added to the Church's problems is sin in the leadership, and what seems to be the absence of the Holy Spirit. If you have comments, I'd love to hear from you.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Infant Baptism, Part 2

Another cold day here in Burnsville. Fifteen below this morning, with the skies as clear as can be. I wanted to get back to discussing Baptism, and re-visit two of the earlier and more important subjects: The Great Commission, and Infant Baptism. Because these are two foundational topics for Baptism, I think it is worth the time to look further into them.


 

1). The Great Commission; Mt 28:19-20 and Mark 16:15-16; You stated that the Great Commission has only one Command – for followers of Jesus to "make Disciples". You then went on to say that the way to make Disciples is with the preaching of the Gospel and the person's response to it being repentance and faith. First, I think we should take a closer look at the Greek that's involved in the Great Commission, and for this I rely on Prof. Daniel Wallace's 'Greek Grammar, Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament' book (hey, pretty impressive, huh?) As you likely know, Prof. Wallace is the teacher of Greek at Dallas Theological Seminary, and is likely considered the top Greek scholar today.


 

While you are correct in saying that of the Great Commission's string of verbs (Go, make disciples, baptizing them, and teaching them) there is only one imperative Command – 'make disciples'. Yet, in the way you have interpreted these verses you have emasculated the other verbs in the sentence, merely because they are participles and not imperatives. As Prof. Wallace states, to turn the first verb 'Go', into an adverbial participle is to turn the Great Commission into the Great Suggestion. (Wallace, p. 645).

But your treatment of the Great Commission's verb 'baptizing them' is what I wanted to focus our attention upon. You made Baptism a human response to the preaching of the Gospel, when you stated that the way to discipleship is with the preaching of the Gospel (salvation in Christ) and the response to it (repentance and faith.) You have also equated Baptism with repentance, with it being nothing more. Hopefully, I have already addressed this topic of Baptism being more than just Repentance in my last post (Baptism, #5).

So let me start the unraveling of the Great Commission by looking at the last two verbs both being participles ('baptizing them' and 'teaching them'). These participles follow the Command to 'make disciples', and this makes them participles of means. Wallace, p. 630 and 645. And so, the Greek makes clear that the means of making disciples is to baptize and teach them. Here is Prof. Wallace's quote:

…Finally, the other two [Greek] participles βαπτίζοντες (Baptism) and διδάσκοντες (teaching) should not be taken as attendant circumstance… And second, they obviously make good sense as participles of means; i.e., the means by which the disciples were to make disciples was to baptize and then to teach.

And so, Baptism cannot be dismissed as a mere human response to the preaching of the Gospel. Instead, the Greek makes clear that the one and only way to make disciples is through Baptism into Christ followed by teaching them. And the Book of Acts shows how the Apostles obeyed the Great Commission – every time there was a conversion to Christ, the Apostles Baptized them. Therefore, I stand by my earlier statement that Jesus has Commanded the Baptizing of new disciples through the Great Commission, as this along with the teaching of them are the means of making disciples. Jesus has Commanded it, and we need to obey it.


 

2). Infant Baptism. Let me see if I can persuade you on the propriety of Infant Baptism by using an analogy. I know that you are well trained in Christian Counseling, and so you are likely well versed in 1 Corinthians chapter 7. In this chapter, the Apostle Paul is dealing with the Principles of marriage and one of the issues he addresses is dealing with the case of when one person in the marriage has become a Christian. What should they do? Should they drop everything including their non-believing spouse and devote their life to work of the Church? Paul makes clear in his teaching in Chapter 7 that the Christian spouse must stay with the unbelieving spouse. (1 Cor. 7:12-13). But it is the reason that Paul gives this instruction that I believe is analogous to Infant Baptism. Take a look at verse 14:

For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (ESV).

And so, Paul says that a new Christian should stay in their marriage because by staying in the marriage they make their entire family "holy", including the children. They are made "holy" through the faith of one of the people in the marriage, even if the other spouse or child is an unbeliever. Do you see where I am going with this?

OK, now let's look at the conversion of Lydia (Acts 16:13-15). As you will recall, Paul and his crew landed at Philippi and met Lydia, a seller of purple dye. They taught her and the Holy Spirit opened her heart to listen to the things they taught her, and she and her household her baptized. So who heard the Gospel? Lydia (v. 14). Whose heart did God open? Lydia. But who was it who was baptized? Lydia and her household (v. 15). There is nothing in the story to say that the household of Lydia had heard anything, or had their hearts opened by God. Instead, Luke is very careful with his wording here, that in fact it was only Lydia who heard the Gospel and was open to it. Thus, this is a very good example of the faith one person in a house making the rest "holy" as in 1 Cor. 7:14 (above).

So let me now tie this all together – The Bible speaks in 1 Corinthians chapter 7 about the importance of staying in the place where you were when you are called by God into a saving faith. If you are married, stay married. If you are uncircumcised, stay that way. If you are a slave, stay that way, but if you can be freed, jump at it. But it is the principle stated in verse 14 that is also helpful in understanding Infant Baptism – One believing person in a marriage makes the children holy also. And we see this in the conversion of Lydia. Only Lydia heard the Gospel teaching by Paul, Timothy and Silas. And only Lydia had her heart opened to the Gospel by God's Holy Spirit. Yet her entire household was baptized. Lydia had faith in the instruction and promise of God's Holy Word, and trusted in it. Lydia's faith made her entire household "holy" (1 Cor. 7:14), and so the story of Lydia in Acts 16 is an excellent example of the Baptism of those who did not yet have faith. The application of this understanding is shown by the Church's use of Infant Baptism – the faith of one parent makes the children holy. The faith of one parent through Baptism makes the children holy. Therefore, Infant Baptism is the proper use of the Great Commission's Command for believers to make disciples through Baptism and teaching. So go Baptize your children all you Christians out there. Enough for now. If any of you are still reading this, may God bless you this week with greater understanding of our Triune God. Amen.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

New Family Members

Hi everyone,

A quick post to let you know that Josie's long pregnancy is now over. Congratulations to Josie (our dog) and grand-mother Peggy for their two Havanese puppies. Mother and two very cute puppies are doing well. With three children having the flu last night, along with the birthing process, Peggy could use a vacation...

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Odds n’ Ends (13)

I am going to take a break from discussing the importance of Baptism for a while, and shift gears to discuss some interesting headlines in the news:


 

1). How Dangerous is Russia? Russia is facing a financial crisis as great as when the collapse of Communism took place during the Reagan years. Here's some information to think of: Russia is the world's 2nd largest oil producer, and with the decrease in oil prices, Russia is facing budget deficits. Russia and China issued stark warnings recently about the impact of the crisis on their recently booming economies in 2009, as stocks and oil prices took a hit from economic gloom over Christmas.

A top official in Moscow warned that the crisis could spark popular unrest after a Kremlin economic aide said Russia next year would have its first budget deficit since the 1998 financial crisis, which brought the country to its knees. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081224170802.mlmyh761&show_article=1.

Russia may be causing increased tensions in the Middle East to increase oil prices. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123172143660372413.html

And then add in that Russia's Prime Minister Medvedev and former ruler Vladimer Putin are fighting. Russia and the Ukraine are fighting over oil supply, which has cut off Europe from Russia's oil production (http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/bbdp/russia-ukraine-trade-blame-as-europe/299801?cid=13.) So this is one area of the world to keep your eye on during the New Year.


 

2). Growing Replacement Teeth. http://technutnews.com/2009/01/13/chew-on-this-well-soon-be-able-to-grow-replacement-teeth/


 

3). What Drugs are in your Drinking Water? A comprehensive survey of the drinking water for more than 28 million Americans has detected the widespread but low-level presence of pharmaceuticals and hormonally active chemicals. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16397-top-11-compounds-in-us-drinking-water.html. Although the drugs are in small amounts in our water, there still are some scary drugs in the top-11 list, including: Estrone, an oestrogen hormone secreted by the ovaries and blamed for causing gender-bending changes in fish; Meprobamate, a tranquiliser widely used in psychiatric treatment; and, Atrazine, an organic herbicide banned in the European Union, but still used in the US, which has been implicated in the decline of fish stocks and in changes in animal behaviour, and two different kinds of antibiotics.


 

4). Puberty Blockers recommended for Transsexual Teens. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026864.100-puberty-blockers-recommended-for-transsexual-teens.html?page=1;
TRANSSEXUAL children as young as 12 should be given drugs to postpone puberty and make it easier for them to change sex at the age of 16 if they still want to. That's the suggestion of controversial draft guidelines, the first of their kind, issued last week by the international Endocrine Society.

The guidelines state that transsexual children and young teens who have begun early puberty should be given puberty-blockers to avoid inevitable changes to their bodies, which they perceive as out of line with their true gender. In the worst cases, these changes can drive children to self-harm or even suicide.


 

That's all for now – May God bless you with greater knowledge of Who He is through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen. /s/Tom

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Baptism #5; Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Hey Bryan, my continued thanks for our discussion and the time and thought you have put into your responses. In this post, I wanted to deal with one of the issues you raised in your last comment: what is Baptism of the Spirit, and is it different from the water Baptism in Christ. In today's Christianity it is fairly easy to distinguish between these two Baptisms – for many Christians they are Baptized as infants, and then if they become part of the elect, they have some sort of "born-again" experience by they become sealed with Holy Spirit in response to hearing the Gospel message. Are we together on this understanding?

But I think early 1st century Christianity this was completely different. That there was generally a combination of the two experiences. For the Apostles and the early followers of Christ, the Baptism of water and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit were one and the same experience. And I believe this is supported by the Commentators – for example, here is what the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology says about this - "…But, in fact, the early church consistently used "baptism" without any qualifiers to refer to water-baptism. None of these passages, even when taken to refer to immersion in water, implies baptismal regeneration, but they do demonstrate how closely linked water-baptism and conversion were (and hence Spirit-baptism as well) in New Testament times."


 

Along this line, I want to keep pounding on John 3:5, and I don't believe you have directly explained how you understand Jesus' teaching here. Let me quote John 3:1-7, the famous story of Nicodemus, and Jesus' teaching that believers must be "born again":

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him." 3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (John 3:1-7)

So in this portion of the Gospel of John Chapter 3, Jesus encounters Nicodemus, a humble searching Pharisee, and Jesus teaches him that only those who are "born again" can see the Kingdom of God. Jesus then equates in John 3:5 being born-again with being born of water and the Spirit. When Jesus speaks to Nicodemus of being born of water, the context would have led Nicodemus to think of John's water Baptism, a baptism of repentance. And so, this looks like fairly strong evidence that for the Apostles and early Christian Church, Water Baptism and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit are one and the same thing. Let me give you three more quick reasons to believe this is true:


 

What does the Old Testament prophesy about Baptism? This is amazing to see. Take a look at these three verses that speak of water Baptism:

Ezekiel 36:24-27 – I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. 25
I will
sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. (See also, Psalm 51:1-2, :7; and Zechariah 13:1)

And so, we see that in the Old Testament, there were prophesies of a future day when God's people would be washed and sprinkled with clean water, that is described as a "fountain opened for Israel. And we also see what this water from God does – it cleanses us from all sin uncleanness, and washes us so that we are whiter than snow. And more, the Ezekiel verse looks to paint this sprinkling of clean water of forgiveness is the process by which God gives the people of God a new heart and a new spirit – the born again experience, where believers are sealed by the Holy Spirit.


 

Next, let me bring up John Calvin, you are a Calvinist, right? <grin> Did you know that John Calvin described John 3:5 as follows - "He connects water with the Spirit because under this sign He testifies and seals the newness of life which by His Spirit God alone effects in us. It is true indeed that we are excluded from salvation if we neglect Baptism;…" And so, Calvin connects water Baptism with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is brought out further in Vincent's 'Word Studies in the New Testament' (one of my favorite Logos resources when I'm studying Greek passages.). Here is a quote that I think is helpful from 'Word Studies' on the John 3:5 passage, although Vincent does contradict Calvin's understanding:


 

Born of water and the Spirit. The exposition of this much controverted passage does not fall within the scope of this work. We may observe,

1). That Jesus here lays down the preliminary conditions of entrance into His kingdom, expanding and explaining His statement in ver. 3.

2). That this condition is here stated as complex, including two distinct factors, water and the Spirit.

3). That the former of these two factors is not to be merged in the latter; that the spiritual element is not to exclude or obliterate the external and ritual element. We are not to understand with Calvin, the Holy Spirit as the purifying water in the spiritual sense: "water which is the Spirit."

4). That water points definitely to the rite of baptism, and that with a twofold reference — to the past and to the future. Water naturally suggested to Nicodemus the baptism of John, which was then awakening such profound and general interest; and, with this, the symbolical purifications of the Jews, and the Old Testament use of washing as the figure of purifying from sin (Ps. 51:2, 7; Ezek. 36:25; Zech. 13:1, above). Jesus' words opened to Nicodemus a new and more spiritual significance in both the ceremonial purifications and the baptism of John which the Pharisees had rejected (Luke 7:30). John's rite had a real and legitimate relation to the kingdom of God which Nicodemus must accept.

5). That while Jesus asserted the obligation of the outward rite, He asserted likewise, as its necessary complement, the presence and creating and informing energy of the Spirit with which John had promised that the coming one should baptize. That as John's baptism had been unto repentance, for the remission of sins, so the new life must include the real no less than the symbolic cleansing of the old, sinful life, and the infusion by the Spirit of a new and divine principle of life. Thus Jesus' words included a prophetic reference to the complete ideal of Christian baptism — "the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Tit. 3:5; Eph. 5:26); according to which the two factors are inseparably blended (not the one swallowed up by the other), and the new life is inaugurated both symbolically in the baptism with water, and actually in the renewing by the Holy Spirit, yet so as that the rite, through its association with the Spirit's energy, is more than a mere symbol: is a veritable vehicle of grace to the recipient, and acquires a substantial part in the inauguration of the new life. Baptism, considered merely as a rite, and apart from the operation of the Spirit, does not and cannot impart the new life. Without the Spirit it is a lie. It is a truthful sign only as the sign of an inward and spiritual grace… Vincent's 'Word Studies in the New Testament', entry for John 3:5).

Conclusion – OK, I know I've provided too much information here. But let me see if I can boil down what I am trying to convey in a short paragraph: First that to the Apostles and the early church, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit was the same as water Baptism. This means for the believer they respond to the Gospel Message, they would receive the water Baptism, which provided not only the forgiveness of sins, but also the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And so, water Baptism was the means by which the Holy Spirit sealed the new believer (see, 1 Cor. 6:19, 2 Cor. 1:21-22). And this also means that with forgiveness, and the new righteousness of Christ, the Holy Spirit now dwelling provides a new life to the believer, sealed for eternity in union with the Triune God. Does this make sense? And so, from all of this, it does not seem to me that Baptism can be considered merely a symbolic act. But I would like to hear your take on this.


 

It's getting cold here in Minnesota – we should be below zero for most of the week. And Olivia is going for a school field trip where they want to have the kids go on an outdoor high ropes course! Yikes. God's blessing peace to all who stop by.

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Baptism – Part 4

Hey Bryan,

Thank you for the insights you have provided on the topic of Baptism. While I am still digesting what you have put together, and while you have a busy week, I wanted to respond to your question on my definition of what Baptism is. I will also provide a helpful summary of the four (4) different views on Baptism I found in Hayford's Bible Handbook.


 

Your short definition of Baptism is as follows: "baptism is an outward act that represents the inward reality of God's grace received." And so, if I may try to clarify the issue, you see Baptism as a wholly human act of obedience with this action being symbolic of the inward act and working of God.


 

Here is where the Lutheran definition of Baptism differs with your definition (this definition is from my Reformation Study Bible) – Lutherans and those of the Reformed faith view Baptism as a sign from God that signifies the inward cleansing and remission of sins (Acts 22:16, 1 Cor. 6:11, Eph. 5:25-27). Baptism is Spirit-wrought regeneration and new life (Titus 3:5), and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit as God's seal testifying and guaranteeing that one will be kept safe in Christ forever (1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 1:13-14). And so, this is the fundamental difference of our two positions – you view Baptism as merely a human act, while the Traditional view of Baptism is that it is from God.

And so, I hope this brings to your mind Jesus' question to the chief priests and elders when He asked them "The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?" (Matthew 21:25, Mark 11:30, Luke 20:4). This story reveals Jesus' authority as coming directly from God. As well as confirming that John's Baptism of Repentance is from heaven and not from man. And of course, this means that the New Testament of Believer's being Baptized into Christ is also from God and not man. This is all from God, and so again I think the Lutheran view of Baptism as coming from God, and not merely a human "symbolic" action is the best Biblical view.


 

I hope the following summary of the four main views of Baptism from Hayford's Bible Handbook is helpful:

The nature of baptism. Four positions on the nature of baptism and the early church's practice (Acts 2:41; 8:12, 36-39; 9:18; 10:48, etc.) exist among Christian groups.

The sacramental viewAccording to this belief, baptism is a means by which God conveys grace. By undergoing this rite, the person baptized receives remission of sins, and is regenerated or given a new nature and an awakened or strengthened faith. Both Roman Catholics and Lutherans have this view of the nature of baptism, born of their interpretation of John 3:5.

The traditional Roman Catholic belief emphasizes the rite itself—that the power to convey grace is contained within administration of the sacrament of baptism. The Lutheran view concentrates on the faith that is present in the person being baptized; awakened faith due to the preaching of the Word of God.

The convenantal viewSome other Christian groups view baptism as a sign and seal of God's covenant, or God's pledge to save man. That is, because of what He has done and what He has promised, God forgives and regenerates. Thus, on the one hand, baptism is a sign of the covenant; on the other, it is the means by which people enter into that covenant and its benefits are obtained.

In the covenantal view, baptism serves the same purpose for New Testament believers that circumcision did for Old Testament believers, these two procedures being linked in Colossians 2:11-12.

The symbolical viewThis view stresses the symbolic nature of baptism by emphasizing that baptism does not cause an inward change or alter a person's relationship to God in any way, but is a token or outward indication of an inner change already occurred in the believer's life. It serves as a public testimony.

This position explains that the church practices baptism and the believer submits to it because Jesus commanded that this be done and He gave us the example by being baptized Himself. Thus, baptism is an act of obedience, commitment, and proclamation (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15, 16).

The dynamic viewIncreasing numbers of Christians see elements of truth in other viewpoints, but find their focus on the power (dynamic) inherent in the Holy Spirit's presence at baptism. While repentance and faith must precede the moment, and new birth has been experienced, water baptism is seen as a moment (1) at which a breaking of past bonds to sin may be severed, as Israel's oppressors were defeated—1 Cor. 10:2; (2) when a commitment to separate from the past life of carnal indulgence is made, as circumcision symbolized—Col. 2:11-15; and (3) when the fullness or overflowing of the Holy Spirit's power may be added to enhance the believer's power for witness and ministering (Acts 2:38, 39). This position sees baptism as both a witness and as an encounter. It is symbolic (burial to the past—Rom. 6:3-4) but it is also releasing and empowering for the future.


 

And so, Lutherans hold to the Sacramental View of Baptism, while Bryan I believe you hold to the 'Symbolic' view. If this is incorrect, please let us know. Otherwise, I will continue looking at the information you have provided, and I hope to have more for you on especially Infant Baptism later on. Yes, I have heard your teaching me about the Great Commission, and I will try and make sure I properly use it in my future posts - J. /s/Tom

Friday, January 2, 2009

Baptism – Response to My Nephew

Bryan,

Thank you for your clear response to my post that supports the Lutheran view on Baptism. In this response I wanted to emphasize the areas of agreement that we have, and to supplement my position on the connection of faith and Baptism.


 

If our discussion has given you a desire to look more into the topic of Baptism, I found a very good article on Baptism in the 'New Bible Dictionary' (which should be in your Logos software package.) From this article, let me see if we can agree on some of the foundations for our discussion on Baptism:


 

I believe we both agree that –

  • The Gospel message is an offer of God's forgiveness and acceptance. Jesus' mission was to seek and save the lost;
  • The Gospel is a summons to Repentance and Faith;
  • The openness of the Gospel offer is also a criticism of those who would restrict the Gospel's offer by ritual requirements or practices.

If we agree on this, then the question we are looking at is whether Baptism is merely a 'ritual requirement or practice' or is there something more to it.


 

I do not believe Baptism is merely a 'ritual requirement or practice'. My understanding of Jesus' teaching on Baptism and the Apostle's explanation of it in the New Testament, as well as through Church tradition, is that God has chosen to mediate His Grace and Forgiveness through Baptism into Christ. And so, Baptism and Faith in Jesus Christ are inextricably intertwined.


 

Faith, Faith, Faith, Faith, Faith. Yes, Faith is the centerpiece of the Christian life. But what exactly am I saying that Christians are to have faith in? Jesus taught that a person cannot enter the Kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5). Jesus taught that only those who believe and are baptized are saved (Mark 16:16). And Jesus' Great Commission to believers is to go and make disciples and baptize them. And so, there is little doubt that Jesus viewed Baptism as an extremely important act of obedience for His followers.


 

The Faith that Martin Luther teaches about through Baptism is a faith that in what Jesus says is true when He spoke about Baptism. That salvation itself, and entrance into the Kingdom of God depends upon Baptism. That a Christian's life involves teaching disciples and baptizing them, as Jesus instructed in the Great Commission. Let me end with this quote from Martin Luther:

"What is Baptism? It is not simply common water, but water comprehended in God's Word and commandment and sanctified by them. It is nothing else than a divine water, not that the water in itself is nobler than other water but that God's Word and commandment are added to it…" (Luther's Large Catechism, p. 82.)

Therefore, because God's Word instructs us on the importance of Baptism, our faith is that Jesus has commanded us to Baptize and so we should be obedient and do it. Baptism is not a 'ritual requirement or practice', where Jesus taught us to Baptize others and that it was so important that even our Lord and Savior underwent Baptism in the River Jordan with John the Baptist.


 

OK, one last final note on Infant Baptism. My favorite theologian J. H. Smith in the 'New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge' provides some additional information on the Greek used in the Book of Acts' description of the "household" baptisms of Lydia, the Philippian Jailer, and Stephanus (see last Post on Infant Baptism):

Had oikos in reference to persons been rendered family, New Testament teaching on infant baptism would have been clear. Oikos never means a married pair not having children, or the parents distinct from the children…Oikos designates not only minors, but children in the youngest possible state of life (1 Ti 3:4, 12). It has reference to babes and sucklings, infants, in 1 Ti 5:14, where "guide the house" is oikodespotein, literally despotize the offspring or family, mentioned in connection with "younger women...bear children." Those who ask for Bible evidence for infant baptism have it right here. (J.H. Smith, entry for Acts 16:15)

Thanks again for this discussion. May the Lord bless all those who visit our blogs with a Happy 2009, and blessed service of those in the Body of Jesus Christ. /s/Tom.