World of Faith

What is Charismatic? – Part Two: Water Baptism – The Outward Symbol of Our Baptism into Christ | December 25, 2006

Welcome to the second installment of World of Faith’s series on “What is Charismatic.” This week we transition our topic again to something that I hope is non-controversial, unifying, and foundational. We are going to discuss water baptism, the outward symbol of our baptism into Christ.

Again, some of you may wonder, if water baptism is NOT a charismatic distinctive, why is it being addressed here in this blog. There are three reasons why I am addressing this topic. First of all, it is an important and foundational extension of the previous topic, our baptism into Christ, because water baptism is the outward symbol of the baptism into Christ. Second, some see water baptism as an “initiatory rite” into the local church, and this position is not scriptural, so it should be addressed. Third, my own church is having water baptisms this Sunday, Christmas Eve, so there is personal significance to the topic. It is very timely topic, and it is being discussed on at least two other blogs, on which I have personally commented.

So, let’s delve into this. As a review of what I discussed last time, the New Testament in my belief teaches three different baptisms, the second of which is our focus in this post. Hebrews 6:1-3 (NKJV), “Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits.” Once again, notice that baptisms is in the plural, and this does not mean multiple water baptisms, but different kinds of baptisms that are essential to the growth of the believer. These three baptisms are (1) baptism into Christ (or the body of Christ), which occurs at salvation, (2) water baptism, and (3) baptism in the Holy Spirit (or the infilling of the Holy Spirit, or simply Spirit baptism). In Part One, I discussed the first of these, our baptism into Christ, and in Part Three next weekend, I will begin to discuss baptism in the Holy Spirit. But today I will discuss water baptism, which is the outward symbol of our baptism into Christ.

Because water baptism is the outward symbol of what occurs at salvation, our baptism into Christ, the first key Scripture we need to examine is again found in Romans 6:3-7 (NKJV), which states, “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin.” As baptism into Christ is the reality of what occurs at salvation, water baptism is the outward symbol of that precious union and identification. By being immersed into water, the candidate is identifying with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. In Part One, I discussed at length the reality of our salvation, and the reality of our baptism into Christ. Now, in Part Two, I am going to discuss the symbolic nature of water baptism, and why it is essential and normative for all Christian believers in their Christian experience.

Water baptism is also done in obedience to Christ. We all know that Jesus was baptized in water, after which “the heavens were opened, and the Spirit of God descended as a dove and lighting on Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens said (the Father), ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.’” (See Matt. 3:16-17, NAS). Likewise, we are all commanded to be water baptized in like manner. Truly, it has become normative for all new Christian believers to be baptized in water, for that is the pattern of New Testament life expressed in the Scriptures. The next water baptism recorded in the Scriptures is found in Acts 2:41 (NAS), “So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about 3000 souls.”

The next water baptism documented in the Scripture is significant, because this particular water baptism shows us what water baptism is NOT. There is an argument that has been floated in some Southern Baptist circles, especially, that water baptism is an “initiatory rite” into a local church, because in addition to symbolizes our identification and union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (our baptism into Christ), it also symbolizes agreement with the local church in her theology, teaching, and accountability. This is NOT biblical at all. Water baptism is only symbolic of our baptism into Christ. Nothing more and nothing less. Look at Acts 8:35-39 (NAS), the story of Phillip the Evangelist and the Ethiopian eunuch: “Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing.” This passage is significant because there is no “initiatory rite” here into a local church, in fact, there is no local church involvement here. Yes, Phillip was sent as an evangelist in the authority of the local church, but what is missing here is follow-up. Some might make the opposite argument from silence that Phillip must NOT left the Ethiopian with further instructions, but there is no account of that in the Scriptures. Rather, all we can say is that Phillip was caught away (transported) by the Holy Spirit, and the Ethiopian went his way rejoicing. I do hope in confidence that the Ethiopian eventually found a local church to fellowship with and in, but we have no account for sure in Scripture of that happening. Further, his baptismal experience would be no initiation into that local body, once he found it. This passage is prima facie evidence, then, that water baptism normatively should not be considered an “initiatory rite” into a local church, but is purely and only an outward symbol of our baptism into Christ.

However, water baptism is still normative for the Christian believer. There are subsequent accounts of water baptism. In Acts 9:18, after Paul was born again and converted, he was baptized as well. The same can be said for the Gentiles who were saved in the account of Peter at the house of Cornelius in Acts 10 (see especially Acts 10: 47-48), as well as Lydia’s conversion in Acts 16:14-15, as well as the jailer later on in Acts 16 as well, and the same with Crispus and the Corinthians in Acts 18. Lastly we come to Acts 19, the final water baptism recorded in the Bible. This is a key passage, so let’s examine it in some detail. Acts 19:1-5 (NAS), “It happened while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. He said to them, ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?’ And they said to him, ‘No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.’ And he said, ‘Into what then were you baptized?’ And they said, ‘Into John’s baptism.’ Paul said, ‘John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, Jesus.’ When they (the disciples) heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” The first thing that should be noted about this passage was these were disciples. Some will argue that these were NOT disciples of Jesus, though. Unfortunately, many times those who argue this are unable to say who they were disciples of, perhaps John. However, according to verse 4, John told these people to believe in Jesus. It would then logically follow that these disciples were somehow indirect followers of Christ through John. At the very least, they were instructed to believe in Jesus. Although they had no knowledge or awareness of the Holy Spirit, these were disciples, they were saved, for they had believed on the Lord Jesus (see Romans 10:9-10 for the requirements of salvation). Thus, the only reason that Paul had these disciples re-baptized was so they could be baptized in the name of Jesus, the full outward expression and symbol of what had already occurred when these disciples believed, what had occurred at these disciples salvation, their baptism into Christ.

Once they were water baptized, these disciples in Acts 19 then became candidates for the third baptism, which will be discussed in Part Three, which is the baptism (or infilling) of the Holy Spirit, and is a distinct experience from one’s salvation. We’ll discuss that issue next time, as “World of Faith” will continue in the series, “What is Charismatic.”


Posted in Uncategorized


  1. JK,

    Did you once tell me that your pastor’s pastor was an apostle?


    Comment by cb scott — December 26, 2006 @ 4:54 am

  2. CB,

    I possibly did. I don’t recall really any discussion with you, or a comment in your blog to that effect. But, yes, my pastor’s pastor is considered an apostle (or apostolic leader if you would prefer) in our “circle” of churches.

    We believe in what is called “five-fold ministry,” which is based on Eph. 4, that God gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, and all of these are still functioning offices today. I will explain this in further depth in a future post, but one of the jobs of an “apostle” in modern-day is someone who oversees pastors of churches. So, by that definition, my pastor’s pastor is considered an apostle.

    May I ask why you asked this question, CB?

    Hope that helps,

    Comment by Jonathan — December 26, 2006 @ 5:00 am

  3. JK,

    I am familiar with your theology. That’s all.


    Comment by cb scott — December 26, 2006 @ 5:31 am

  4. JK,

    I certainly agree with you about the role and the nature of water baptism. It is definitly not a baptism of loyalty to any denomination or system of belief. It is an identifiaction with Christ Jesus. Well said.

    I know what you mean when you refer to the “baptism of the Spirit” but I con’t see that term used in the Bible. I agree that there is a “filling” of the spirit that all christians should seek and desire. I would not call it a “baptism of the spirit.” There is “one” baptism 1 Cor 12.13, but there should be many “filling” in the life of a Christ-follower.

    On another note, I do not think that the disciples in Acts 19 were saved, 1. they had not even heard of the Holy Spirit, 2. they had not been baptized in “Jesus” name,
    They had been baptized with the baptism of John’s: repentance and looking for the Messiah.


    You know that you charimatics are really Holy Roller Baptists…:)

    Comment by Tim Cowin — December 26, 2006 @ 2:13 pm

  5. In this case, Tim, you are wrong. Five-fold ministry is not like Baptist or charismatics for that matter. Do the research for yourself before you get mad at me for telling you this.


    Comment by cb scott — December 26, 2006 @ 3:19 pm

  6. Tim,

    Thanks for your comments. I’m going to save my comments about the “baptism/infilling of the Holy Spirit” for my next large post, and then you can respond all you want. I expect that post to open up a floodgate of comments.

    However, I do believe the disciples in Acts 19 were saved. Romans 10:9-10 gives us the requirements for salvation, and they had fulfilled those requirements, because according to Acts 19:4, John told them to believe in Jesus. Yes, they were uninformed of the Holy Spirit, and yes, their baptism was in the wrong name, thus requiring their re-baptism. But, these two errors do not affect salvation, for their “view” of salvation was accurate.


    PS: I know that charismatics are really holy-roller Baptists 🙂

    Comment by Jonathan — December 26, 2006 @ 9:10 pm

  7. Jonathan,

    I am with you on the argument that baptism is an identification with Christ, not with a particular church group or even with the theology of the baptizer. I thin that the encounter of Philip and the Ethiopian is proof positive of that.

    But I still say you’re missing the boat on the Acts 19 interpretation. You contradicted your own argument with the quote from verse 4, when Paul shared with this group of men that Jesus was the one who saves, not John the Baptist. This historical understanding that these men were followers of John the Baptist is a long-understood, thoughtful, and truthful interpretation of this text. Don’t let the word “disciple” hang you up … it simply means “follower.” The word “disciple” does not, necessarily, have an automatic linguistic link to Jesus. As it turns out, these men were, indeed, following John, not Jesus.

    I understand your theological resistance to this interpretation because it knocks a major (perhaps the major)theological foundation block out from under the charismatic doctrine of a “second blessing” of the Holy Spirit. I fear that this is a case of your reading your doctrine “into” the Scripture rather than reading your doctrine “out of” it.

    But, then again, we’ve had this conversation before, haven’t we? 😉

    Comment by Geoff — December 27, 2006 @ 12:03 am

  8. Geoff,

    Thanks for your comments. I don’t think I’ve contradicted myself anywhere about Acts 19. Not that I’ve taken a poll on this, or let alone we should base our theology on such a poll, but there seems to be several different views on this passage. Some of these views are:

    (1) The disciples were not saved at all, and were folowers of John, but this passage should not be offered as a proof-text for re-baptism.
    (2) The disciples were not saved at all, and were followers of John, but this passage SHOULD be offered as a proof-text for re-baptism.
    (3) The disciples were saved, but were taught a faulty view of salvation, and thus there is a need for re-baptism.
    (4) The disciples were saved, but were NOT taught about the Holy Spirit, and were NOT baptized in the proper name. This is not a faulty view of salvation, but is just not the proper baptism, and thus while these are genuinely saved people, they needed to be re-baptized in Jesus name, rather than John’s.

    This last view is the position I am taking. Perhaps I did not articulate my position, Geoff, in the best or most coherent manner, and for that, I apologize for your confusion. However, judging from what Paul said in Acts 19:4, that these people were instructed to believe in Jesus, it sounds like they are saved to me. Romans 10:9 says believing in Jesus is one of the two requirements for salvation (the other is confessing with your mouth what you believe), and so I believe there is a solid basis for saying these were genuine Christ followers.

    Geoff, I do not interpret Paul as issuing a correction in Acts 19:4, that Jesus is the one who saves, and not John the Baptist. I do not think that before Paul came along, these disciples believed John the Baptist saved them, and NOT Jesus Christ. John was preaching these people should believe in Jesus Christ, but he was baptizing people in his name, and not the name of Jesus. The error is not in the teaching of salvation, but in the actual baptism itself. That’s all. The fact these people were not informed of the Holy Spirit is also not essential to salvation… see Romans 10:9-10.

    Thus, the primary reason for the re-baptism was the baptism was not properly administered (it was administered in the wrong name). That’s all.


    Comment by Jonathan — December 27, 2006 @ 1:29 am

  9. What if it wasn’t (the second one) a baptism at all in the sense of a religious rite? What if it was just that they were immersed into the name of Jesus (and not into water as in dunked under)? Although I don’t know if you have listed nearly all of the reasonable interpretations of Acts 19, Jonathan, i think the fact that even such few words are so capable of multiple reasonable interpretations demonstrates something about building doctrines here.

    Comment by Bryan Riley — December 27, 2006 @ 9:25 pm

  10. Bryan,

    That last comment was a response to what Geoff said previously. It is impossible to offer a complete survey on baptism, and that is not the point of this blog. Rather, I wanted to a post on water baptism, as a “transition” between Parts One and Three, because those are really more significant. Water baptism, as I am sure we both agree, is a symbol of our union and identification with Christ.

    But I needed to respond to what Geoff said, because there is the initiatory rite argument out there, and as a charismatic, I disagree with it. In fact, most charismatics who are non-denominational do not believe you are baptized into a particular church or denomination. I’ve even had one of my former pastors joke with me about that. 🙂

    Comment by Jonathan — December 27, 2006 @ 10:16 pm

  11. yes, i agree. the first part of that sentence where I named you was for you, but the second part was really directed to everyone, not to you. What I am really trying to understand is how everyone has decided when a verse that uses the greek word “baptizo” is literally talking about what we know today as baptism. It is used throughout the NT to mean wash, baptism (as in a religious act), immerse (as in engrossed in or covered by), however you want to define baptism by fire, etc. In a few of the verses it is clearly a reference to the religious “rite” if you will, but in others I am not sure that is clear, even in Matthew 28…

    Comment by bwriley4 — December 28, 2006 @ 2:40 am

  12. Bryan,

    Thanks again for your comments. I apologize for confusing who you directed your comments toward… I usually assume that if there is no specific name given, then it is for the blog author… again, sorry for that.

    Please allow me to explain what I am doing here. I am looking at what I see as some of the most foundational issues in the Christian faith. The reason why I am beginning the first three posts (the third post is forthcoming by Monday) with Hebrews 6 is because these are the “elementary” issues of the Christian faith, which includes “baptisms” and the “laying on of hands.” I’ll be noting more on that next time, when I discuss the baptism/infilling in the Holy Spirit. But, I believe that there are at least 3 different kinds of baptisms discussed in Scripture. Each has its distinct administrator and substance in which the candidate is baptized into. By next weekend’s post, this all will be made clear, I hope.

    I am also discussing each issue from a charismatic/Pentecostal perspective, bringing something different to the blogosphere than what you see elsewhere, esp. on the typical Baptist blogs. The whole presentation and series here is devoted to defining key doctrinal issues for charismatics, thus the title. That’s what I am hoping to accomplish here. Hope that helps.

    Comment by Jonathan — December 28, 2006 @ 5:07 am

  13. Jonathan,

    I do not see anything substantial here that is not on my thread. You appear to argue the same point which, of course, is anything but new. I suggest you do a little research into Baptism with some standard reference works. That may help you balance out your view somewhat.

    I did find quite interesting that in one comment on the thread above you mentioned something like John’s disciples in Acts 19 had not beent taught about the Holy Spirit. Interesting. Though I’m quite sure John said lots of things to his disciples that is not recorded, what the Gospel writers did record of his words always seem to include references to the Holy Spirit.

    Grace. With that, I am…


    Comment by peter — January 1, 2007 @ 2:11 pm

  14. Peter,

    Thanks for stopping by. I haven’t gotten around to uploading my next thread on baptism in the Holy Spirit yet (being filled afresh for the New Year). I’ve been busy with the New Years Eve holiday… so hopefully later tonight I will upload those comments, if not by Tuesday night at the latest.

    As regards to Acts 19, I believe that John said to the people who were the “disciples” there that they should believe in Jesus, which means I believe these people were saved. However, I believe that because John was their “pastor” so to speak, they were uninformed about some key issues, including the Holy Spirit. They also were baptized in the wrong name. Thus, Paul had them re-baptized and then had them filled with the Holy Spirit, praise God!

    Comment by Jonathan — January 2, 2007 @ 12:00 am

  15. Jonathan,

    I thank you for your response, Jonathan. Unfortunately, you failed to address my point.

    John’s recorded words in the Gospels make perfectly clear John spoke to the people about the Holy Spirit (MT. 3.11; MK. 1.8; Luk. 3.16).

    Moreover, John plainly spoke of the Spirit’s descending upon Christ and validating His Messiahship (John 1.26-34). John testified his testimony was directly revealed from God.

    Thus, to conclude, as do you, that John’s followers lacked instruction about the Holy Spirit, Jonathan, simply ignores the text as it stands.

    By the way, surely in no strecth can one assume John was “their pastor.”

    I trust your evening well. With that, I am…


    Comment by peter — January 2, 2007 @ 1:37 am

  16. Peter,

    There are two different Johns. There was John the Baptist, and John the Beloved, who was an apostle. I seriously believe these are two different individuals. John the Baptist emphasized in his teachings faith in Jesus and repentance (thus, John’s baptism). He did not emphasize the Holy Spirit, although John the Beloved (the author if the Book of John) clearly did.

    I hope this distinction of the two different Johns in the Bible clears up my point about Acts 19. Please let me know if you have further questions, too. A further discussion of this will be forthcoming in tonight’s post on the baptism in the Holy Spirit, too.

    Comment by Jonathan — January 2, 2007 @ 3:48 am

  17. Jonathan,

    I simply do not get the answer. Maybe others do. Are you saying John the Apostle recorded words about The Baptizer’s teachings he did not teach? I fail to get your point, my Brother.

    I trust your day gracious. With that, I am…


    Comment by peter — January 2, 2007 @ 11:05 am

  18. Peter,

    I am saying that John the Apostle recorded very little of what John the Baptizer taught. All we know that John the Baptizer taught is faith in Jesus and baptism in water for the repentance of your sins. That’s all. John the Baptist disappeared in Bible history after Jesus came on the scene. The only non-Gospel reference to him is in Acts 19. Paul says this is what John the Baptizer taught. Does that make sense now?

    Comment by Jonathan — January 2, 2007 @ 6:12 pm

  19. Jonathan,

    Well, no it doesn’t, I’m afraid, my Brother. Let me repeat the Scripture references I gave above:

    John the Baptist’s recorded words in the Gospels make perfectly clear he spoke to the people about the Holy Spirit (MT. 3.11; MK. 1.8; Luk. 3.16).

    Moreover, John the Baptist plainly spoke of the Spirit’s descending upon Christ and validating His Messiahship. John the Baptist further testified his testimony about the Spirit anointing Jesus as Messiah was directly revealed from God (John 1.26-34).

    Virtually all the references to John the Baptist’s messages in the Gospels also contain references to the Holy Spirit.

    As for “Paul says this is what John the Baptizer taught.” I’ve haven’t a clue what you mean.

    I hope this makes more clear what I’m asking, Jonathan. Grace. With that, I am…


    Comment by peter — January 2, 2007 @ 7:36 pm

  20. Peter,

    Paul says in Acts 19:4, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” To me, this says that the primary emphasis of John the Baptizer’s message was faith in Jesus and repentance in son. We also know that these disciples did not receive the Holy Spirit when they believed, because they had not heard of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 19:2). They were only baptized in John’s baptism, not the baptism in the name of Jesus. So, Acts 19:2 and 19:4 say to us that somehow, John the Baptizer was not informing his followers of the Holy Spirit, or otherwise these disciples would not have said so in verse 2.

    Peter, I don’t know what point you were originally trying to make. We’re missing each other here. What was your original point that you wanted me to respond to… so I can and we can discuss this more fully, please?

    I’ve read through the entire comment thread, and I cannot figure out what you were trying to say originally. Thanks.


    Comment by Jonathan — January 2, 2007 @ 9:16 pm

  21. Jonathan,

    My Brother, did you not read the references I cited? Each and every one records John preaching/speaking of the Holy Spirit. Yet you have failed in each and every comment to acknowledge such.

    As far as “primary emphasis” that Paul says John spoke. I grant such. But John also spoke of the Holy Spirit, which seems to negate your statement above: “The disciples were saved, but were NOT taught about the Holy Spirit…”

    I do not know how to be any more clear, Jonathan. Sorry. Peace. With that, I am…


    Comment by peter — January 2, 2007 @ 10:34 pm

  22. Peter,

    Now I am sorry. I guess with you I need to respond to every jot and tittle of what you say.

    Regarding those Scriptures, I don’t know what to say, I don’t have an answer. It seems strange to me that John the Baptist would say one thing in one place in time, yet would have disciples who were followers, yet were uninformed of the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:2). So, that’s my response to Matt. 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, etc.

    Lastly, I believe that the disciples in Acts 19 were saved people. I believe that what Paul said in Acts 19:4 translates to these people were saved… if they were followers of John (and thus disciples of Jesus), then they believed in Jesus, and according to Romans 10:9 are saved. That was my original point about Acts 19. Do you agree?

    Comment by Jonathan — January 3, 2007 @ 3:45 am

  23. Jonathan,

    I trust your night has been well. As for respoonding to every jot and tittle, oh my. It’s really difficult to respond to that, my Brother. I only made one point–with the Scriptures–which, for some curious reason, took virtualy half your thread to get an answer. And when you do answer, while conceding it a bit “strange” do not at all alter your conclusion that “The disciples were saved, but were NOT taught about the Holy Spirit…” Is it possible, Jonathan, you have wrongly assumed your interpretation of Acts 19 is premature? That is, that you have not considered all the available evidence before pronouncing a verdict?

    I do not agree that the text is clear that the disciples of John were saved. Nor do I accept, from what little we can gain from this narrative, that the disciples were experiencing a ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit’ in the sense Charismatics employ.

    Nor can we conclude that whatever the experience the disciples of John enjoyed that it is to be normative for us now.

    All of these are, at least from my perspective, unproven assumptions, either brought to the text or may/may not be deduced from the text.

    May grace God give to us all today. With that, I am…


    Comment by peter — January 3, 2007 @ 11:00 am

  24. Peter,

    One more time on some of these issues.

    First, I believe the disciple here were saved because Paul said that John said to believe in Jesus. Letting the Bible interpret the Bible, Romans 10:9 gives as the requirements for salvation to confess with your mouth that Jesus as Lord, and believe with your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. The Bible is SO CLEAR on this in Romans 10:9. Paul said that John instructed the disciples in Acts 19 to believe in Jesus. Based on this, I believe they were saved, and would give these disciples the benefit of the doubt.

    Second, you said that you do not think the disciples here experienced the baptism in the Holy Spirit the way charismatics employ.

    Peter, have you read my latest post in this blog?

    Have you considered the arguments for the baptism in the Holy Spirit in the post that was released late on Monday night?

    Before I respond further to you, I’d like you to consider that post, because it is more germane to what we are now discussing.


    Comment by Jonathan — January 3, 2007 @ 5:20 pm

  25. Jonathan,

    Forgive me, but I am understanding somewhat of the experience our Brothers on another thread evidently did by telling you they could not dialogue with you further. Hence rather than deal with the texts I offered, I am guided to another discussion.

    I think I will just bow out, my friend. I trust you will continue to experience our Lord’s grace. With that, I am…


    BTW: Yes, Jonathan. I have considered the arguments pertaining to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit…about 20 years ago. They have not changed. The same arguments…

    Comment by peter — January 4, 2007 @ 5:25 am

  26. Peter,

    That’s your wish. See you around blog land.


    Comment by Jonathan — January 4, 2007 @ 5:42 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: