Question #11: Where Does The Bible Teach That Water Baptism Is Required In Order To Have One’s Sins Forgiven?
The “Church of Christ” teaches that a sinner is forgiven of sin when he is baptized in water by a CoC elder. Where does the Bible teach that water baptism is required in order to have one’s sins forgiven?
The part of the statement referring to baptism requiring the participation of an elder is false. Whether the questioner included this clause out of ignorance or purposeful maliciousness, to mislead and deceive people, is unclear. However, in response to question number two, this has already been answered and discounted as a falsehood and nothing that I, or any other preacher I know of, has ever taught as part of baptism’s requirement for salvation.
I have said, repeatedly, that it isn’t a matter of what the church of Christ teaches because there is no such thing as “church of Christ doctrine.” The church of Christ is the church of Christ because it follows biblical doctrine. If a congregation does not follow and teach biblical doctrine then it is not the church of Christ, no matter the name on the sign. The Bible doesn’t teach any where that one has to be baptized by a man in the biblical office of the eldership. Because it is not biblical doctrine it is not something that I have ever taught or would ever teach.
This is a common tactic of the skeptic in his attempt to discount biblical doctrine. He will couch something that is biblical, i.e. baptism for the remission of sins, in the context of something that is not biblical, i.e. baptism requires an elder of the church. By making that false connection the biblical statement is made to look false. Whether the one asking the question did this maliciously or simply out of ignorance I do not know, but I have no doubt that such a connection originally arose with someone making a dishonest attempt to malign biblical doctrine.
Now, to the more direct portion of the question, “where does the Bible teach that water baptism is required to have one’s sins forgiven?”
I was having a conversation with someone about Baptism one time when he, all of the sudden, said, “All you guys have is Acts 2:38, don’t you ever use any verses other than Acts 2:38?” Now, I had already referred to numerous other passages but when I made reference to Acts 2:38 it set off an automatic, preconditioned, antagonistic response to that specific verse. I smiled and reminded him of the numerous verses I had quoted before making reference to Acts 2:38.
Why is it that Acts 2:38 would set off such a response in a skeptic of the biblical necessity of Baptism? And what if it was the only verse I had offered? How many verses do you have to have from God before you are willing to obey what he said? Well, I’ll just go ahead and start out with this verse and then offer the numerous others that say the same thing.
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 [Spirit].
In this verse Peter makes an explicit statement of baptism’s necessity for salvation. There is no need for inference or deductive logic from what he said. In responding to the question of “what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37), Peter makes a direct statement, “repent and be baptized.” Their question was in response to the apostle’s sermon on the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. They had proved the deity of Christ and convicted the audience of being party to his crucifixion. When the preaching of the gospel cut them to the heart they wanted to know what they needed to do to be forgiven the guilt of crucifying the Son of God. They obviously believed what they had heard, so Peter started with them where they were; believing the gospel they now needed to repent and be baptized in order to receive the remission of sins. It doesn’t get much clearer than Acts 2:38!
Those who have made the choice of holding to man-made doctrine above biblical doctrine have gone to great lengths to discount Acts 2:38. Even to the point of redefining the Greek words. One of the most common responses to Acts 2:38 is to say that the Greek word εἰς (eis), translated “for” in English, actually means “because of” rather than “in order to.” So, according to them, the statement “be baptized for the remission of sins,” would be more properly translated as “be baptized because of the remission of sins.” I’m a big fan of Greek Lexicons and word studies. I collect them and use them more heavily than any other study tools in my library. I have yet to find one that defines εἰς (eis), “for,” in this way. Notice a few:
Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek New Testament – (always in the accusative) to, toward extend to a goal.
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (Louw & Nida) – to, toward, in the direction of.
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon – into, unto, to, towards, for, among.
Strong’s – into, unto, to, towards, for, among.
New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries – to or into (indicating the point reached or entered, of place, time, fig. purpose, result).
These are just a few of the Greek Lexicons I have and they all say the same thing. So, to insert the definition of the word in the verse would have Peter saying, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ in order to achieve the goal of and enter into the state of the remission of sins.”
Sometimes the skeptic will go to Matthew 12:41 in an attempt to justify their manufactured definition of the word εἰς (eis), “for.” In that verse Jesus tells the scribes and Pharisees that Nineveh would be better off than them in the judgement because Nineveh repented “at” (eis) the preaching of Jonah. They say that this means the Ninevites repented “because of” Jonah’s preaching. However, that was not what Jesus was saying. The Ninevites were not spared from wrath “because of” Jonah’s preaching. That would mean they didn’t need to do anything about what Jonah said, it was just the fact that Jonah preached to them that spared them. Nothing could be further from the truth! The Ninevites were spared because they repented “into” Jonah’s preaching. They changed directions, turned around, to enter into the lifestyle preached by Jonah. Simply hearing Jonah preach didn’t do it, they had to move in the direction of what he preached.
εἰς (eis) refers to directional movement and it is never movement in a backward direction, i.e. “because of.” The only reason a person would make such an attempt to explain it as such is because of the preconceived notion that baptism is not essential for salvation. Anyone simply reading the text would have no trouble understanding what it says.
Now, even if that was the only verse referring to the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins, wouldn’t that be enough to prompt your obedience to God? But that isn’t any where near the only verse commanding baptism. There are numerous passages showing the same necessity as Acts 2:38.
Jesus said, he who believes and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16). The skeptic of biblical baptism will point out that Christ said he who believes not shall be damned. He didn’t say he who believes not and is baptized not shall be damned and, therefore, it is faith that is essential and not baptism. While this does show that faith is a prerequisite of baptism it does not change the fact that Christ made baptism essential with the first clause of the statement. Baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God (1 Pet. 3:21). That is, it is a person’s appeal to God for salvation out of a penitent attitude of submission. If a person doesn’t believe that God will forgiven their sins then they won’t do what God said to do in order to receive that forgiveness. Just as Noah would not have built the arc if he didn’t believe that God was going to bring a flood or that the arc would save them from it. He believed God and, therefore, moved with godly fear to obey what God said (Heb. 11:7). He who believes Christ, will be baptized for the remission of sins. If he isn’t baptized for the remission of sins then he really doesn’t believe Christ!
Acts 2:41 says that people are added when they are baptized and Acts 2:47 says that the Lord adds the saved to the church. From this, it is clear that when a person is baptized they enter into salvation and are then added to the church by the Lord.
Having heard the preaching of Jesus (Acts 8:35), the eunuch said, see here is water. What hinders me from being baptized? (Acts 8:36). He knew from hearing the gospel preached by Philip that he had to be baptized in water for his salvation. They stopped right there on the side of the road and Philip baptized him (Acts 8:38).
When God confirmed to Peter, and the Jews with him, that salvation in Christ was also to be preached to the Gentiles, Peter said, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy [Spirit] as well as we? (Acts 10:47). God had poured out the Holy Spirit upon those Gentiles to prove to the Jews that the gospel was to be made available to the Gentiles as well as the Jews. So Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord (Acts 10:48). In response to the proof that the gospel was open to the Gentiles as well as the Jews, these first Gentile converts were baptized in water for the remission of their sins.
The Philippian Jailor was baptized the same hour of the night when he heard the preaching of the gospel (Acts 16:25-34). Ironically, this is the very same person that skeptics of baptism use to teach the false doctrine of salvation by faith only. They will point to Acts 16:31 as though nothing else is said in reference to the Jailor’s conversion. However, the example of conversion doesn’t end with verse 31. It begins there! In Acts 16:32 Paul preached the gospel to the Jailor. Then, in verse 33 the Jailor is baptized. To point to verse 31 as the point of the Jailor’s salvation would be to have him saved before he even knew who Jesus was! No, he had to hear the gospel (32) so that he could believe on Christ (31) and repent of his sins (33) and be baptized for the remission of sins (33).
In Acts 22:16 Paul, in recounting his own conversion, tells how Ananias came to him and preached to him, telling him to “arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Paul knew when his sins were washed away by the blood of Christ! He never said anywhere, in any of his writing or in any of his accounts of his conversion, that he was forgiven of his sins on the road to Damascus. Rather, he said that his sins were washed away when he was baptized. This is certainly in harmony with what he wrote about baptism in his letters (Rom. 6:3-5; Gal. 3:26-27). If I was going to take anyone’s word for when Paul put on Christ for salvation it would be his own testimony, not some man who has an axe to grind on baptism!
Just as Paul said that baptism is when sins are washed away, he said in Ephesians that there is one baptism (Eph. 4:5). This is the same book where he says that those in the church have been sanctified with the washing of water by the word (Eph. 5:25-26). That term, washing of water by the word, is parallel with Titus 3:5 and John 3:3, 5. Biblical baptism for the remission of sins is the washing of water for the new birth (regeneration) as instructed by the Holy Spirit in his inspired word!
Many skeptics of biblical baptism attempt to make the verses commanding baptism refer to Holy Spirit baptism rather than water baptism. I’ll deal with that in response to the next question.
Similar Posts:
- God’s Second Law Of Pardon
- Who Baptized You?
- Baptism – Don’t Die Without It!
- Holy Spirit Baptism?
- What does “born of water and the Spirit” mean?
Richard,
Sorry for part two of our discussion.
Moving on to baptism. Thank you for your history lesson on baptism, I have no problem with any of part A. As for Part B – Why mention that Jesus did not baptize? So what? That does not negate its necessity. All that shows is that it matters not who does the baptizing, which again Paul shows in Part C of your discussion.
Paul never said that baptism was not necessary, he, as Jesus, was showing that the person who performed the baptism did not matter. In fact, neither Jesus nor Paul wanted to baptize many, because they knew it would become a problem, just as it did with the Corinthians. People bragging about who baptized them. And again, Jesus knew His time was short, so He wanted to spend His time teaching, and let His disciples do the baptizing. So your conclusion is false. Your logic fails for it is neither valid nor sound.
It is interesting how much you argue against anything other than faith, yet at the end of your discourse #6 “A Last Point” you irrationally conclude that in Acts 2:38 nothing is said of faith, but that we must not be hasty because there is more to the matter (paraphrasing) – “we have to get the full picture of a doctrine.” You admit that faith is totally absent from the passage, and because of that you would have to defend that faith is not required to be saved.” Then you irrationally conclude it is non-sense to argue that way, because of the doctrine you hold to – ignoring every facet of proper interpretation! Context you say is the key, not just words, and so because faith is absent, but baptism is present, we must conclude that faith is necessary and baptism is not! What gross dishonesty!! You spout “exegesis” yet use “eisegesis.” You’re nothing more than a con man. How can anyone respect a person who cannot be honest with the text or even the context? Again, your logic fails.
Not only are you dishonest in the way that you interpret, you are dishonest with yourself. You say you believe one is saved by “faith alone,” but then you add that one is saved by “grace alone.” Which is it? Can’t you make up your mind?
At least Norm and I are honest, and consistent. We believe that it is both, not to mention the need for Christ’s blood, our repentance, our faith, our confession and our immersion into water in order to receive God’s promise that He will apply the cleansing blood of Christ to my account because He is gracious and full of mercy, when I submitted my will I obeyed His will.
Here we are again.
Poor Mike,
What a good opportunity you missed to show that you should have been better than that in your post. However, just reading what you had say proves one thing: You totally misinterpreted and misundertood my whole point. Hoping others will not imitate you.
Now, I will be back in this discussion ONLY when Norm (and no other) will have rebuked you in public, since it is in public that you treated me as a con man.
Once again, what a shame for someone who says he is a Christian. Read your Bible my friend, if it is not to learn about baptism, at least to learn what a Christian behaviour should be.
Richard
Richard,
The Scriptures plainly say that we are to expose error for what it is, with no apology for defending the truth. I guess that Jesus did not act as a “Christian” or “Christ-like” when He referred to the Pharisees as children of the devil (John 8:44)? Or when Jesus called them Hypocrites (Matthew 23:13-15, 23, 25, 27, 29)???
Or when He called them “Whited Seplchures” (Matthew 23:27)??
Even Paul called the high priest a “Whited wall” (Acts 23:3). I believe that I am in good company in exposing someone who cares nothing for the truth, but only to further the cause of the devil and confuse the masses.
Richard,
I also would like to say that apparently you are the type that can only carry on a conversation when your false doctrine is not exposed as such. It seems that it is ok for you to ridicule the stand of others, but if anyone does the same to you, then you take your marbles and go home.
Let’s try to grow up and carry on an adult like discussion here. In fact I would like to know if you would be open to a public debate on this subject? If you have the truth, then put your money where your mouth is.
Twisting Acts 2:38 – The Question of Baptism by Water for Salvation
Here we go again. As to the unfriendly and inconvenient remarks of Mike, let’s put them aside and do not be bother with that. Earth is full of such people. Rather, let’s be faithful to our discussion.
Here I am greatly indebted to Craig Branch for a good article he wrote on the Watchman Expositor website. In a future post, I will continue to deal with the question of baptism on my own. To those believing in the necessity of baptism for salvation it will be shown that there are many things you do not seem to understand in the Jewish mindset at the time of the New Testament. It will be the argument of my next post.
One of the most common methods cult leaders use to establish their false doctrine is to employ segmented text attention. That is, isolating verses which on the surface seem to the novice Bible student, to affirm the cult’s doctrine.
For example, the “doctrine of demons” (1 Timothy 4:1) seeks to undermine the person and work of Christ (i.e., a different Jesus and a different gospel, 2 Corinthians 11:3-4). In line with the cult’s false gospel of works as opposed to the gospel of grace (Romans 11:6), in order to be justified (declared righteous) before God, many cults teach that one of several necessary steps to becoming saved is to be baptized in water. This inevitably removes the focus from Christ’s finished work and imputed righteousness to the individual (faith in Christ alone by grace alone), and subtlety or overtly leads to the conclusion that “official” baptism by and into the cult (the one and only true church) actually will save.
Several groups teach baptismal salvation. Among them are Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Armstrong’s Worldwide Church of God, United Pentecostals, and many Churches of Christ.
There are about eight main verses that the cults use as proof-texts for their doctrine of baptismal salvation, but the most popular is Acts 2:38 which says: “And Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Notice that on the surface it seems to prove their point, but not when one applies sound principles of interpretation. Remember the question to always ask is, “What does the passage mean”, and not only, “What does it say?” As you know, one may mean different things by what he says. For instance, Jesus seems to say in Luke 14:33 that one cannot be a disciple (Christian) unless he first gives away all his possessions. Obviously we have to interpret the verse in light of the context and in relation to the rest of Scripture. Otherwise no Christian would have any thing belonging to him (house, car, clothes, etc.). As you see, we must understand more what Jesus meant in what he said instead of only taking what he said without sound interpretation.
First of all, we must take into account the historical context. Jesus and the Gentile converts to Judaism were very familiar with the symbol of baptism for cleansing and separation. It was a normal practice (Unger’s Bible Dictionary, p. 122; New Bible Dictionary, Douglas, p. 131). John the Baptist continued the symbol of baptismal cleansing of repentance, but noted there was a baptism which superseded it — that is baptism with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8).
The grammatical context is also important. A key word in Acts 2:38 for the baptismal salvation proponents is “for”; “baptized… for the forgiveness of sins.” They insist that the meaning be interpreted “in order to obtain” the forgiveness of sins. The problem with this insistence is that the word “for” (eis, in Greek) has several connotations in New Testament Koine Greek. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says that eis is a versatile word which primarily denotes entrance “into, or direction and limit: into, to, toward, for, among,” (p. 183).
In other words the symbol of baptism could either be pointing towards the cleansing and forgiveness (with reference to), or could pointing to the actual procuring of forgiveness (in order to). Renowned Greek scholar A. T. Robertson states that not only does eis signify “aim or purpose” (in order to) as in 1 Corinthians 2:7, it can just as well mean “on the basis” or ground of” (with reference to), — see Matthew 10:41. He states that, “the illustrations of both usages are numerous in the New Testament and the Koine (New Testament Greek) generally.” One will decide the use here (Acts 2:38) according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins…” (Word Pictures of the New Testament, pp. 35-36).
Why do the overwhelming percentage of Greek scholars agree with Robertson? Because the rest of Scripture refutes baptismal regeneration. All one has to do is read Acts 10, concerning the account of Peter taking the gospel (which saves, Romans 1:16), to Cornelius and the Gentiles. As Peter proceeds through the gospel message (vs. 34-43), the Scriptures relate that the gift of the Holy Spirit was received upon believing by these Gentiles before they were baptized in water (10:44-48; 11:17-18). Additionally, the Scripture teaches that this is the same way all are saved (Acts 11:15-18, 15:7-11).
To be continued…
Richard,
I am shocked that you decided to come back. Isn’t it amazing that you are upset with my use of terms that relate to your stand for error, and then TRY to act as IF you are the better man by stating “Let’s put inconvenient remarks aside” and then carry on with the name calling. But hey, if you want to continue that game, and act the innocent, then go right ahead, it won’t hide the fact of who you really are.
Now to the meat of the argument you TRY to make.
One of the most common methods of denominationial teachers, is to establish their false doctrine by employing segmented text attention. That is, by isolating verses which on the surface SEEM to the novice Bible student, to affirm denominational doctrine.
For example, the “doctrine of demons” (1 Timothy 4:1) seeks to undermine the person and work of Christ (i.e. a different Jesus and a different gospel, 2 Corinthians 11:3-4). In line with denominationalism’s false gospel of no works as opposed to the gospel of true grace (Romans 11:6), in order to be justified (declared righteous) before God, ALL denominations teach become confused with the requirements of salvation by leaving out a few steps. This inevitably puts all the focus from Christ’s finished work and imputed righteousness on the individual’s confusion as to whether it is by “Grace alone,” or by “Faith alone” that they can appear to be saved. Thereby sublety and overtly leading to the conclusion that the “sinners prayer,” and simply accepting Jesus into ones heart will actually save.
Because denominationalism is a confused religion, they all teach differing views on salvation. Some believe that baptism is not necessary to get into Christ and His church, BUT it is necessary to get into their denomination. Others believe that baptism is simply a symbol of something, but they can’t find it taught in the Bible anywhere. Then there are those who immerse, others sprinkle, or pour, or assume that water is not needed, but it is Holy Spirit baptism. Then they think that they are all part of the one and the same body???? Absurd.
There are about eight main verses that denominations use as proof-texts for their doctrine of – which is it? “Grace only” or “Faith only?” But the most popular is Ephesians 2:8-9 which says, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
Notice that on the surface it SEEMS to prove their point, but not when one applies SOUND principles of interpretation. Remember the question to always ask is, “What does the passage mean?” and not only, “What does it say?” As you know, one may mean different things by what he says. For instance, Jesus seems to say in Luke 14:33 that one cannot be a disciple (Christian) unless he first gives away all his possessions. Obviously we have to interpret the verse in light of the context and in relation to the rest of Scripture, otherwise no Christian would have any thing belonging to him. As you see, we must understand more what Jesus meant in what He said instead of only taking what He said without SOUND interpretation.
First of all, we must take into account the historical context. Jesus and the Gentile converts to Judaism were very familiar with the use of water for cleansing and separation. It was much more than a symbol. The false view of denominationalism causes its irrational thinking to go so far as to assert symbolism of baptism, without ever proving such is the case. NOT once in the Scriptures is it EVER referred to as a symbol, nor do the Scriptures EVER HINT at the idea of Holy Spirit baptism superseding water baptism! It is a figument of their imagination.
The grammatical context is also important. A key word in Acts 2:38 for ONE of God’s requirements of salvation is the word “for,” Greek word “eis.” Peter told the Jews that they were to be “Baptized FOR (eis) the forgiveness of sins.” Denominations insist that the word must be interpreted as looking backward, and so they dishonestly take the English definition of the word “because of,” rather than using the definition from the Greek “in order to obtain.” The Greek word “eis” is ALWAYS looking forward to a result, NEVER backward!
While it is true that A.T. Robertson is well known for his Greek scholarship, it would be remiss to seek his advise on this subject since he holds the common false view of “Faith alone,” or “Grace alone” again, I can’t seem to remember which one it is – and neither can denominationalists. As admitted by Richard – Mr. Robertson says, “MY VIEW is decidely against Peter and Paul, or any one in the New Testament teaching that baptism is essential.” So there you have it, Mr. Robertson is bias, and cannot be accepted on this subject.
Does the Bible refute baptismal regeneration? Absolutely it does. No one here believes such a false doctrine as what is taught by the Roman Catholic Church. But then again, the Bible also refutes faith only and grace only. In fact, common sense itself – I’m sorry that doesn’t seem to apply to denominationalists – but common sense itself tells us that grace alone and faith alone are oxymorons!
Denominationalists also love to take out of context the conversion of Paul, Cornelius and the jailer, putting the cart before the horse. They love to say that they were all saved BEFORE and without baptism, when the text clearly says that they were baptized immediately!
The fact that the Holy Spirit was given to Cornelius was only to prove that the Gentiles were candidates for salvation, so that Peter would baptize him into Christ!
How sad for those who will not get wet in order to be saved!
To be continued…..
This is exactly what I said: Dear friends, do not bother with Mark’s remarks. God will put him in place and hopefully bring him back to his good sense one day.
No offense. Now, regarding the comments and every allusions from Mike, it is Not to be continued…
I will continue on the subject and wisdom will prevail.
Children, am I going to have to give you a time out? ;)
Seriously though. You say that “eis” means “because of” not “in order to”, if this is so then Jesus died because our sins were already forgiven. Matthew 26:28 states, “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for (eis) the remission of sins.” If our sins were already forgiven then what was the point of Jesus dying?
As for Grace, yes it is a gift. but, like any other gift something must be done to obtain it. A simple example is this, someone gives you a gift, but you still have to reach your hand out and take it in order to obtain it. Such is the same for salvation, yes it is a gift but we still have to reach out our hands to obtain it. Baptism is that reaching out of the hand.
As for “faith only”, James 2:24 states, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and NOT BY FAITH ONLY”. This is the only place in the entire Bible that the phrase “faith only” is used. However, it completely destroys the doctrine of “faith only”.
Jeff,
You took my wrecking ball!
That’s ok though, its a great point and I’m glad you made it. The Greek is almost identical between Matthew 26:28 and Acts 2:38. So, if eis means “because of” in Acts 2:38, and that means baptism is not essential for salvation, the why would eis in a nearly identical statement elsewhere not mean the same thing? If it means “because of” in Acts 2:38, thereby negating the necessity of baptism, then it would have to mean “because of” in Matthew 26:28, thereby negating the necessity of the blood of Christ.
David made the attempt previously to define the Greek eis by the use of the English word “for.” But, even I allowed for his use of “for,” you still have to determine its use by the context. He gave the example of a man “wanted for robbery.” That doesn’t mean that he’s wanted “in order to” commit a robbery but “because he has” committed a robbery. And that is a correct use of the English word “for.” However, another statement, also using “for” correctly, would be – “this is for you.” In that statement “for” means “in order that you may have this.” What Jesus said he was shedding his blood “for the remission of sins,” that is the meaning, “so that you may have the remission of sins.” Now, when we see that baptism brings one into contact with the blood of Christ (Acts 22:16; Rev. 1:5; Rom. 6:3-4), doesn’t it become abundantly clear that Peter said the same thing he heard Jesus say when he told his audience to be baptized “for the remission of sins,” i.e. “in order that you may have the remission of sins.”
Jeff B. thank you so much for your comments.
As for Richard, he wants to play the ole shell game, to take the attention away from the way he is falsely arguing and name calling, and re-direct my way, when I used most of his own words in my response, which means he is the one needs some good sense.
I look forward to hear what he will post next. Isn’t this exciting?
The problem is maybe only that with you, Mike. You seem to love to be fighting, to be excited as you said. Many on the blog have other goals.