1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Texts of the Eastern Orthodox Church relevant to Baptism

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Steve Allen, Dec 31, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,817
    Likes Received:
    2,106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Do you? Wow! So you get these tiny infants and get them to renounce Satan? And then you give them lighted tapers? Isn't that a wee bit dangerous? And then you give them communion bread when they're not even weaned? I don't think so.
    If you stay here long enough, you will learn that almost no one reads links. You need to do the work yourself and express yourself in your own words.
    Too bad the Apostles never say anything about these things. Cyril was writing 250-300 years after their time. But he follows the Apostles to a certain extent: he makes no mention of infants or 'godparents':D
    Correction: you are arguing from silence. You are saying that although Cyril never mentions infant baptism, because your denomination believes in it, he must have meant to mention it bit somehow forgot.
    It is indeed a resounding witness, to you're denomination's errors and your own gullibility. You think that because your denomination is ancient, it must be correct. Let me remind you that deception is as old as Satan (John 8:44).
    In fact, Cyril's (and other church fathers') errors led to the early Christians delaying baptism as long as possible. Monica, the mother of Augustine delayed his baptism on the grounds that she did not want him to lose the supposed grace of baptism through all the sins She (correctly) felt sure he would commit. Constantine was not baptized until he was on his deathbed, and the Emperor Valentinian II delayed it too long and was murdered before he could be baptized. Whereupon Ambrose of Milan invented the idea of 'baptismal desire' which, of course, is found neither in the Bible nor anywhere else up to this point.

    The church fathers are full of contradictions and errors. The only place of safety is the Bible, the word of the living God.

    and

    There is no command in the Bible for infants to receive water baptism.

    There is no instance in the Bible of infants being baptized.

    There is no reference in the Bible to infants being baptized.

    Water baptism in the Bible is constantly tied in with repentance, faith and discipleship (eg Matthew 3:6, 11; 28:19; Mark 16:16; John 4:1; Acts 2:41; 8:12, 13, 36-37; 16:14-15, 31-34; 1 Corinthians 1:16: compare with 16:15f; Ephesians 4:5).
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Adonia

    Adonia Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2016
    Messages:
    5,020
    Likes Received:
    941
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Good grief, what is wrong with having "godparents"? It became a "tradition", just like Wednesday night meetings at church or "altar calls" or reciting the "Sinners Prayer". Everything was not written down in the Scriptures. The Apostles passed on into eternity and there was still plenty of things that needed to be said and decided as the Christian Church grew.

    So help me here with these words from the Scriptures. Jesus at one point tells us to love our enemies and to turn the other cheek and the next thing you know He is advocating the carrying of swords. Contradiction or not?

    "Do not keep the little ones from me" or some likewise words. "Whole households were baptized" the Scriptures also say. The leaders of the newly emerging Christian Church had real power and real authority given to them by Jesus Christ Himself.

    They convened Synods and Councils to decide things, you know, things like fighting heresies that cropped up from time to time and which manuscripts floating around would be included in the Canon of Scripture. Jesus did not just write a book and that was that, no He created a real institutional Church here on earth led by men guided by the Holy Spirit.

    There is nothing in the Bible that says "Scripture Alone". In fact, it says quite the opposite and despite your fantasy about this, the historical record reflects that truth.
     
    #82 Adonia, Jan 5, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Steve Allen

    Steve Allen Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2018
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    21
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    You would do well to slow yourself down a bit before calling me a liar. I know what we do because I've been there while we did it to my own son (and daughter), and I say again, yes, we do. The renunciation of Satan is declared on his behalf by someone with the capability to speak, then carried out in truth by my raising of him ("As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."). The taper likewise was carried by the one carrying him, and now he lights his item (still with my supervision, so far -- he's only three years old... Haha ... but he's getting there).

    But yes we did immediately give him -- my son, directly, in his own mouth -- full communion, including a particle of bread. And yes, he had not yet been weaned. And yes, he swallowed it. And no, he didn't cry or reject it.

    I'm not speaking from theory here, but from experience.

    I know. Thus the winky face.

    Which things didn't they say? Oh wait, you don't know. You only know what they didn't write. Or rather what they didn't write in bone-shakingly explicit detail so you could follow it cookie-cutter.

    No mention = Silence != Negative Witness.

    No, that's not what I'm saying. I have no idea if he intended to mention it or not, or if he did and we lost the work, or any of that. I'm saying that the one church whose rites still contain everything he talks about, and has maintained apostolic succession and direct lineage with him, does and applies the things he talks about regarding baptism -- to infants! This is a positive witness, and most be accounted for if you are going to argue against it from Cyril's personal (written) silence. You can choose to believe that this was added even later if you'd like, but you can't just ignore things like that.

    And Truth is older yet, and gave us a promise that He would be with us always, even to the end of the world, and will keep us in the Truth, by His Spirit. Christ is in our midst.

    Look at the time and circumstances. This delay was not the early nor final practice of the Church, but the influence of the Donatist or Donatist-like approach that did not allow for repentance after baptism. This became a full blown schism eventually, and was sorted out appropriately by the Church at large.

    Same thing. The impulse to extreme strictness in reading Hebrews, to the point of denying 1 John and James's applicability post-baptism, was alive and well at those times.

    To be completely honest, I've never heard of that. None of the actions or doctrines I've heard actually rest on that. Ambrose may have talked about it (I'm sure he did it you wouldn't have said so), but it doesn't factor into any of my thinking, nor the Orthodox Church's as far as I can tell.

    I do read links, though, so if you could link me to the relevant source texts from Ambrose, I'd appreciate it. :)

    Argument from silence is argument from silence. And besides that, you're wrong; you just won't see it because you still have the veil over your eyes, so you need someone to lead you by the hand, step by step, and if you don't get it line on line, precept on precept, then you fall down and go backwards.

    I don't think anyone is arguing against those connections.



    Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
     
    #83 Steve Allen, Jan 5, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Water Baptism was especially to Paul, that Outward sign to all that the Holy Spirit had already baptized one into the Body of Christ, and sealed them unto redemption in full at time of the Second coming!
     
  5. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Do you hold to a type of baptismal regeneration then in water baptism?
     
  6. Walter

    Walter Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    142
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Have you bothered to read his posts? This is a ridiculous question.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,817
    Likes Received:
    2,106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'm glad you admit that you have no authority for 'godparents. What is wrong with tradition? I'll let the Lord Jesus answer that.
    These are His words, not mine.
    "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honours Me with their lips but their heart is far from Me And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men" (Mark 7:6-7).

    Now I should say that I was 'christened' as a baby into the Church of England, and in my ignorance and unbelief, I had all three of my children similarly served; all with 'godfathers' and 'godmothers' none of whom were the least help either to me or to them. The result in my case was that I grew up with a totally unfounded supposition that I was somehow right with God, and for many years I was 'Gospel-proof' inasmuch as when people at University and elsewhere tried to witness to me I ignored them. I was already sorted out with God; what did I need their Gospel for? Yet I knew no more of Christ than my dog and was living, to my shame, no better.
    No contradiction, but if you want to discuss the texts, start a new thread.
    You are thinking perhaps of Mark 10:13-16. Read it. Do you notice the one thing that the Lord Jesus didn't do with these children? That's right: He blessed them, but He didn't baptize them, though it would have been the perfect opportunity. So we too may bring our infant children to Him and ask His blessing on them, whether we do this in prayer or by way of a blessing service in the church. But we don't baptize them; that comes when they can make a clear and credible profession of faith for themselves. We can do a thread on family baptisms if you like. Here I will only observe that the household of Stephanus (1 Corinthians 1:16 were old enough to 'devote themselves to the ministry of the saints' (1 Corinthians 16:15). My wife and I were baptized together as believers, and if my children had been a little older they might well have joined us.
    I'm aware of the various synods. They are valuable precisely as far as their decisions were compatible with Scripture. Not all of them were iniversally approved. 'Pope' Leo called the Second Council of Ephesus the 'Robber Synod.'
    I believe very firmly that there is. We have had discussions on the subject and my view remains the same. Paul's last words to Titus: 'Preach the word!.........For the time is coming when they will not endure sound doctrine.....and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables' (2 Timothy 4:2-4). Fables such as infant baptism and 'godparents.'
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Water Baptism in the new Covenant never was intended to save a lost sinner, to wash away Original Sin, to regenerate etc!
     
  9. Adonia

    Adonia Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2016
    Messages:
    5,020
    Likes Received:
    941
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    y
    No, I did not admit that. The authority that resides in the Church is sufficient. It's from the "bind and loose" doctrine that is most definitely in the Holy Scriptures. Do you even deny the "pastoral authority" of your Pastor? If he has no authority to proclaim what doctrine your particular congregation is to follow, you would have one person believing one thing and another something different - that's called anarchy.

    Not everything that Jesus did was written down and since none of us were on the scene he could have at some point.

    Is it possible that your firm belief has come about because of tradition? It was only from the 16th century on that this "Sola Scriptura" idea came to be popular amongst some of the new Christian sects - which could be described as a new "tradition". "Preach the word", Jesus said, as He entrusted the new leaders with authority. I am at a loss to find the command from Our Lord for them to just write a book and let everyone figure it out for themselves.
     
  10. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes or no?
     
  11. Walter

    Walter Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    142
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    If you bothered to actually read the thread and not just parrot your standard anti-Catholic blather, you would know that A: He is an Eastern Orthodox Catholic Christian and B: He 'holds to some from of baptismal regeneration.' Btw,Yeshua1, so does NT Wright, who you seem to claim you know so much about.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I know Wright does, as he holds water baptism as entry way into the community of faith....
     
  13. Walter

    Walter Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    142
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Uh-huh, and sacraments, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, in Holy Orders (Apostolic Succession), etc.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Which begs the question, since he holds to non biblical theology, why do so many view Him as being the theologian for today?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Steve Allen

    Steve Allen Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2018
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    21
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Ok, I looked this up, and I didn't recognize it because of the term, which is properly the baptism of desire. I had encountered it in the explanation of how those who declare their faith in Christ due to a martyr's witness (for example) and are immediately executed along with the martyr, are still regenerated. Now Ambrose isn't too awfully dogmatic about it, but rather lending hope to an otherwise hopeless situation. However, there is Scriptural precedent for the idea -- the giving of the Holy Spirit to Cornelius and his family stands out. It seems to apply when baptism is desired, but not physically available.

    The Church has, as far as I know, always contended that the full rite, with clergy, etc. is normative and mandatory insofar as is possible, but that in extreme circumstances can be modified as necessary, because it's not (as we've said over and over again) the water per se, nor even the ritual per se, that does the regenerating, but the Holy Trinity, in response to the prayers of the faithful, according to His own will. This is why in extreme circumstances we allow non-clergy to perform the rite, the water poured or sprinkled, and the rite itself cut down to just the invocation of the Holy Spirit on the water and the declaration (while baptizing): "The servant of God [name] is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

    I could even see this as being the valid underpinning for the baptism over/for the dead, but unlike infant baptism that one wasn't part of the apostolic deposit, and so did not survive the first century. It was, however, a reasonable response to the proper understanding of the apostolic teaching, however. But water baptism done at the assembly and by triple immersion, presided over by clergy, is normative and regular.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,817
    Likes Received:
    2,106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So your son did not renounce Satan, but someone did so 'on his behalf.' Now where is that in the Bible? Where is that in Cyril? Where are lighted tapers in the Bible? Where does Cyril say that someone can carry them on someone's behalf? When you say, "we did it to my own son (and daughter)" you give yourself away. You are not obeying the Bible, you are not obeying Cyril (not that I care about that) but you are following the rituals of your denomination and you think they must be right because they are ancient. But the apostasy was there even in apostolic times; read Jude 4. The heretics were already coming into the churches back then, and the fruit is with us today. The only remedy is to get back to the Bible, and if a doctrine or a practice can't be found there, don't do it. I very much hope that your son will come one day to renounce Satan and trust in Christ for himself. That will be the day for him to be baptized.

    Proverbs 30:5. 'Every word of the LORD is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar.' To say that maybe some guy wrote something that no one knows about and therefore you should follow what there's no evidence for him teaching is just crazy. I think I'd as soon believe in the angel Moroni and become a Mormon.
    Exactly right. I can't comment on what people may have said, but there's no evidence they did say.
    But your denomination's rites don't contain everything Cyril said. It doesn't require catechumens publicly to renounce Satan etc. You get someone else to do it on their behalf. You can believe your church is the one true church if you like, just like the J.W.s do, but don't tell me that it is following Cyril, let alone the Bible which is what really matters, because it doesn't.
    John 14:23. "if anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love Him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." Look, Steve; I'm not saying that all those who follow Eastern Orthodox churches are lost or anything like that, but you're saying that your denomination is the one pure church and I'm telling you that it isn't. It is claiming to following some guy from the 4th Century, and it's not even doing that properly. Get real with the Bible! 'But when they believed Philip as he preached the things of the kingdom of God, both men and women were baptized' (Acts 8:12). First they believed, then they were baptized. Men and women. No babies.
    I don't agree. The delaying of baptism was a direct result of Cyril and others teaching that the rite of baptism forgave sins previous to it. How natural that people should draw the logical conclusion that one should delay baptism until the last possible moment. I'm sure Cyril didn't intend that, but it was the law of unintended consequences in action.
    I think you've found the reference now.
    Infant baptism is not in the Bible, Steve, and falling back on silly ad homs isn't going to put it there.
    Well take note of them then. First there is repentance and faith, then there is baptism. :)



    Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. Steve Allen

    Steve Allen Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2018
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    21
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    And being thrown out in due course.

    Where's that in the Bible? Oh, it's not found there? Well I guess I shouldn't do it, then. ;)

    I could make a case on top of all that that technically babies aren't understood to be made catechumen first in any real way, because that phase itself implies teaching and preparation of the intellectual powers that is not necessary for the child because that faculty is not yet active. So, since the renunciation of Satan is properly in the making of a catechumen, and not part of the baptismal rite per se, then it shouldn't matter to the question of baptismal regeneration whether or not someone speaks on their behalf or not.

    But I'm not going to, because the simple fact is that the Church does require catechumens to publicly renounce Satan as part of the rite to make a catechumen, which, if not done previously, is attached to the front of the baptismal service, in which case, if they are not capable of speaking for themselves in order to fulfill the requirement, the Church appoints someone to speak for them, so that they, through the one appointed can fulfill the requirement -- because it is a requirement.

    Now you've already stated your disagreement as to the viability/reality of this solution, and I feel like I'm repeating myself, so I won't burden you with it further, other than to answer your question, "Where is that in the Bible". To which I point to a) the paralytic -- who was not capable of walking himself to Jesus, so his friends tore open the roof and let him down, whereupon Jesus, seeing their faith, healed him -- and b) to Jesus' own injunction: "Suffer the little children to come to me, and forbid them not." You will obviously disagree that these apply, but I'm not defending it; just reporting saying that's where we see it or things like it.

    But this is a fundamental difference between us. Even if it weren't in the Bible at all, it wouldn't cause us to stop teaching it. Because we do NOT hold to the idea that we should only do what's in the Bible. Even if we did hold that, we would be holding it based on tradition, and not on the Bible, because that idea is not itself in the Bible. Rather, there we find the command to hold onto what has been handed to us in writing OR by word. And we also find there explicit statements that NOT everything that Jesus (and the Apostles, having received from Him) taught has been written down (e.g. "And the rest I will set in order when I come").

    So I don't think we're going to agree on this because our fundamental approach to the Scripture is different. Given which, unless something changes on your end (it won't on mine), I don't think continuing to repeat ourselves is going to help much.

    Yeah, it is. I agree. That's not what we're doing. (You either still don't understand, or, understanding, you choose to misrepresent it intentionally.)

    This is where you're still not getting it. We don't follow Cyril. At no point have I ever claimed that, nor has the Church. You brought him up, not me! I merely responded that contrary to supporting you, Cyril is actually a good witness to what we have received from the Apostles. His is not a plenary witness (he doesn't talk about infants), but it doesn't have to be, because we don't follow Cyril; we follow Christ. Cyril followed Christ as well, and, having received from the Apostles the same thing as we, wrote about some of them, and this writing now serves as a witness to our common receipt.

    You're adding to the Scriptures. Just as it does not say, "and they baptized babies" (or similar), so it does not say, "No babies." You're assuming that based on your soteriological and ecclesiological pre-commitments.

    I don't think we are going to agree on this, either. I maintain that the delay was a direct result of the erroneous restriction of repentance post-baptism. The forgiveness of sins through baptism was taught prior to that, but didn't lead to delayed baptisms until that component was added. And it doesn't lead to delayed baptisms now, since that component has been removed. If your logic was correct, we would still delay baptisms, because the teaching that baptism is (among other things, of course) for the remission of sins hasn't gone away, but is confessed every day: "I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins." If you were correct that the delaying of baptism was a direct result of this teaching being (supposedly) introduced as a new thing, then we could reasonably expect that people would still delay baptism, since the teaching is still present.

    No, the teaching was there already. It was the addition of hyper-strictness closing off the possibility of post-baptismal repentance that turned baptism into the "one shot deal" under which it actually makes sense to delay it for as long as possible. Once that error was handled, the delay ceased to make sense, and the Apostolic practice remained.
     
  18. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Steve, as the senior Admin on Baptist Board, I would remind you that this is without apology a denominational site. As much as Baptists are a denomination. Please conduct yourself accordingly.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Steve Allen

    Steve Allen Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2018
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    21
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I am certainly attempting to do so. I opened this thread as an informational thing for HankD, so as not to hijack the other thread; it's turned into a debate over several things related. I'm posting within the "Other Christian Denominations" part of the Christian Debate Forum (All Christians). I am certainly open to specific correction if I cross any lines inadvertently.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,817
    Likes Received:
    2,106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Some, not others. I can give you a list of apostate popes in the 8th and 9th centuries, before the eastern churches split, if you like.
    :Rolleyes I've already given you some verses. 'This people honours Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'

    I spent a week in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 2012, which was the 200th anniversary of Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. I heard a great open-air rendition of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, complete with cannons, but then the priests (and where are they in the NT?) brought out this old picture which no one had seen for 100 years and the people all queued up to look at the picture and bow to it. It was one of the saddest things I've seen. These people, who for years had been forbidden to worship Christ in spirit and in truth, now they have some sort of freedom to do so, worship a picture of some chap with a beard and suppose it is their Lord. :(
    You are right that the word 'catechumen' implies someone who has been catechized, and does not therefore apply to an infant. Yet your denomination follows the ritual laid down by Cyril for adults and applies it to babies.
    But it's a nonsense, and in your heart you must know it. I can't repent and believe for you, nor you for me. And nor can some chap repent and believe on behalf of a tiny baby.
    Certainly the men who carried the paralytic must have had faith, but so must the paralytic himself. It's inconceivable that the men would have brought him against his will. 'They' applies to all of them.
    Well you got the last bit right! To be sure, let the children come to Christ. He is no longer on the earth in human form, but that doesn't matter. Teach them, encourage them, pray with and for them, but don't baptize them, because Christ didn't.
    Alas not! :Frown
    Deuteronomy 29:29. 'The secret things belong to the LORD, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever......' John 20:30-31. 'And truly Jesus did many other signs.....which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe......' The Bible is sufficient, 'that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work' (2 Timothy 3:17). Paul's teachings are contained in his letters. Not everything is contained in, say, his letters to the Thessalonians, but he would have given to the Thessalonians verbally the teachings that we find in Romans and Corinthians
    I very much hope that you will ponder on what I've written, but that isn't the main reason for writing. My reason is to bring forth the truth of the word of God. You have said that your denomination freely adds to that word and there's nothing I can do about that except to warn those who may be reading, and to pint you once more to Mark 7:6-8; Proverbs 30:5-6 and Revelation 22:18.
    Alas, you follow neither Cyril, Christ or the Apostles; you follow the traditions of men.
    And this is just silly! If you can add randomly to the word of God, why stop there? Where does it say in the Bible not to baptize cats and dogs?
    Unfortunately you exchanged one error for another. Sins are not remitted by water baptism as Simon Magus could tell you.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...