A Concise History Of The Baptists

Here one quote from the Book I like.

The absence of infant baptism, during the two first centuries, is fully acknowledged by so many of the most learned among the Paedobaptists, that it is quite unnecessary to copy their assertions. [Booth’s Pedo. Exa., C. 4, p. 78; and c. 9, p. 194]

Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian, Minucius Felix, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria, constitute the Christian writers of this second century; who so far from directly speaking of infant baptism, never once utter a syllable upon the subject. [Dr. F.A. Cox on Bap. p. 156]

 

After Quoting the Catholic sources listed here on the history of the "evolution" of the sacrament of Baptism throughout the centuries in the RCC ..

So the RC document states that historically the NT practice was immersion and ALSO states that this is VERY different from today's RC practice - and Bill responds with the "above".??

A "wonderful tradition" on the part of the RCC - but even the RC historic quotes - show that ONLY in the extreme case where water is not available is pouring even "allowed". And that get's "bent around" until now "whim, preference and tradition" do away with the water that the RC's own historic documents "demand".

In further asking that Bill reconcile current practices with the historic Bible practice of Baptism reported by the RC historians themselves - Bob said..

Inexplicably Bill responds as folows...

No joke!

The "point" and challenge for you was to "reconcile" that with the clear statements given in the RC history of Baptism saying that IN fact the participant was required to fast, to study for 2 years, to be "tested" before Baptism.

Their practice was totally inconsistent with the current practice of infants who can not possibly participate in Baptism for St. Peter Himself said "Corresponding to that Baptism now saves you NOT The magical touch of sacramental water to the flesh BUT the Appeal to God for a clean conscience"

In Christ,

Bob

 

Clearly the order of precidence is baptism IN a cold river - where the water is running.

The next still water - if that is not available.

And if neither is available then and only then is pouring even "allowed".

Furthermore - fasting is "required" of the participant in all cases by "ordering him to fast".

Yet incredibly - Bill ignores the "details" in his OWN quote and pointing to one sliver that says any word at all that can be construed in favor of tradition (provided that the reader is not conscious while going over the entire quote that Bill gives) he says --

Indeed it shows that it is ONLY allowed in extreme cases where all other means have failed and even THEN - with fasting of the participant who is "ordered" to fast.

No infant.

No preference for pouring.

Yet Bill blindly ignores the details of his OWN quote and insists ..

Notice that even your OWN quote does not says "CONSIDER using running cold water - BUT if you prefer not to then consider standing water and if you do not PREFER that then maybe you will like to pour water".

Instead of such a tortured interpretation of your OWN quote consider what it actually says.

It commands the first method - without equivocation

Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water.


Then instead of citing "PREFERENCE" as the "basis" for ignoring the first command - it defines 'necessity' saying "IF You do not have " access to the conditions described in the command THEN and only then...

Didache 7:2 But if thou hast not living (running) water, then baptize in other water;

and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.


And FINALLY if you are not ABLE to do as commanded THEN the next level alternative is permitted.

You have stood your own quote on its head to get "your recent traditions" defended -

Time and time again - RC source when quoted from the most ancient ones - are opposed to the errors introduced by the RCC in later centuries and this is a shining example Bill. You are forced into denying the "details" of your own quote.

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. I am quoting from RC sources - why arent "you" jumping up and down in APPROVAL of them??

#2. I am even using BILL's own chosen quote - and SHOWING that his own preferred quote ALSO makes my point. You as a Catholic should be exstatic to see your OWN sources endorsed by a non-Catholic and "yet" you say that I "must be kidding" to post in support of your OWN RC sources to take them "seriously" as I do.

Surely - you don't think that you can quote MY SDA sources that I give you and then hope to find ME urging that you NOT take MY OWN church authorities "seriously" as you are doing with your own RC sources!!

This is preposterous!

As for "why" I take the Word of God seriously AND approve of even RC quotes to the extent that they are IN harmony with God's Word...

Notice St. Peter said "corresponding to that Baptism now saves you - NOT the (magical touch of sacramental) water touching flesh BUT the APPEAL to God for a clean conscience" 1Peter 3.

As EVEN the RC historians "admit" the NT first century practice was "immersion".

As Paul states in Romans 6 the SYMBOL of Baptism is to identify with Christ in His DEATH, Burial and Resurrection - and as we see the only model that DOES show that - is immersion.

A find "assertion" but utterly baseless given the Bible model AND the fact that RC sources themselves admit that immersion was the practice of the NT saints AND the fact that Paul shows this to be illustrating identity with Christ in His death burial and resurrection (Romans 6).

To respond to the UNITY of both RC and Bible sources on this and say "I conjecture that it still does not matter" - is going the "second mile" in turning a blind eye to your own historians as well as the Bible model itself.

Which then argues against infant baptism - immersion or sprinkling - would not matter in the case where it is not allowed "at all".

In Christ,

Bob

 

If baptism is only a symbol I just don't see what the problem is with baptizing infants. Of course I don't have a problem with it when it in reality is not just a symbol. "Baptism now saves you" as Peter says. Let the tap dancing and hand waving around that plain and simple verse begin. "well it doesn't really say what it means" they will say.

blessings

 

Notice St. Peter said "corresponding to that Baptism now saves you - NOT the (magical touch of sacramental) water touching flesh BUT the APPEAL to God for a clean conscience" 1Peter 3.

Of course the "NOT.." part of that text is typically omitted by our RC bretheren.

As EVEN the RC historians "admit" the NT first century practice was "immersion".

As Paul states in Romans 6 the SYMBOL of Baptism is to identify with Christ in His DEATH, Burial and Resurrection - and as we see the only model that DOES show that - is immersion.

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles said -- (And later Thess agrees)

I CONTEND:

1. If BobRyan is correct, and it is only a symbol, then the method used to get a person wet is meaningless

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A fine "assertion" but utterly baseless given the Bible model AND the fact that RC sources themselves admit that immersion was the practice of the NT saints AND the fact that Paul shows this to be illustrating identity with Christ in His death burial and resurrection (Romans 6).

To respond to the UNITY of both RC and Bible sources on this and say "I conjecture that it still does not matter" - is going the "second mile" in turning a blind eye to your own historians as well as the Bible model itself.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Thessalonian:
The church of christ does not handwave or claim every heretical group as their own in order to establish an unbroken chain of origin. One can be a part of the new testament church today by simply following the pattern set forth in the pages of inspiration. It is true the church has always existed on this earth since it's origin (Dan.2:44, I Cor. 15:24). In this sense, one can know he is part of the church founded on Pentecost in Jerusalem in Acts 2:38,47.
Keith Sisman has done scholarly work on this subject. His work may be found at traces-of-the-kingdom.org.

 

Clearly the order of precidence is baptism IN a cold river - where the water is running.

The next still water - if that is not available.

And if neither is available then and only then is pouring even "allowed".

Furthermore - fasting is "required" of the participant in all cases by "ordering him to fast".</font>[/QUOTE]Bob, listen to me reeeeeeeeeeal closely now. While it is true that in those early times, immersion was the prefered method, is not pouring still a valid method, YES or NO?

As for fasting, it is an embellishment attached to baptism, just as the use of holy oils is and embellishment, which also means that later on in history, those embellishements can be modified, Bob. Get it yet?

Yet incredibly - Bill ignores the "details" in his OWN quote and pointing to one sliver that says any word at all that can be construed in favor of tradition (provided that the reader is not conscious while going over the entire quote that Bill gives) he says --</font>[/QUOTE]No, the didache speaks nothing of infant baptism, which is another issue, for which I have provided reference from the early fathers for it's practice, which I will give to you once more:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/infant.htm

Bob, one more time: In those early times, baptism by "running" (living) water was the preferred method of baptism. The didache makes no demands, decrees, but simply lists the ways to baptise in a listing to the most preferred to what is still acceptable - and valid, I might add.

Indeed it shows that it is ONLY allowed in extreme cases where all other means have failed and even THEN - with fasting of the participant who is "ordered" to fast.</font>[/QUOTE]It shows nothing of the kind! "Extreme" case? It simply says that if running water is not available, in sufficient quantities, then there is the alternative of pouring on of the water. It also means that baptizing by a pouring on of the water is acceptable and thus a valid method.

See the link above one more time...

Also, what of the jailer's family, who were baptized with the jailer by Paul had small children or infants, Bob?

No, but the alternative form, which is still valid. Bob, we both know the preferred way in those times, as given by the didache, don't we?

Bob, say after me as often as it takes for it to sink in - Pouring on of water is a valid method of baptism per the didache.

Got it yet?

&lt;Sigh!&gt; "Insists" that baptism by a pouring on of water is a valid method? Yeppers!

And how many times have I said this so far.....?

Notice that even your OWN quote does not says "CONSIDER using running cold water - BUT if you prefer not to then consider standing water and if you do not PREFER that then maybe you will like to pour water".[/quote]

Bob, is a pouring on of water a valid method of baptism, YES or NO?

But indeed, you do see the trend away form the more primitive forms of baptism per the didache, and the now prevailing way of pouring on of the water, but does that change of preference make that method invalid?

Actually, the bible does not give details as to how to baptize, other then the proper words to say as we see in Matthew 28:19, but the precise method of applying the water is not given at all. Jesus went down into the Jordan to be baptized by John. did John dunk Jesus totally in the Jordon to baptize him, Bob? We don't know!

And I believe, seriously believe, that John merely took a a cup, filled it with water and as Jesus stood knee deep in the Jordan, John poured the water over his head!

How does that grab you, Bob?

Yes, the preferred method in those early times. In fact, it can even be said that all priests and bishops were to perform baptism in this ranking of precidence.

But since it is allowable that when such quantities of water, be it running or not, is NOT available, baptism by pouring was allowed.

If so, is it a valid method of baptism, Bob, YES or NO!

Bob, I agree that baptism by total immersion in a running stream of water is possibly the standard method, IF available. But we don't even know that! The Eunich went down to the river to be baptized. Was he dunked totally and completely in the water, Bob? Does scripture say?

But lets again see what the didache says:

But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water. Didache 7:2 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. Didache 7:3 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Didache 7:4 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able; and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.

You know,on second read, I don't even see a total dunking in total immersion even mentioned!
I would agree that it is implied, but it is not specified. All it says is running (living) water, or water that is not living (running). And if neither is available, presumably in quantities sufficient for a normal method of baptism, a pouring on of the water is appropriate and acceptable.

Bob, one more time, is baptism by a pouring of on the water a valid method of baptism, YES or NO?

Do you have "running" (living) water running through your church (knowing that some denominations do indeed, go to a stream, river or even a pond, swimming pool, etc. where water is not "living" as specified in all cases.) Fine and dandy. I do not object to that method of baptism, not at all!

But you must admit that a baptism by a pouring on of the water is admissable, especially today where "living" water is a bit scarce, inaccessable, inconvenient, and like it was for Paul and most likely the jailer's fammily, baptism by a pouring of of the water was most probably performed.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


"…Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism which saves you now…"

1 Peter 3:20-21

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BobRyan:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill said --
Yes, but what of all this, Bob? Most of this can also be seen in the didache, which I think I will quote a portion of it here:

Didache 7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water.

Didache 7:2 But if thou hast not living (running) water, then baptize in other water;

and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.

Didache 7:3 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bob said -- (Let us notice the "but IF thou hast not" sequence above ... the details please)

Clearly the order of precidence is baptism IN a cold river - where the water is running.

The next still water - if that is not available.

And if neither is available then and only then is pouring even "allowed".

Furthermore - fasting is "required" of the participant in all cases by "ordering him to fast".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill said (ignoring the details of his own post "again")

Bill - do you "see" the word "preferred" in your "own quote of the Didache? Yes or No?

And "yet" you want to "re-invent" your own quote so that it says "WE prefer baptism IN running water but IF YOU PREFER not to THEN might you consider standing water and IF you do not PREFER that might you consider POURING water"..

Your "re-work" of "your-own-quote" has failed so you simply "repeat yourself" saying that it was merely a "PREFERENCE" on their part and the text does NOT say "BUT if you do NOT HAVE.." to get to the next "lower" level of practice.

How can you possibly abuse your own quote, your own source, your own reference that way Bill?

It clearly shows that INSTEAD of mere preference for one way vs the other - it is only utter failure to have running water, or standing water that would even ALLOW pouring. We "see this" as we remain conscious while "reading the details" of "your own post" when "it says" -- "BUT IF THOU HAS NOT running water..."

Again Bill - please wake up to the "details" of your "own" quote.

But alas - you have become well versed in "ignoring the details" when they do not "please your traditions". EVEN in the case where it is the "details of your own quote".

Bill sticks to his myopic snippet view of his own quote saying --

 

Here again - the "detail" the "salient point" was that not only does the Bible not allow for infant baptism but EVEN the quote that Bill gave DOES not allow for it as can be seen by observing the "details" in his quote.

But in his continued practice of ignoring details "even in his own quote" Bill said

Bill said

No question that these additions were brought in early - additions that are NOT part of the Bible model - but they are additions that SHOW that infant baptism could not POSSIBLY comply with thier stated practices. It had to have "EVOLVED".

And so... "ignoring the salient point" - you go for "another lesser point" as if turning a blind eye to the clear rejection of infant baptism in that quote - "will help your case".

It does not.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here again - the "detail" the "salient point" was that not only does the Bible not allow for infant baptism but EVEN the quote that Bill gave DOES not allow for it as can be seen by observing the "details" in his quote.</font>[/QUOTE]Bob, where, oh where does the bible preclude baptism for infants? Is it not obvious that the baptism, the didache is speaking of, is adult baptism? Because it does not address infant baptism does not preclude infant baptism!

No question that these additions were brought in early - additions that are NOT part of the Bible model - but they are additions that SHOW that infant baptism could not POSSIBLY comply with thier stated practices. It had to have "EVOLVED".</font>[/QUOTE]Er, ah, Bob, while an infant does not fast, holy oils, an embellishment, is applied to infants in their baptism! And not only that, there are other embellishments, not seen in scripture or the didache that we do today for both infants and adults. The "baptismal garment" for the infant, that has seen some further embellishment for adults in a "garment" worn for the occasion, as well as the baptismal candle for both infant and adult, something not seen in scripture or the didache.

Where, oh where do you see a rejection of infant baptism in either scripture or the didache, Bob?

The RCIA program (a rough equivilant of the didache today - instructions for those entering the Faith) speaks of adult baptism only. Guess why, Bob? Because the RCIA program is for &lt;gasp!&gt; ADULT converts!

Bob, I honestly do not see you making any sort of a case that, from the didache...

1. Baptism is strictly by total immersion only.

2. That infants are forbidden to be baptized.

Do I have that conclusion on you part right? If not, please explain how in the world you can really see these approximate conclusions. I see not a smathering of it in your objections, Bob, not nary a one.

Finally, did you read that link I previously gave concerning infant baptism? You slavishly think the didache forbids infant baptism, (even while infant baptism is not even mentioned as your proof) but it being part of what we see as the history of the church, you ignore the writings of the early fathers on the subject?

Boy, am I glad to be a Catholic, belonging to the Church with the truth backed up by her history that no other church can share.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

 

Bob, the Catholic church doesn't claim it's the majic of the water. The water is not majical but an outward sign of the inward transformation accomplished by the Holy Spirit. I see the immersion thingy is going around in circles with Bob ignorning the plain facts so I will defer to dear brother Bill who is doing a wonderful job. I've been laughing my tail off on the sidelines. Because the didache doesn't mention infant baptism it denies it? Bob, your not for real now are you. Bob, the owners manual of my car never mentions stop signs or speed limits so does this mean I can go as fast as I want through stop signs.

Blessings

 

ROTFLOL!

Great point, Thess!

Note also, I have yet to get Bob to admit that the didache permits baptism by a pouring on of the water as being valid.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

"…Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism which saves you now…"

1 Peter 3:20-21

 

Bob said - in keeping with the 'details' of the quote above

The "detail" Bill is so desperate to ignore is included in the Didache quote above.

Note: it references the command to fast - and to "commend him to fast" - "him" being the baptismal candidate who clealry must be old enough to "be commanded" -- (obviously).

So in this oft repeated detail of BILLs OWN quote - will Bill be brought to adress HIS OWN quote -- yet?

Observe HIS response

The Didache did not say "Now if you happen to be baptizing an adult than go ahead and command them to fast a day or two" as you in fact "need" it to say.

Instead - it gives us a formula that ONLY works for non-infants.

Obviously.

And "EVEN" the RC sources I quoted admit that it is baptism by immersion that is practiced in the NT.

And "EVEN" the RC sources "Admit" that the candidate for baptism IS capable of responding to abstract ideas about fasting and spiritual preparation.

And Peter HIMSELF argues that the ESSENCE of Baptism for the baptismal candidate is the "APPEAL to God for a clean conscience" which obliterates all myths about infants doing this and all eisegetical attempts to insert infant baptism practices into the text.


But in his continued practice of ignoring details "even in his own quote" Bill said

Bill said

Bob responds --

All fine and good for this late practice not authorized in either the Bible or the Didache.

In the meantime the "details" of your OWN Didache quote that SHOWS the early church practice following the NT first century church - did NOT include the later traditions introduced by the RCC regarding infants.

You keep saying "we added other embellishments" after the NT period of the first century church.

"other traditions" not even mentioned in the Didache.

Bill - that is the one point upon which we agree. The RCC did add this later.

But the point remains that Peter's statement that the ESSENCE and value of the Baptism has nothing to do with sacramental "WATER" and everything to do with "An APPEAL to God for a clean conscience" obliterates all hope of "infant baptism".

The Didache's own instruction to command the Baptismal candidate to fast - also obliterates the notion of infants complying with such a "command".

So the "details" of fasting and the "Details" of the "essence" of Baptism having nothing to do with magical or sacramental water has been laid out.

AND it has been shown that the ESSENCE is the non-infant act of "Appealing to God for a clean conscience"...

So what is Bill's response to these "details"?

I guess that would be "the details" above that you keep hoping that will "go away" Bill.

Is that the part where you deal with the "detail" of the Didache saying "AND IF YOU DO NOT HAVE ..." showing that only extreme conditions beyond your control ALLOW for the next LOWER form of participation in Baptism?

No? I thought not.

Again - is this where you are "addressing the details" in the Didache quote that show the baptismal candidate is "commanded to fast"?

Is that the part where you address the "detail" in the quote of St. Peter showing that it is "NOT the water" but the "APPEAL to God for a clean conscience" that constitutes the essence of Baptism (and therefore eliminates the possibility of infants participating)?

No? I thought not.

Still ignoring "the details" of your own quote of the Didach AND of St. Peter?

I thought so.

I agree that you are pretending not to notice the oft-repeated "details".

But I have to ask you - do you consider the turn-a-blind-eye method of study and review - a "compelling" method that is ideal in a context where the person you are speaking with is insisting that we "notice the details" of the quotes given?

Surely not.

#1. I show that the "details" of Peter's quote and the "details" of the Didache regarding fasting can not possibly be applied to an infant. You way of "dealing with those details" is simply to "ignore them".

#2. I have you quotes of your OWN RC historians saying that infant baptism "evolved" - it was not the practice of the early church.

Here are more "details" for you to ignore from your OWN RC historians --

Thomas Bokenkotter's "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" pg 49

"at first the Christian presbyter or elder avoided any resemblance to the pagan or Jewish priests and in fact even deliberately refused to be called a priest.
He saw his primary function (instead) to be the ministry of the word...but the image of the Christian presbyter gradually took on a sacral character.

This sacralization of the clergy was brought about by various developments...the Old Testament priesthood was seen as a model for the NT priesthood (gradually). The more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantine era, with it's features borrowed from paganism, enhanced the image of the minister as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became the rule, for infants could not be preached to...

Before Constantine the whole church was considered the realm of the sacred as opposed to the profane world outside; after Constantine and the breakdown of the separation between church and the world, the polarity between sacred and profane was transformed into one between sacred clergy and profane laity"


In Christ,

Bob

 

From Catholic Digest (Parenthesis mine in the quotes below) from the June 1999 article.
Please see www.catholicdigest.org for the full article that hints to the changes that have evolved over time.

 

It has never been above Bob's ethics and morals to alter and misuse quotes and articles before, why should he now?

Bob's snippet

 

BobRyan replied:

Did I not reply to this already? Did I not point out that a non-reference to infant baptism is not a proof that infant baptism was not practiced or taught. I referenced the didache to indicate the validity of baptizing by a pouring on of water, or has that issue now disappear and you want to try to get me on something else?.

And I think I replied that yes, this was once practiced as a embellishment of the Sacrament and nothing more, just like the use of candles and a baptismal gown, even for adults, was a practice in those early times. Today, the gowns are reserved for infants, albeit I understand that it is making a return for adults as well, which I think is a worthy embellishment worthy of a return to practice/

But in all cases, the essentials of water flowing while the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit" remain intact just as Christ had instructed His apostles to do in Matthew 28:19.

And why do I get the feeling I am typing this all over again..........?

It that all, Bob? You are running out of steam, bob in your desperate attempt to make a point that goes nowhere! Because the didache does not speak of infant baptism, does not preclude infant baptism, Bob.

I'm talking to myself.............................

Well now, you are expanding the issue, seemingly to think you are making points by pointing out that "RC sources admit to baptism by immersion" in earlier times.

DUH!!!!!!!!!

Ask any Catholic in this forum if this is news to them Bob. And while your poor straw man goes up in flames, you continued"

Woah there, mule! What has infant baptism have to do with the embellishments to the Sacrament of baptism, these embellishments seen in the didache, some of them still being done today for both adults AND infants?

Bob, is water applied by pouring, an authorized method per the didache and the words, as given to the apostle by Christ in Matthew 28:19? YES or NO!

What of the application of holy oils? So what, bob? What if a candle is used, lighted to signify the new soul, brought into the company of God as a new Christian, with the garment of his Christian faith applied to signify the new status? What is wrong with it, Bob? And why do you even care?

No, it does not, and I explained why in my last message. &lt;sigh!&gt;

But again, I give you the link you have yet to comment on:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/infant.htm

OK???????????? So what, Bob?

&lt;Scratching my head&gt; Where does Peter say that, Bob?

Hello, Bob, are you there? What has that to do with infant baptism? How does a fasting preclude infant baptism? Your logic fails me, Bob.

Does your Church community have a fasting for your candidates for baptism, Bob? If so, fine, wonderful.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, Bob....................

I give up!

Here is what your logic reminds me of:

A soviet scientist, wondering how well he could command a frog to jump, did an extensive training so that the frog would jump on command. Therefore every time the scientist said "jump," the frog would jump.

Then the scientist removed one of his legs, and commanded the frog to jump. And sure enough, the frog jumped on command. The scientist then removed a second leg and commanded the frog to jump, and by golly, the frog jumped! Removing the third leg produced the same result, and with only one leg remaining, the frog jumped.

Then the scientist remove the last remaining leg and commanded the frog to jump, but this time the frog failed to jump.

The scientist then wrote in his log, his conclusion: "When all legs were removed, the frog could no longer hear."

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima Christi -

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

 

YOu have encountered him before?

This present experience with Bob is most exasperating, to say the least, so I think that you, having this prior "experience", you can take over and see if you can do better then I have been able to do.

So I will stand by and let you have at him!

God bless and good luck!

Oh, I will stand by and contribute if appropriate...as you have done with me.

PAX

Bill+†+


Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not
thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:
Lest the LORD see it, and it displease him, and he turn
away his wrath from him.
Proverbs 24:17-18

 

YOu have encountered him before?

This present experience with Bob is most exasperating, to say the least, so I think that you, having this prior "experience", you can take over and see if you can do better then I have been able to do.

So I will stand by and let you have at him!

God bless and good luck!

Oh, I will stand by and contribute if appropriate...as you have done with me.

PAX

Bill+†+


Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not
thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:
Lest the LORD see it, and it displease him, and he turn
away his wrath from him.
Proverbs 24:17-18 </font>[/QUOTE]Don't know that I have the time to waste. Yes, I have beat my head against a wall before. Pearl casting, it's called. You did a great job Bill. You accomplished nothing with him but helped expose his antics. I have seen that convert souls who are on the sidelines. God bless.