Two-Tiered Membership
March 21, 2008 at 10:23 am (Federal Vision)
Wilson has responded to my post. I don’t feel the need for an extended discussion at this point. I only wish to point out a few things. Firstly, with regard to the two-tiered membership and its approximation to the visible/invisible church distinction. Even if we cannot make these two correspond in reality, it is still the ideal for which we should strive. Just because our sanctification, for instance, does not correspond in life to what it should look like does not mean that we should stop trying in God’s strength to become more holy. Similarly, the better church discipline is handled by a church, the closer will be the correspondence between the communicant membership and the invisible church. The two ”problems” with the system are problems that true church discipline aims either to minimize or eliminate. The church should constantly seek to disciple its members. In that process, hypocrites will be discovered eventually. Similarly, the elect and the regenerate among the non-communicants are brought to the place in discipleship where they can make profession and become communicant. This is what church discipline is all about.
Wilson asks why we should require a profession of faith in infants for (communicant, I assume he means) church membership, when we don’t require it for salvation. Church membership is a bit like citizenship in the US. We are born citizens. We don’t ever become more of a citizen than we already are by birth. However, that doesn’t mean that an infant can drive a car, vote, or drink. One grows into these privileges. Of course, the analogy breaks down in that some “citizens” of the church are traitors to the church. But then, there are traitors in our country as well, even if our country doesn’t always recognize the fact. I agree with David Gadbois’s argument about the notitia element of faith. The faith exercised in the case of baptism is the faith of the parents. This answers the first comment on Wilson’s post. The faith exercised by someone in the Lord’s Supper is that person. The church must have some way to judge whether in fact a person at the Supper is exercising faith, including notitia. So, it is not a matter of whether the child has faith, for all sides agree that infants can have at least the seed of faith from the womb. The question, as Ursinus put it so helpfully (and I notice that Wilson did not interact with the historical material), is how the church can make a judgment about said faith. It is the responsibility of the church not only to discipline those by bouncing hypocrites, as Wilson would put it. The church also has the responsibility to examine each person who would come to the table (though this examination need not be every time).
By the way, I have to thank Wilson at this point. This particular interaction has considerably sharpened my own thinking on this point.
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
davejes1979
reformedmusings
its.reed
Andrew Webb
Ron said,
March 21, 2008 at 11:08 am
But Lane, children can legally consume alcohol under their parents’ supervision.
Ron said,
March 21, 2008 at 11:20 am
So Lane, are you saying that when the Session examines the profession of a covenant kid that they are directly and primarily assessing the fitness of that child to be granted the second-tier privileges, or is it that they are seeking to make a more fundamental and declarative judgement on that child’s ontology, a judgment from which new privileges flow?
Because if the latter (and that would’ve been my guess as to the Session’s objective), then it’d seem that your citizenship analogy breaks down because there is not a similar *step* for a child born American to prove that she is *truly* an American in her heart.
Does that make any sense?
greenbaggins said,
March 21, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Ron, I would say that it has to do primarily with understanding what the Sacrament means. It would be similar to a driving test before granting a driver’s license.
Mike said,
March 21, 2008 at 4:20 pm
What was required for the children to participate in the Passover? To be born into the family or to be circumcized if they came into the family. The only “profession” of faith required was… why do we do this? And then the story was told to the covenant family again for the promises were for the adult and their children. I guess my mind can’t keep up with y’all on this since the arguement seems to answer itself. Or maybe I just don’t see a problem with bringing children to the table as early as possible which in the PCA requires that they meet with the Session… or a Session member so as not to overpower them… to determine their level of faith… understanding… then the parent helps them to examine themselves on a weekly or monthly basis. This is what the Scripture says to the parents when it says to “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” This is a word and deed learning going on here according to the Greek. This is parallel to the Deut. 6:4-9 passage that we love. Two-tier as long as we strive to get them to the table as early as possible for they are members of the church from their baptism… Not full members in the since that they are not physically able to participate with what the Church has to offer. But as they grow and mature if they are discipled properly at home and by the elders…as I said before this is really not an issue.
I am now 52 years old, the pastorate is a second carreer for me, which means I have finally seen enough, failed enough, laughed enough..well maybe not enough, really… and experienced enough to be able to see how this can work when everyone in the church takes their role seriously.
It is within the context of the believing community that faith is fostered and it is by the means of grace participated in community that faith grows. When we baptize children we challenge the parents to use all the means of grace in growing their child in the knowledge and grace of the Lord. Our congregation takes that challenge seriously so doesn’t the elders and the children flourish.
Ron said,
March 21, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I’m curious as to the practice of CREC churches wrt to covenant children and profession. I realize that pc-sympathetic PCA churches take simple professions so as to follow the letter of their BCO, but what about bodies where that formality isn’t required, and where the baptized children are already communing?
So do they practice a similar step of some sort, and if so, what does it effect?
greenbaggins said,
March 21, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I don’t particularly have a problem with your position, Mike. I have never had a particular problem with lowering the age, although one runs the risk, if one says “as soon as possible,” of assuming that the child knows more than he does know. However, the church must ensure a credible profession of faith. I would argue that 1 Corinthians 11 is a bit more work than the child’s question in the Passover.
rey said,
March 21, 2008 at 7:16 pm
If Wilson is ever going to read these comments I just want to let him know this his registration feature (for blog commenting) is broken.
Server object error ‘ASP 0177 : 800401f3′
Server.CreateObject Failed
/includes/reportpost.inc, line 43
800401f3
It makes me sad to not be able to comment.
rey said,
March 21, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Whoso eateth and drinketh without discenring the Lord’s body and eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, Lane. You want your children eating damnation? Apparently so. And you want them getting sprinkled with or dunked in damnation to, since baptism is nothing without faith, as Col 2:12 says “we are rasied with him in baptism, by faith…”
J.R. Polk said,
March 21, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Whoso eateth and drinketh without discenring the Lord’s body and eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, Lane. You want your children eating damnation? Apparently so.
Where does Lane advocate such a position Rey?
And you want them getting sprinkled with or dunked in damnation to, since baptism is nothing without faith, as Col 2:12 says “we are rasied with him in baptism, by faith…”
I know it’s extremely dificult to argue against what you don’t understand and it’s painfully obvious that you don’t. With your assumption about paedobaptism in mind, you may want to look into “covenant theology” in particular.
rey said,
March 22, 2008 at 12:39 am
“Wilson asks why we should require a profession of faith in infants”
I’d like to see infants profess their non-existent faith. Next time an infant is illegally brought to the laver, say to him, “If thou believe with all thy heart, thou mayest” and have him response “I beleive that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
rey said,
March 22, 2008 at 12:56 am
“With your assumption about paedobaptism in mind, you may want to look into “covenant theology” in particular.”
Here is covenant theology. Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 both speak of how the New Covenant is different from the Old Covenant. The discourse comes to a head in verse 34 of Jeremiah and verse 11 of Hebrews, with this:
“No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
That is, that under the Old Covenant people entered without knowing the Lord and then were told ‘know the Lord’ because they knew nothing at all about him when they entered. But the prophet says, “no longer,” that is, that in the New Covenant none will enter until they already know the Lord. There will be no infant membership in the covenant in other words. There will be no ignorant membership. Unless you know the Lord, you aren’t in the covenant.
But here everyone screams “What about the children! Won’t someone please think of the children!” The answer is given in Acts 2:39 “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” The promise is from verse 38, and is the promise of repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and as the place where the Holy Ghost is received. That promise doesn’t apply to those afar off while yet afar off, but when they get close enough to be baptized. So also it does not apply to an infant while an infant, but when old enough to repent and be baptized. Further, however, we must mention that no man is born condemned of another’s guilt, for Ezekiel 18 God spends the whole chapter blasting the false doctrine of inherited guilt to shreds “the soul that sins is the one who will die, the son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father of the son” so that our souls die not for Adam’s guilt although our bodies do. And Paul explains in Romans 7:9 that he was “alive apart from the law once” that is, as an infant before the Law applied to him, “but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life” and as a result, he died, for he says “sin taking occasion by the Law deceived me and slew me by it.” Paul, then, was not born spiritually dead, but alive, as he says “I was once alive apart from the law,” and he died spiritually only when he personally sinned, as he says “but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.” This being the case, infants need no baptism, for they are yet safe, having not sinned themselves. Only the temporal punishment of Adam’s sin applies to them, that is physical death, but not the eternal, not death of the soul, for the prophet Ezekiel says “The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son” in Ezekiel 18:20 and to show that the death of the soul means hell, he explains later on in verse 26, “When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.” He will die twice. That is, while committing the sin he dies physically, but afterwards his soul dies for the sin, that is, he goes to hell. So then, the death of the soul, i.e. hell, is only accrued by actual sin. Original sin can only accrue physical death. The infant, therefore, need not be in the covenant, for he has no actual sin to be forgiven of yet. Nor can the infant be in the covenant, for only those who know the Lord already are allowed in per Jeremiah 31.
This is covenant theology, and you need to study well to save yourselves from the Romanism which has you bound in chains of darkness.
GLW Johnson said,
March 22, 2008 at 6:27 am
” Original sin can only accrue death. The infant,therefore, need not be in the covenant, for he has no actual sin to be forgiven of yet.” Oh,my- rey it is a good thing you weren’t born in the 16th. century. Had you showed up in Geneva spouting this stuff you would have found Calvin a little bit abrasive with you and your Pelagianism.
David Gray said,
March 22, 2008 at 6:52 am
>” Original sin can only accrue death. The infant,therefore, need not be in the covenant, for he has no actual sin to be forgiven of yet.”
Well if you are Eastern Orthodox that works. From a reformed perspective that is one of the odder things I’ve heard in some time.
Xon said,
March 22, 2008 at 9:56 am
I’m not entirely sure what to do with this quote vis a vis infants outside the covenant, but Calvin himself says “I everywhere teach that no one can be justly condemned and perish, except on account of actual sin; and to say that the countless mortals taken from life while yet infants are precipitated from their mother’s arms into eternal death is a blasphemy to be universally detested.” So, the plot thickens.
Xon said,
March 22, 2008 at 10:00 am
Not that I find rey’s fiery anabpatist rhetoric at all appealing, mind you. He certainly would have run into trouble in Calvin’s Geneva for other reasons. I’m just not sure that the idea that infants are saved without baptism is one of them…
Mike said,
March 22, 2008 at 10:20 am
lane,
Thank you for commenting. I always find such discussions stimulating. Rey’s coments are interesting to be sure. But I have always wondered about the depth of meaning that the Divines placed in this directive in the WCF- “The sacraments of the old testament in reguard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new.”-I Cor. 10:1-4 seems to place a lot of clarification on the simple things of connection between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper.
Christ was obviously wanting to make the connection in a “big” way with what had come before so that the full force of redemption would be understood… and since children were involved “as early as possible”-read just off the breast- even asked to repeat the question word for word from the Father’s lips without any understanding of the words…we see here a teaching process that begins in covenant and ends in covenant. For there is never a time that they don’t know the love of the work of the LORD. Whether they ultimately respond in saving faith is something that we will see. Since at their baptism or circumscison (OT) these are applied in anticipation of God’s work of redemption. I concur that not all who are born into the covenant are of the covenant but it seems to me that we err when we treat them as ignorant and unworthy as the WCF seems to claim since they are also according to the WCF “members” of the covenant (but not necessarily salvation)by virtue of their birth parents.
Rey wants us to beleive that somehow children of the covenant are eating and drinking condemnation on themselves. If that is the case then the children of the covenant were doing the same thing at the Passover. But wait the only thing that admitted them to this meal was their inclusion in the covenant which required nothing of them. The physical seal at the time did that for them and it was placed on them by someone else (they didn’t have a choice)…so why not the physical seal of the NT?
Once again, not to sound like a broken record but if the parents are taught well and the elders do their job of shepherding much of this discussion truly does go away. I have known of parents who have brought one child to the table early through the approval of the session and then those same parents who have decided that another child wasn’t ready even though they were the same age as the one who went before. It wasn’t an age thing… it was an age appropriate maturity thing which in fact was attested to by all parties involved. Since we leaders are called upon to make such calls…who is and who isn’t… we need to be very involved with the flock so that we make few wrong assessments which could be to the detriment of the individual and God’s church. We are not infallible but we can, by God’s grace, be humble enough to rest assured in our decision and this is especially easily done with children. If they have been brought up in the LORD they have a natural curiosity in the things of the LORD…the Body of Christ discerned? We harness that curiosity as the Spirit working since the non-believer doesn’t seek after the things of God and move forward.
Mike said,
March 22, 2008 at 10:23 am
Oh By the way….
I Hope Y’all (that is the way we spell it in the great State of Texas) have a BLESSED EASTER. May the reality of the Resurrction renew each of you anew as the Spirit does His work unhindered by our rhetoric.
J.R. Polk said,
March 22, 2008 at 10:43 am
#11
This is covenant theology . . .
Rey . . . are you serious? You’re not even close. I grew up in Pentecostal/ baptistic/arminian/dispensational churches where the reformed faith was an object of vicious hatred. Why? Because the Pastors themselves knew nothing but caricature versions of reformed theology and the strawman arguments that went along with them. I smell the same thing in each and every one of your posts. I know it well. Do yourself a favor and take my advice very seriously lest you continue to make a fool of yourself.
J.R. Polk said,
March 22, 2008 at 10:46 am
Lane,
Could you remove the italics from everything after “This is covenant theology . . .” on post #18? I don’t know how I managed to mess that up. Thanks.
David Weiner said,
March 22, 2008 at 11:30 am
Rey, re: #11,
I always find your posts challenging; this one is no exception!
I did enjoy your mention of “What about the children!” I see that so often here and then along comes Acts 2:38-39 as somehow proving that ‘our’ children are ’special.’
Anyway, my 2 cents regarding that passage:
1) the ‘promise’ is the Holy Spirit
2) the condition of the reception of the promise is repentance
3) Also, they ought to be baptized, since they have been forgiven of their sins (repentance did this)
4) the promise is made without prejudice to the entire human race (comprising a) you, b) your children, and c) all those who are far off)
5) Actually, the promise is only made to that part of the human race that God calls.
greenbaggins said,
March 22, 2008 at 11:34 am
Done, J.R. You were missing the slash mark in the closing bracket.
J.R. Polk said,
March 22, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Ahh . . . that will do it. Thanks.
rey said,
March 22, 2008 at 8:12 pm
@David
Yes, as David says, the promise is for everyone whom the Lord will call. WHen he says that it is “to your children” it is not meant that all your children will be called, seeing he adds the modifier at the end of the verse “as many as the Lord our God shall call.” If he call not your children, then is the promise not to them. Then did you baptize them in vain. Of course you baptized them in vain anyway if you baptized them as infants, seeing the promise is “Repent and be baptized all of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Yes, David, the promise is the Holy Ghost, but the conditions of the promise are 1. that you be called 2. that you repent 3. that you be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Those who are not called, or those who do not repent, or those who are baptized as a mere sign and not for the forgiveness of sins, none of those receive the Spirit.
@Mike
“Rey wants us to beleive that somehow children of the covenant are eating and drinking condemnation on themselves. If that is the case then the children of the covenant were doing the same thing at the Passover.” Your response is totally specious. Firstly, the Old Testament had infant membership in the covenant, had ignorant membership that had to be told ‘know the Lord’ because they entered without knowing him, but Jeremiah says “no longer” will it be so in the New Covenant for all will know the Lord prior to entering. But secondly, Where do you read of the Passover that those who eat of it without comprehending its meaning will be eating damnation to themselves? Yet, we read plainly in the New Testament that whoso eateth that bread of the Lord’s Supper without discerning the Lord’s body eateth damnation. Now, I was being facicious in saying that infants would be damned for their infidel parents shoving the bread of the Supper in their mouths, for infants will not be damned for what their parents do to them in their ignorance–they can only be damned when they grow up and sin on their own. When a man eats the bread on his own without thinking about the Lord’s death, then he eats damnation. An infant cannot truly eat damnation. Just as one who eats meat offered to idols without knowing it is innocent without question, so an infant is innocent of eating the Lord’s Supper without discerning the Lord’s body while all others are made guilty of murder thereby. It is the parent who sins.
josh keele said,
March 22, 2008 at 10:12 pm
@David Gray, #13 “Well if you are Eastern Orthodox that works. From a reformed perspective that is one of the odder things I’ve heard in some time.”
Everyone who calls themselves a Christian should respect the prophet Ezekiel. You will note that the Torah speaks of God visiting guilt on the children for their parents sins, and we find an example of it in Achin who was burned along with his children in Joshua 7 for stealing the accursed thing. But this was a physical visitation. Ezekiel affirms, or rather God spends much time and goes to great lengths there to affirm and to fight and contend for his faith, in Ezekiel 18 that the SOUL is a different matter altogether. That when it comes to the death of the soul, only personal sin counts. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, anabaptist, Baptist, church of Christ, Methodist, Anglican, Presbyterian….all who claim to be Christians should accept what God says through the prophet Ezekiel.
But I think I should add this lest some accuse Ezekiel of Pelagianism, as indeed some are already doing by now: Saying that the physical death alone accrues to us from Adam’s sin and not the spiritual death does not equal Pelagianism. Still, all men who outlast infancy will sin, and therefore will deserve spiritual death. And you certainly can’t accuse a safe infant who was never spiritually unsafe to begin with with saving himself by works, since he was never unsafe and therefore could not save himself, and since he never thought to save himself by works nor even did any work. Grace does not depend on original sin damning the soul. That all men sin after infancy is enough to require grace, and we need not contradict Ezekiel 18 and toss it into the fire in order to uphold a Manichean philosophy that Augustine brought into Catholicism from that cult. As if your very statement that the Eastern Orthodox never accepted the notion of spiritual death rather than merely physical death accruing to all men from Adam’s sin were not enough to confirm the Manichean origin of the doctrine, I present the plain teaching of Scripture–yet many are so wed to the pagan philosophy in which Augustine spent so much of his life that they would rather be spoiled by that vain philosophy than to accept the doctrine of Christ on this point.
David Weiner said,
March 23, 2008 at 9:33 am
Rey, re: #23,
I’ll agree with the first two but the third condition seems to be contradicted by other passages of Scripture. For example, Acts 10:43 Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins. Note that no reference to baptism is here as a condition of forgiveness of sins. Was it an oversight? Is the verse using just a short handed way of telling us what is required for forgiveness of sins? Also, I am aware of the view that the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the time of its application. But, Acts 10:43 is not talking about time, it is talking about the one and only condition on the recipient of forgiveness.
One other thought. The English word for can have two meanings. First, in order to and second because of. So, which must be the intended meaning in its use in Acts 2:38, for the forgiveness of your sins in light of verses like Acts 10:43?
Anyway, quibbling over opinions of Scripture aside, He Is Risen!!!
rey said,
March 23, 2008 at 4:47 pm
ref #25,
David, you beleive in monergism, right? So if a person is truly elect, will it be possible fro them to resist proper baptism? To say so would be to deny monergism, and I think you are aweful close to denying it. If monergism be true, God will ensure the proper baptism of all the elect. Even if synergism be true but predestination still exists, God would ensure the same. He in fact did ensure the same in Acts 19! It was no coincidence that those whom Apollos baptized wrongly were baptized properly by Paul, but this was by God’s design. The argument that a person can beleive in Christ truly and yet ignore proper baptism, is a denial of God’s ability to effectively do all his pleasure and work out our salvation the way he has revealed.
David Weiner said,
March 23, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Rey, re: #26,
Monergism, absolutely. Baptism of the Holy Spirit to actually effect salvation, absolutely. Necessity of water baptism for a person to be in possession of eternal life, not required. Is water baptism commanded by God, absolutely. But, God also desires that I not sin and I seem to be able to resist that (not that I resisted baptism nor that I try to resist avoiding sin), so why would I not be able to resist undergoing water baptism and still not decimate monergism.
Let me just point out that the people in Acts were quite unique as regards their situation vis-a-vis the Cross and Pentecost. What Peter had to say to the Jews who were actually there when Jesus was on the cross may not directly apply to us who are removed from that by 2000 years. So, maybe the exhortation for them to undergo baptism (Jewish baptism, by the way) because they have been forgiven of their sins may apply to us in a modified manner. Just a thought.
The problem was not baptism (either rightly or wrongly administered). The people in Acts 19 had not heard the gospel and therefore had not been saved. Remember, what John the Baptist preached was not the gospel of Jesus Christ, it was the gospel of the kingdom. Not having been saved, they had not received the Holy Spirit (i.e., not been baptized by the Holy Spirit) Paul told them the gospel of Jesus Christ, they believed, and the rest is history.
One last question from my previous post. How do you reconcile your view of water baptism and verses like Acts 10:43?
rey said,
March 23, 2008 at 5:55 pm
“How do you reconcile your view of water baptism and verses like Acts 10:43?”
Faith is all encompassing, and the Bible never speaks of faith merely as head belief except when speaking of dead faith. True faith is always trust in the person of Christ, not just in a set of x number of facts. But trust in the person of Christ requires trust in his words, trust in his credibility that he told the truth, and the words of those whom he sent, for he says to the apostles in Luke 10:16 “He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.” Nobody can claim to have faith and then just ignore Jesus’ teachings or those of the apostles. This is what Jesus is talking about when he asks in Luke 6:46 “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” The obvious answer is that they did not really beleive but only claimed to. Baptism is clearly spoken of in Scripture as being 1.) the place where forgiveness is first receive, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, 2.) the place where the right to become a son of God (from John 1:12) which was received at the point of belief is actually utilized (Gal 3:26-27), and 3.) of being where we are spiritually circumcised and raised with Christ, Col 2:11-12. — Now, those who truly beleive in Jesus, will beleive this also lest they are deluded into thinking that they beleive in Jesus when in reality God has sent them a strong delusion and they simply think they beleive in Jesus while really believing his apostles, and by extension him who sent them, to be a liar. If a man truly believes in Jesus, he will not argue against the parable in Luke 6:46-Luke 6:49, but will hold Jesus credible in all things that he said, and since Jesus said that a rejection of the apostles’ teachings equals a rejection of his own, he will also hold the apostles credible, lest his faith is (as Tyndale says in his book Obedience of a Christian man) no more than a dream or fancy.
Douglas Wilson said,
March 23, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Rey, email me through our church office at office@christkirk.com, and we will see if we can fix your posting problem.
Ron said,
March 23, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Lane, re: #3
The PCA BCO says (Ch. 56-4.J)
So unless you’re collapsing “faith, repentance and obedience” into a narrow review of whether the child has the capacity for self-examination, it seems to me that there’s more “at stake” in the child’s profession to the Session than you’re leading on.
Bottom line, I’m just trying to see how your statement that “We don’t ever become more of a citizen than we already are by birth” squares with my understanding of the non-pc’s credible profession requirement, which is that it’s nothing less than a leap from the visible to the invisible church (+/-).
GLW Johnson said,
March 24, 2008 at 8:47 am
#29
rey-remember the remark the spider said to the fly?
David Weiner said,
March 24, 2008 at 9:24 am
Rey, re: #28,
Well, I am sorry but I can not connect your response to my question. What I can see is that you are basing your understanding of water baptism on what was said to a very unique group of people to whom you bear very little relationship and to Paul’s somewhat unique conversion leading to a very unique ministry. Seems dangerous at best. But, thanks for the interchange.
rey said,
March 24, 2008 at 8:43 pm
David Weiner, are you actually dishonest enough to claim that baptism is only for those who have committed murder? Apparently so.
Ron said,
March 25, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Any particular thoughts on #30?