Is Infant Baptism and Accretion?

Lanman87

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
732
Age
55
Location
Bible Belt
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Non-Denominational
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It is the actual water that does all of that or is baptism representational of the Spiritual Washing/Baptism that comes by Faith?

And you need to add the end to 1 Peter 3:20-21

21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

This indicates that it is not the water that saves, but a crying out to God.

Are any of the effects of Baptism listed here given to those who are baptized without faith? I'm I truly Baptized into Christ if I don't believe? Can I be washed without repentance?

Another note is that baptism doesn't always mean the Sacrament of Baptism. The word Baptism is first used in Greek to mean joined together. It is actually a term coined from making a brine to cook with/pickle things. The idea is that when, lets say a cucumber is soaked in a salty brine the brine becomes part of the cucumber. That is what Baptism represents. The joining of us to Christ.

This makes perfect since on some of these passages, like Col 12:13. The Spirit joins us to the one Body.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It is the actual water that does all of that or is baptism representational of the Spiritual Washing/Baptism that comes by Faith?

And you need to add the end to 1 Peter 3:20-21

21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

This indicates that it is not the water that saves, but a crying out to God.

Are any of the effects of Baptism listed here given to those who are baptized without faith? I'm I truly Baptized into Christ if I don't believe? Can I be washed without repentance?

Another note is that baptism doesn't always mean the Sacrament of Baptism. The word Baptism is first used in Greek to mean joined together. It is actually a term coined from making a brine to cook with/pickle things. The idea is that when, lets say a cucumber is soaked in a salty brine the brine becomes part of the cucumber. That is what Baptism represents. The joining of us to Christ.

This makes perfect since on some of these passages, like Col 12:13. The Spirit joins us to the one Body.

It's God who has attached the promises to the waters of baptism...I listed those promises in the verses. The water and the word is what makes baptism, stop focusing on water alone. Look to what God has promised....go back to those verses I listed.
 

Lanman87

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
732
Age
55
Location
Bible Belt
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Non-Denominational
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
2. I doubt that you hold that we can only do what is illustrated as done in the Book of Acts. The very reality that you are posting on the internet shows to me you don't hold to that rubric. And again, I suspect that if I visited your church on a Sunday morning, very little of what is done could be shown to have been done in the Book of Acts. And (likely) all the Baptisms in Acts were done by Hebrew males.... in the middle east... and very probably of Caucasians. Does your church thus forbid baptisms done by Gentiles and in the USA? Does it forbid the baptisms of Blacks or Asians? Of course not. So, since you don't hold that EXAMPLES in Acts are normative, then ... well.... there goes that whole argument.

Honestly, this is a silly argument. There is not set liturgy in the New Testament, but there are general directives. I believe the reason is that God aloud for changes in culture/technology in how church is carried out and what tools used to share the gospel. . But still, we must not change the gospel message or deviate from the truths given.

If the message of the Gospel was to Baptize new believers then we shouldn't deviate from that practice. Now if we want to baptize them in a swimming pool or creek or on a cruise ship then fine. If you want to broadcast it on youtube or take a video of it with your iphone then fine. None of that is changing the reason for baptism.

It is not about the any of the things you listed, except for the reason they are baptized. Just as they baptized any believer, from any country, in any body of water available then we should do the same.
1. Prove that all the persons in the household were over the age of Who-Knows and had made some public proof of their faith. Good luck.
We've established that I can't prove they were not infants and you can't prove they were.


I share a goodly number of ECF speaking very positively of Infant Baptism.
Did you ever consider that many of these ECF's, most writing a hundred or more years after the apostles died, were wrong and had appropriated a tradition that wasn't part of the Gospel message?
Polycarp indicates that he was baptized as an infant
Again, this comes from Polycrap supposedly stating that he had served God 86 years. Which means he could have been speaking hyperbolically, such as if I told someone I've been a Christian all my life, when in fact I've been a Christian since I was a child, or I've been a Baptist all my life, when in fact I became a baptist when I was baptized. Or he could have been 95 years old or more.

Interestingly, there was an ancient fragment discovered in 1999 or thereabouts called the Harris Fragments , that says.

Polycarp…He was… {an} old man, being one hundred and f[our] of age. He continued to walk n the canons which he had learned from his youth from John the a[p]ostle.

Anyway, just because he said he had served God 86 years does not mean he was baptized as an infant.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Honestly, this is a silly argument.

But it IS the foundation of the Anabaptist dogma here. It's why they keep insisting that "ALL the Baptisms that happen to be recorded in the Book of Acts are of those over the age of Who-Knows and who had previously proven they had saving faith." The entire dogma rests on this point: We are limited to what is demonstrated in the Book of Acts. But obviously, Baptists don't agree with that rubric.


we must not change the gospel message or deviate from the truths given.

I agree. But where is the TRUTH given that 1) We cannot baptize those who have not yet attained the age of Who-Knows and 2) We cannot baptize those who have not yet proven they have saving faith? Those two truths that Anabaptist insist upon; their new Baptism dogma? Those are not Truths taught in Scripture.


If the message of the Gospel was to Baptize new believers then we shouldn't deviate from that practice.


1. Where does the Bible state, "Thou canst only baptize those who attained the age of Who-Knows and are new believers?

2. So which is it? A dogma (teaching) or praxis (practice)? I agree with you that dogmas should not deviate from Scripture (like inventing prohibitions) but I disagree with you that praxis cannot change (which is why I think it's okay to post on the internet).

3. What was the practice (which is NOT normative)? To prohibit those not yet attaining the age of Who-Knows? We have not one example of that. To prohibit those who have not first proven they have saving faith? We have not one example of that. We have Church Fathers speaking openly of infant baptism and not one who states it's prohibited or even "not done."



We've established that I can't prove they were not infants and you can't prove they were.

There goes the Anabaptist invention, the prohibitions they put on Baptism in the 16th Century. It's entirely founded on "All the baptisms that happen to be recorded in the Book of Acts were of those who FIRST attained the age of Who-Knows (anti-Paedobaptism) and FIRST proved they had saving faith (Credobaptism). The two Baptist dogmas can't be shown to be true.

These two inventions of the Anabaptists in the 16th Century are entirely missing from Scripture and 1500 years of Christianity.



.

 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Cultural Christianity is false Christianity and one we should do everything to combat. Plenty of people appropriate the trappings of Christianity without coming to a saving faith in Christ. I once heard a Baptist Preacher say that the hardest people to reach with the Gospel is those who have been in church their entire life, are moral people, and know how to "be Christian" without ever actually having come to faith in Christ.
That seems fair to say.
Say what you want about American Evangelicals or even American Fundamentalist.
Okay.

But the people in the pews hear week after week the need for a personal faith in Christ in order to be a Christian. Some of the other things may be wacky or legalistic or whatever, but the emphasis on a personal faith/trust in Christ is the core teaching of American Evangelicalism.
Okay. I don't know how that is a response to anything I wrote, but okay.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Well, I've shown in another response that the Bible says the Holy Spirit is imparted at belief.
Of course it is. Why would we think that an adult who hears the Gospel and makes a commitment to Christ would NOT have the Holy Spirit imparted to him? But also, there are a number of different moments in life when, according to the Bible, the Holy Spirit is or may be imparted.
Gal 3;2 and Eph 1:13. That is how I know the Holy Spirit is imparted at belief/conversion.

How do you know the Holy Spirit is imparted to infants at baptism?
 
Last edited:

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
How do you know the Holy Spirit is imparted to infants at baptism?
"He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we did in righteousness, but in accordance with His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit," (Titus 3:5)
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
If the message of the Gospel was to Baptize new believers then we shouldn't deviate from that practice.
You've said that same thing in several posts now, and it's becoming a trifle annoying because it's so obviously a misleading premise. Does the Bible teach that non-believers should be converted and baptized? Yes, of course!

Who denies that? No one here has done so.

However, the truth of that statement about baptizing new believers in no way also says that children are to be excluded.
 
Last edited:

Lanman87

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
732
Age
55
Location
Bible Belt
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Non-Denominational
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
"He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we did in righteousness, but in accordance with His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit," (Titus 3:5)
The Holy Spirit is the one doing the washing and regeneration, not baptism.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The Holy Spirit is the one doing the washing and regeneration, not baptism.
In some mysterious, invisible manner, I suppose. I don't think so.

The instituting of the sacraments by Christ was done with considerable deliberateness, according to the Scriptures, and He not only told his followers of the importance and necessity of receiving them, but actually demonstrated how each was to be done.

In the celebration of a sacrament, physical elements are always used in order to convey a spiritual truth, and that's because we mortals can relate to eternal verities that way. All throughout the Bible, God--and then Jesus the Christ--made use of physical properties when he could have just waved his hand or blinked his eyes or merely willed that something happen.

He used bread and wine in the Lord's Supper and had himself baptized in the River Jordan although he personally had no need of any contrition. He put mud on the eyes of the blind man when curing him. That wasn't necessary in order for God to cure blindness. The examples are many.

But I realize that you are reflecting the Baptistic view of things--the sacraments are only symbolic (and optional), that they are something we do for God rather than that God instituted them for our benefit, and that no forgiveness or grace are imparted in any case.
 
Last edited:

Joelightening

Active member
Joined
Nov 5, 2022
Messages
43
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You demand that someone be able to profess to you what God might already know? So you're interfering with God?

You see even John the Baptist in the womb expressed faith in the Lord Jesus who was in Mary's womb.
Yes and I have already stated that I would baptize an infant if they expressed faith in the Lord Jesus. I suppose you would have them all baptized so that none could slip by.
 
Last edited:

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Yes and I have already stated that I would baptize an infant if they expressed faith in the Lord Jesus. I suppose you would have them all baptized so that none could slip by.

It's because you doubt that God's word (which is joined to the waters in baptism) can actually bring faith? That's what's key here, doubt that God's word is bringing faith to infants because you demand that faith comes first and I'm not even sure that you think faith is a gift from God? Or if you think it's something that comes from man who reasons in his mind (it's not that).
 

Joelightening

Active member
Joined
Nov 5, 2022
Messages
43
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You believe in the Roman Catholic Church. You believe that priest have inherited apostalic authority and that they can forgive sins and convey salvation to whomever they wish. It is not surprising therefore, that you say they can sprinkle infants into heaven.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Is Baptism ONLY an "outward sign of a personal decision?"
Is Baptism ONLY a "symbol"
Is Baptism inert?



The Anabaptist Claims and Inventions:



In the 16th Century, the synergistic Anabaptists overturned 1500 years of Christian faith by inventing a new dogma that baptism is an ineffectual, inert ritual that accomplishes nothing. They stressed that it is ONLY a symbol (even comparing it to foot washing). They invented an entirely new and never before heard of concept that "Baptism is visible, outward proof of the person choosing Jesus as their personal Savior." They repudiated and denounced every baptism in history and of every non-Anabaptist because this view was found nowhere but among the Anabaptist.

Additionally, they invented several new prohibitions/mandates on the practice of Baptism:
1) A certain never-disclosed AGE must first be attained by the recipient ("Anti-Paedobaptism - no baptisms allowed for those under the age of Who-Knows),
2) The recipient must first adequately prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior ("Credobaptism"),
3) The recipient must first prove they have adequately repented of all their sins,
4) The recipient must have every part of their body entirely and fully immersed under water (Immersion Only Baptism).

THIS thread is not about those prohibitions/mandates that they invented. There are already threads on these new inventions, but this is about their theology: Baptism is ONLY an OUTWARD symbol of inner good works performed by the recipient. Inert. Like foot washing. It was a radical idea, a brand new one, reversing 1500 years of universal Christianity.



What does SCRIPTURE say?


I can find no Scriptures that state or indicate that Baptism is inert, ineffectual, just a symbolic ritual., "an outward sign of an inner decision." IMO, that new Dogma (one of the defining, distinctive dogmas of Baptists) is without any Scripture whatsoever. There is not one Scripture that remotely indicates that Baptism does nothing, accomplishes nothing, that it is SO stressed in the NT and SO important in the Book of Act and placed equal with teaching in the Great Commission, SO important in the Early Church because... well... it's worthless, just symbolic, kind of like footwashing. There is NOTHING in Scripture to support the Anabaptist's invented dogma of "ONLY an outward symbol of an inner good work performed by the recipient."

But there are several Scriptures, that when taken together, suggest something quite different. IMO, I'm not sure one can create DOGMA here, but there certainly is a powerful implication that God DOES something via baptism,or at least that this can be a "means of grace" - something God can use to convey His gifts. Let's look at some... Just click on them to get the verse words.


Acts 22:16

Acts 2:38

1 Peter 3:21

Romans 6:3-4

1 Corinthians 6:11

1 Corinthians 12:13

Galatians 3:26-27

Ephesians 5:25-27

Colossians 2:11-12

Titus 3:5

1 Peter 3:18-22

John 3:5

Acts 2:38

Romans 6:3-4

1 Corinthians 12:13

Galatians 3:27

Colossians 2:11-12


Verses that state Baptism is inert, merely a symbol, that it is an "outward sign of an inner decision."

Crickets.



A couple of quick notes: Nowhere in any of these is the word "then" or "after which" used; the word is "kai" (and) which only associates or connects things; it does not mean or imply sequence or chronological order Also the word "wash" in some of the above verses is a variant of the word "baptize" or "baptism."

I admit no ONE verse above is indisputable or perspicuous, but together there is a strong indication.

And equally significant is that we find nothing that indicates that it is a inert, ineffectual ritual; only a symbol.


Baptism in the Bible

We need to also consider that Jesus, the Apostles and the Early Church gave great importance to this! Jesus places it along side of (and seemingly equal to) teaching in the Great Commission, for example. It seems less likely that it would be regarded as so very critical if it is an inert, ineffectual ritual that changes and accomplishes nothing at all. Jesus used the symbol of foot washing, for example, but that ACT was never given much importance and rarely practiced because everyone acknowledged it was a SYMBOL of something inward. Baptism could not be more different.



What Did the Early Christians believe?


Again, we find none prior to that synergistic Anabaptist in the late 16th Century who view Baptism as just an inert ritual, only symbol, but great things are ascribed to it. NOT EVEN ONE who spoke of baptism as "an outward act of an inner decision or good work." Below is just a tiny sample. Note that the context of each is WATER BAPTISM.


The Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. 130) “This means that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our hearts, fear and hope in Jesus and in the Spirit.”

The Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 140?): "they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive.”

St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 160?) "And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God’s mercy; and all men may equally obtain it."

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?). "And when we come to refute them [i.e. those heretics], we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith."

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?) "“Now, this is what faith does for us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles, have handed down to us. First of all, it admonishes us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate and died and raised."

St. Clement of Alexandra (A.D. 215?) "The same also takes place in our case, whose exemplar Christ became. Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal."

St. Clement of Alexandra (A.D. 215?) "For it is said, “Put on him the best robe,” which was his the moment he obtained baptism. I mean the glory of baptism, the remission of sins, and the communication of the other blessings, which he obtained immediately he had touched the font."

St. Cyprian (A.D. 255) responding to a man who was asking him the specific question of whether or not the pouring of water in baptism would be valid: "You have asked also, dearest son, what I thought about those who obtain the grace of God while they are weakened by illness – whether or not they are to be reckoned as legitimate Christians who have not been bathed with the saving water, but have had it poured over them."


There are countless more.

And not one that says Baptism is inert, just a symbol, "an outward sign of a personal decision," none that state it's just like foot washing.

My point here is not the individual things here said, but the unavoidable and universal affirmation that Baptism is not an inert, ineffectual, mere ritual or pure symbol... Nowhere do we see any sense of it as some "outward ritual indicating a previous good work." Universally, baptism is seen as something God uses to accomplish something. The Anabaptist invention is found nowhere in the Bible and nowhere among Christians for nearly 1600 years .... it is a radical new dogma invented by the radical Anabaptists in the late 16th Century, used to denounce and repudiate as invalid all baptisms that did not involve them.


I am NOT saying this is a "slam dunk".... any more than say the Trinity is a "slam dunk." . I'm only saying the suggestion of both Scripture and history is quite solidly on the historic side, and we simply find NOTHING in Scripture or history that supports the Anabaptist reinvention (nor did they even claim such). I wonder, too, about the argument that "it is OBVIOUS by the words in Scripture that Baptism in just a outward symbol of personal accomplishments and good works by the person." IF it's obvious, where are those Scriptures? And why did no one notice that for over 1500 years, if it's "OBVIOUS?"

I welcome Scriptures that indicate that Baptism is ONLY an outward symbol of inner accomplishments; that it's sole function is to outwardly SYMBOLIZE a proven reality already accomplished.




Thank you.


- Josiah


.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You believe in the Roman Catholic Church. You believe that priest have inherited apostalic authority and that they can forgive sins and convey salvation to whomever they wish. It is not surprising therefore, that you say they can sprinkle infants into heaven.

"catholic" means universal (note the small c).
 

Joelightening

Active member
Joined
Nov 5, 2022
Messages
43
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
"catholic" means universal (note the small c).
Yes you are correct. But Roman Catholic is a distinct group of people who claim to be a part of the greater Catholic Church. The falling away begin while Jesus was still on Earth. It did not begin with the onset of the Roman Catholics, as some claim. The so called Church Fathers were not perfect and they sometimes erred. Water baptism is a gift from God when it is accompanied with faith. For example, I do not think Billy Graham was saved. He was a modern theologian and a great speaker, but he did not correctly teach about the Holy Spirit or about water baptism. I came out of the Baptist denomination and am so happy to be gone from there.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You believe in the Roman Catholic Church. You believe that priest have inherited apostalic authority and that they can forgive sins and convey salvation to whomever they wish. It is not surprising therefore, that you say they can sprinkle infants into heaven.
The anti-Catholic insults (and misinformation) are getting to be rather thick around here. 😞
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Yes you are correct. But Roman Catholic is a distinct group of people who claim to be a part of the greater Catholic Church. The falling away begin while Jesus was still on Earth. It did not begin with the onset of the Roman Catholics, as some claim. The so called Church Fathers were not perfect and they sometimes erred. Water baptism is a gift from God when it is accompanied with faith. For example, I do not think Billy Graham was saved. He was a modern theologian and a great speaker, but he did not correctly teach about the Holy Spirit or about water baptism. I came out of the Baptist denomination and am so happy to be gone from there.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up the Roman Catholic church????

Eastern Orthodox, which is just as old as RC believes in infant baptism.

I'm not Roman Catholic, btw.
 

Joelightening

Active member
Joined
Nov 5, 2022
Messages
43
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I'm not sure why you're bringing up the Roman Catholic church????

Eastern Orthodox, which is just as old as RC believes in infant baptism.

I'm not Roman Catholic, btw.
Thank you! It is a relief to know that you are not a RC.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Thank you! It is a relief to know that you are not a RC.

Here at Christianity Haven, we believe that Roman Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ.
 
Top Bottom