Heidelberg Catechism on Baptism

[atpollard]

Heidelberg Catechism (1563)

Q & A 69
Q. How does holy baptism
remind and assure you
that Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross
benefits you personally?
A. In this way:
Christ instituted this outward washing1
and with it promised that,
as surely as water washes away the dirt from the body,
so certainly his blood and his Spirit
wash away my soul’s impurity,
that is, all my sins.2
1 Acts 2:38
2 Matt. 3:11; Rom. 6:3-10; 1 Pet. 3:21

Q & A 70
Q. What does it mean
to be washed with Christ’s blood and Spirit?
A. To be washed with Christ’s blood means
that God, by grace, has forgiven our sins
because of Christ’s blood
poured out for us in his sacrifice on the cross.1
To be washed with Christ’s Spirit means
that the Holy Spirit has renewed
and sanctified us to be members of Christ,
so that more and more
we become dead to sin
and live holy and blameless lives.2
1 Zech. 13:1; Eph. 1:7-8; Heb. 12:24; 1 Pet. 1:2; Rev. 1:5
2 Ezek. 36:25-27; John 3:5-8; Rom. 6:4; 1 Cor. 6:11; Col. 2:11-12

Q & A 71
Q. Where does Christ promise
that we are washed with his blood and Spirit
as surely as we are washed
with the water of baptism?
A. In the institution of baptism, where he says:
“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father
and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit.”1
“The one who believes and is baptized will be saved;
but the one who does not believe will be condemned.”2
This promise is repeated when Scripture calls baptism
“the water of rebirth”3 and
the washing away of sins.4
1 Matt. 28:19
2 Mark 16:16
3 Tit. 3:5
4 Acts 22:16

Q & A 72
Q. Does this outward washing with water
itself wash away sins?
A. No, only Jesus Christ’s blood and the Holy Spirit
cleanse us from all sins.1
1 Matt. 3:11; 1 Pet. 3:21; 1 John 1:7

Q & A 73
Q. Why then does the Holy Spirit call baptism
the water of rebirth and
the washing away of sins?
A. God has good reason for these words.
To begin with, God wants to teach us that
the blood and Spirit of Christ take away our sins
just as water removes dirt from the body.1
But more important,
God wants to assure us, by this divine pledge and sign,
that we are as truly washed of our sins spiritually
as our bodies are washed with water physically.2
1 1 Cor. 6:11; Rev. 1:5; 7:14
2 Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27

Q & A 74
Q. Should infants also be baptized?
A. Yes.
Infants as well as adults
are included in God’s covenant and people,1
and they, no less than adults, are promised
deliverance from sin through Christ’s blood
and the Holy Spirit who produces faith.2
Therefore, by baptism, the sign of the covenant,
they too should be incorporated into the Christian church
and distinguished from the children
of unbelievers.3
This was done in the Old Testament by circumcision,4
which was replaced in the New Testament by baptism.5
1 Gen. 17:7; Matt. 19:14
2 Isa. 44:1-3; Acts 2:38-39; 16:31
3 Acts 10:47; 1 Cor. 7:14
4 Gen. 17:9-14
5 Col. 2:11-13

 

[atpollard]

Reformed Baptists reject Q&A 74 because we do not believe that Baptism replaces Circumcision in the sense that it is done to biological children, rather Baptism is the ‘circumcision’ of spiritual children ... those who believe and are saved. Other than that small difference in point of view, we are generally sympathetic to theology concerning the family covenant.

 

[MennoSota]

Reformed Baptists reject Q&A 74 because we do not believe that Baptism replaces Circumcision in the sense that it is done to biological children, rather Baptism is the ‘circumcision’ of spiritual children ... those who believe and are saved. Other than that small difference in point of view, we are generally sympathetic to theology concerning the family covenant.

Correct. Q&A 74 is allegorical supposition based upon assuming a Christian need for a parallel to Hebrew circumcision.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Correct. Q&A 74 is allegorical supposition based upon assuming a Christian need for a parallel to Hebrew circumcision.

Given your appeal to no other authority than scripture, what is your opinion on Q&A 69-73?

 

[MennoSota]

Given your appeal to no other authority than scripture, what is your opinion on Q&A 69-73?

The scriptures used are not be allegorized and radically taken out of context. There is a reasonable presentation of the scriptures.

 

[Josiah]

Heidelberg Catechism (1563)

Q & A 74

Q. Should infants also be baptized?
A. Yes.

Infants as well as adults
are included in God’s covenant and people,1
and they, no less than adults, are promised
deliverance from sin through Christ’s blood
and the Holy Spirit who produces faith.2
Therefore, by baptism, the sign of the covenant,
they too should be incorporated into the Christian church
and distinguished from the children
of unbelievers.3
This was done in the Old Testament by circumcision,4
which was replaced in the New Testament by baptism.5
1 Gen. 17:7; Matt. 19:14
2 Isa. 44:1-3; Acts 2:38-39; 16:31
3 Acts 10:47; 1 Cor. 7:14
4 Gen. 17:9-14
5 Col. 2:11-13

So, Calvinists accept infant baptism.

 

[atpollard]

So, Calvinists accept infant baptism.

Most Calvinists accept infant Baptism, however NO Calvinist would ever argue that God cannot save without Baptism. Presbyterians are Calvinists who believe very strongly in the Family Covenant and Baptism as the new circumcision for children.
Some Calvinists (numbering in the tens of millions) do not. In my opinion, it really comes down to WHY one thinks that God commanded Baptism. If Baptism is 'circumcision for Christian children', then baptizing children is both logical and commanded. If one believes that baptism is linked to the "new birth" and is not the new circumcision, then baptism should be tied directly to the command to "repent" and "believe" and is an act of obedience for the person getting baptized.

 

[atpollard]

Here is what the Baptist Faith and Message (2000) says about Baptism:

VII. Baptism and the Lord's Supper

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.

The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.

Matthew 3:13-17; 26:26-30; 28:19-20;
Mark 1:9-11; 14:22-26;
Luke 3:21-22; 22:19-20;
John 3:23;
Acts 2:41-42; 8:35-39; 16:30-33; 20:7;
Romans 6:3-5;
1 Corinthians 10:16,21; 11:23-29;
Colossians 2:12.

 

[Albion]

Most Calvinists accept infant Baptism, however NO Calvinist would ever argue that God cannot save without Baptism.

Who does?

 

[atpollard]

Who does?

For a Calvinist, baptism is likely an ordinance (I cannot speak for every Calvinist denomination and church).
Perhaps I misunderstand the purpose of a Lutheran sacrament.

 

[Josiah]

Most Calvinists accept infant Baptism, however NO Calvinist would ever argue that God cannot save without Baptism

NO Christian would ever argue that God cannot save without Baptism. But I've learned there are those who forbid baptism because they believe God cannot save with it.

In my opinion, it really comes down to WHY one thinks that God commanded Baptism

I never subject God's word to my thinking of WHY He commands what He does.... God is sovereign, He doesn't need my permission or answers.

To me, this comes down to FAITH. Do we trust God? Do we believe that His will is right - even if we don't reckon the why? Does God love unbelievers enough to want them to be believers? Does this ONLY mean those who have performed certain things FIRST or else God doesn't love them and doesn't want them to come to faith?

I have NO CLUE how God performs the miracle of spiritual life/justification. No idea. And I have no need to (God is soveriegn, not me) I know that God CAN (and occasionally) does do all this purely by fiat (instantly, no means or activity involved) and we have a clear case of that in the NT with John the Baptist being given faith before he was born. But I also know that God usually uses means ("The Means of Grace" as Calvinists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodist, Catholics, Orthodox and others call them) - "tools in the hands of the Carpenter." And He usually uses human activities such as teaching/preaching, evangelism, going, loving/serving.... and I believe Baptism is likely in this group since it is stressed SO much in connection to justification, placed with teaching and given equal emphasis and importance, because God's Word flatly states "Baptism now saves you" and because it was SO stressed in the very earliest church (as you've admitted, including the baptizing of infants... and yes, at times by pouring).

But to enter your desire to ask why..... Why SO stress something that can't do anything? Why place it with "Go.... Baptize.... teach...." if one of the 3 is worthless, useless, can't do a thing? Why state "Baptism now saves you" if it can't in any way be used by God in connection with that? Why speak of Baptism as a "promise" and insist it is for you "and your children?" What promise would children need that baptism can fulfill?

If one believes that baptism is linked to the "new birth" and is not the new circumcision, then baptism should be tied directly to the command to "repent" and "believe" and is an act of obedience for the person getting baptized.

Ah, SO many times in our discussions it seems to me IMPOSSIBLE that you are a Calvinists or a Monergist..... The Anabaptist view of baptism (that you echo) was born NOT out of any study of the Scriptures on baptism but out of the radical synergism of that denomination, and it just seems to contradict SO much of Calvinism! Friend, as a Monergist, I don't believe that coming to faith is an act of obedience ... and I don't believe that repentance is either. Coming to faith is the pure GIFT of God, who is the Author, Lord and GIVER of life. A person doesn't choose to believe in obedience to God, God just GIVES it as He wills and as He does. And repentance cannot be before this since repentance includes turning to God for mercy, something a DEAD person cannot do.


And I find it remarkable that you'd INSIST on sequence when speaking on one topic - baptism - and then denounce the same point on every other topic. You insist (when speaking on baptism) that there's a mandated sequence and chronological order of 1) Repentance. 2) Baptism. 3) The Holy Spirit becomes operative. 4) God elects the person. This you MUST do with the verse to get baptism AFTER a person can repent. Okay.... works for BAPTISM. But then you just stated that FIRST comes a DEAD person repenting and asking God for mercy in the Name of Jesus. THEN, after that has been completed, the person is permitted to be Baptized. THEN after that is completed, the Holy Spirit comes and regenerates the person. THEN after that is completed, God elects them as His own. And OBVIOUSLY, you denounce that. So strange.... you have to adopt the radical synergistic arguments of the Anabaptist to get to the Anabaptist view on Baptism..... but you have to do a 180 in EVERYTHING ELSE to retain your (biblical, correct) view on Justification. I've seen you do that over and over. With several verses.


I can't prove that Baptism IS used by God (at least not PURELY by the words found on the pages of the Bible). I simply know that GOD ALONE can regenerate us, God alone is the giver of life/faith/justification. And that He nearly always uses physical means and human activity ("Ministry"). And that Scripture says "Baptism now saves you" but never "Baptism does nothing." And that Jesus COMMAND it in the Great Commission, to "GO.... BAPTIZE.... TEACH." And it was VERY MUCH stressed in the NT and in the First and Second Century church (which included infants - people who knew koine Greek and perhaps Jesus and the Apostles), and I know Scripture connects it to "the promise" and says "for you AND YOUR CHILDREN." if it doe nothing.... if it is entirely uneffectual.... how can it be a promise from God (or even a part of that) "for you plus YOUR CHILDREN" if it does nothing, if God dosen't use it for something "you and your children" would NEED? Why would people immediate want their whole household baptized if they believed it did NOTHING? Odd.


But again, I don't subject God's Word to MY THOUGHTS of why God said it. We both agree it's commanded and obviously VERY important! I can't find where Jesus put in all these many bold prerequisites and denials and think I have no right to add them. It MAY be that God is impotent to use Baptism and just threw it in for no reason (I don't debate the possibility) - in which case, the worse thing is that we've done what Anabaptists charge - wasted our time and water. But the Anabaptist FORBIDS it, WITHHOLDS it, DENIES it - without a single verse that says to do that.



A blessed Lenten season to all....



- Josiah



.

 

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION], can you confirm that an infant has been given the gift of grace and faith at their baptism?
If so, how is that done?
If not, at what age do you confirm that God has granted them grace and faith?

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION], can you confirm that an infant has been given the gift of grace and faith at their baptism?

No. God is not bound to or limited by me.

I don't tell God what He can't use or must use. I don't withhold anything from God if I can help it.

Concerning teaching, God said, "My word shall not return to me void but shall accomplish all for which I purpose." Does it say it ALWAYS says? Does it say God is REQUIRED to use it every time with every person for that purpose? No. Does that mean that therefore I am forbidden to teach because God may not use it right then for that person for that purpose? I think not. And remember, in the Great Commission, Jesus places baptizing and teaching together, seemingly with equal importance (and in that order for you baptist who insist that "kai" MANDATES chronological order).

If not, at what age do you confirm that God has granted them grace and faith?

Confirmation is praxis, not dogma. It is merely a custom. There is no mandated age for Confirmation or for Confirmation at all. We believe God can work through the teaching and ministry of Confirmation in the same way that Calvinists do (who also teach and also typically have Confirmation classes). But does every kid receive God's blessing through teaching? I sure doubt it. Should we forbid teens to be taught because Joe might be thinking about the pretty girl in class and not the Scriptures? No.




.

 

[MennoSota]

No. God is not bound to or limited by me.

I don't tell God what He can't use or must use. I don't withhold anything from God if I can help it.

Concerning teaching, God said, "My word shall not return to me void but shall accomplish all for which I purpose." Does it say it ALWAYS says? Does it say God is REQUIRED to use it every time with every person for that purpose? No. Does that mean that therefore I am forbidden to teach because God may not use it right then for that person for that purpose? I think not. And remember, in the Great Commission, Jesus places baptizing and teaching together, seemingly with equal importance (and in that order for you baptist who insist that "kai" MANDATES chronological order).




Confirmation is praxis, not dogma. It is merely a custom. There is no mandated age for Confirmation or for Confirmation at all. We believe God can work through the teaching and ministry of Confirmation in the same way that Calvinists do (who also teach and also typically have Confirmation classes). But does every kid receive God's blessing through teaching? I sure doubt it. Should we forbid teens to be taught because Joe might be thinking about the pretty girl in class and not the Scriptures? No.




.

Okay. You cannot confirm that an infant has received the gift of grace and faith. And Confirmation is just a class and means nothing.
Why then would anyone baptize an infant? Is it simply because your denomination created an allegorical connection to circumcision by randomly claiming infant baptism as their own covenantal ceremony?
Do you realize that circumcision was a part of the Mosaic Covenant based upon the law and not grace? Why would Christians want to emulate a covenant of the law? Do Lutherans have dietary restrictions as well?

 

[Josiah]

Why then would anyone baptize an infant?

Just a few reasons....

1. God loves the world, not just those over the age of X.
2. God commands us to go... baptize... teach and never excluded those under the age of X (or blonde haired Germanic males)
3. God typically does His salvic work via means... and places teaching and baptizing together, giving each equal importance
4. God can give faith to those under the age of X as easily as those over that age (maybe easier)
5. God doesn't seem to exclude those under the age of X from His heart or blessings or desire
6. It seems ALL Christians (every single one) from 63 AD until some single individual in 1523 all universally understood the command and blessing to not exclude those under the age of X or IQ of X or people with blonde hair - and didn't deny baptism and teaching to children.
7. I can't find one place where Jesus or any Apostle or anyone on the planet until that one dude in 1523 who said, "but thou are forbidden to baptize any under the age of X." Just as I can't find where blonde/blue guys of Germanic ancestory are forbidden.
8. God is not rendered impotent by those under the age of X
9. God never said a thing about the age of X (that dude in 1523 made that up, too)

for starters.....


I don't understand your "then" part of the question. No one - Lutheran or Calvinist - insists that one must be Confirmed before they can be baptized.



.

 

[MennoSota]

Okay. You cannot confirm that an infant has received the gift of grace and faith. And Confirmation is just a class and means nothing.
Why then would anyone baptize an infant? Is it simply because your denomination created an allegorical connection to circumcision by randomly claiming infant baptism as their own covenantal ceremony?
Do you realize that circumcision was a part of the Mosaic Covenant based upon the law and not grace? Why would Christians want to emulate a covenant of the law? Do Lutherans have dietary restrictions as well?

Just a few reasons....

1. God loves the world, not just those over the age of X.

God hates sin. He only loves those for whom Jesus atonement is effectual.

2. God commands us to go... baptize... teach and never excluded those under the age of X (or blonde haired Germanic males)

You have been corrected a dozen times. You choose ignorance on this matter.

3. God typically does His salvic work via means... and places teaching and baptizing together, giving each equal importance

Not true. Jesus (God) always taught. He never baptized.
As we observe the early church we see the pattern of teach, then baptize in every instance. You are making an opinion claim, not a factual claim.

4. God can give faith to those under the age of X as easily as those over that age (maybe easier)

No one is arguing against this. What I asked you is how you can confirm an infant is given the gift of faith. You said you cannot do so. You have no means of discernment.

5. God doesn't seem to exclude those under the age of X from His heart or blessings or desire

Again, no one has said anything to the contrary.

6. It seems ALL Christians (every single one) from 63 AD until some single individual in 1523 all universally understood the command and blessing to not exclude those under the age of X or IQ of X or people with blonde hair - and didn't deny baptism and teaching to children.

Again, you are the ONLY person claiming age of X. Do you ever wonder why you are the only one making that claim?
Second, you have no factual evidence that ALL Christians from 63 CE to 1523 CE baptized newborn children. Since you made the Universal claim, you are obligated to prove it or else admit you made a false statement.

7. I can't find one place where Jesus or any Apostle or anyone on the planet until that one dude in 1523 who said, "but thou are forbidden to baptize any under the age of X." Just as I can't find where blonde/blue guys of Germanic ancestory are forbidden.

No one is arguing about a dude in 1523. You have created a faux argument from your own delusion.

8. God is not rendered impotent by those under the age of X

Again, no one has ever disagreed.

9. God never said a thing about the age of X (that dude in 1523 made that up, too)

Again, you are arguing a delusion in your own mind

I don't understand your "then" part of the question. No one - Lutheran or Calvinist - insists that one must be Confirmed before they can be baptized.

No one can show a confirmation class in scripture.
Since you seemingly think universal baptisms should happen for no good reason, why do you not walk through the hospitals streets and buildings sprinkling water on everyone and saying "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit!"????
I think that is your calling. We can provide you with a bucket and a toilet brush for you to sprinkle away.

 

[Josiah]

God hates sin. He only loves those for whom Jesus atonement is effectual.

Would you quote the Scripture that says, "God hates sin except for those under the age of X (God LOVES that they have sin) and Jesus' atonement doesn't apply to those under the age of X but suddenly kicks in fully the microsecond when it's been X years since the toe exited the birth canal of said person's mother."

Remember: You are the one who insists we completely disregard the spins, opinions and beliefs of denominations.... and look exclusively to the words in the Bible.

As we observe the early church we see the pattern of teach, then baptize in every instance. You are making an opinion claim, not a factual claim.

Not true. We have at least 5 cases where NOTHING is stated about the receiver - not the age, not the IQ, not the educational level, not if they had first chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, not if they had first chanted the Sinner's Prayer.

And we know that by 63 AD (when most of the Apostles were still alive.... when many people who actually knew Jesus were still alive.... baptisms were included in baptism and not dogmatically forbidden. Ignatius - a student of John the Baptist - says he was baptized AS AN INFANT and he was born around 63 AD. We have much documentation that infants were welcomed and NEVER forbidden by the early Second Century. This whole invention of forbidding those under the age of X began in 1523 (wa number of years after the NT was written, AFTER Jesus, AFTER the Apostles), not until one individual man in 1523 did anyone forbid forbid infants and children - and he NOT because of any Scriptures but because he was a radical synergist and believed that those under the age of X could not do their own part in saving themselves.

No one can show a confirmation class in scripture.

No one can show that babies were forbidden to be given baptism, either. But that doesn't seem to bother you....

No one can show a youth pastor or youth group or VBS or baptism tanks or powerpoint or websites or passing around Communion 4 times a year with a bowl of little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welches' Grape Juice... but none of that bothers you. And here you are posting on the internet, yet where is the verse in the NT that states, "Thou must posth on the internet?" Your apologetic here is silly and even you don't believe or follow it.

No one requires Confirmation Classes before Baptism - not Calvinist, not Lutheran, not Catholic, not anyone. No one requires it after, either. No one claims it was ever done in the First Century.



You insist there be clear substantiate\ion for dogmatic mandates and this must be with the words of Scripture; we ignore the spins, claims and statements of any denomination (Including Reformed Baptist or Baptist or Anabaptist). Okay, that's your mandate. So, we're waiting: where are the verses in the Bible:

"... BUT thou canst NOT baptize or teach any until that person hath celebrated their X birthday" (anti-paedobaptism)
"... BUT thou canst NOT baptize or teach any until that person first chooseth Jesus as their personal savior, chanth the Sinners Prayer, and publicly proveth their choice of Jesus." (pro-credobaptism)
"... BUT thou canst NOT baptize or teach any until that person hath weepth buckets of tears in repentance and proveth that."





Yes, we note that the Heidelberg Catechism (the definition of the Reformed/Calvinist faith and theology) welcomes infants to Baptism. Some Calvinists, however, aren't Calvinists. We realize that (the point of this thread)



- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

Would you quote the Scripture that says, "God hates sin except for those under the age of X (God LOVES that they have sin) and Jesus' atonement doesn't apply to those under the age of X but suddenly kicks in fully the microsecond when it's been X years since the toe exited the birth canal of said person's mother."

Remember: You are the one who insists we completely disregard the spins, opinions and beliefs of denominations.... and look exclusively to the words in the Bible.






Not true. We have at least 5 cases where NOTHING is stated about the receiver - not the age, not the IQ, not the educational level, not if they had first chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, not if they had first chanted the Sinner's Prayer.

And we know that by 63 AD (when most of the Apostles were still alive.... when many people who actually knew Jesus were still alive.... baptisms were included in baptism and not dogmatically forbidden. Ignatius - a student of John the Baptist - says he was baptized AS AN INFANT and he was born around 63 AD. We have much documentation that infants were welcomed and NEVER forbidden by the early Second Century. This whole invention of forbidding those under the age of X began in 1523 (wa number of years after the NT was written, AFTER Jesus, AFTER the Apostles), not until one individual man in 1523 did anyone forbid forbid infants and children - and he NOT because of any Scriptures but because he was a radical synergist and believed that those under the age of X could not do their own part in saving themselves.







No one can show that babies were forbidden to be given baptism, either. But that doesn't seem to bother you....

No one can show a youth pastor or youth group or VBS or baptism tanks or powerpoint or websites or passing around Communion 4 times a year with a bowl of little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welches' Grape Juice... but none of that bothers you. And here you are posting on the internet, yet where is the verse in the NT that states, "Thou must posth on the internet?" Your apologetic here is silly and even you don't believe or follow it.

No one requires Confirmation Classes before Baptism - not Calvinist, not Lutheran, not Catholic, not anyone. No one requires it after, either. No one claims it was ever done in the First Century.



You insist there be clear substantiate\ion for dogmatic mandates and this must be with the words of Scripture; we ignore the spins, claims and statements of any denomination (Including Reformed Baptist or Baptist or Anabaptist). Okay, that's your mandate. So, we're waiting: where are the verses in the Bible:

"... BUT thou canst NOT baptize or teach any until that person hath celebrated their X birthday" (anti-paedobaptism)
"... BUT thou canst NOT baptize or teach any until that person first chooseth Jesus as their personal savior, chanth the Sinners Prayer, and publicly proveth their choice of Jesus." (pro-credobaptism)
"... BUT thou canst NOT baptize or teach any until that person hath weepth buckets of tears in repentance and proveth that."





Yes, we note that the Heidelberg Catechism (the definition of the Reformed/Calvinist faith and theology) welcomes infants to Baptism. Some Calvinists, however, aren't Calvinists. We realize that (the point of this thread)



- Josiah




.

Josiah, your dishonesty gets you on my ignore list.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, your dishonesty gets you on my ignore list.

I take that as an admission that you can't do what you demand.

In all these threads, you have NEVER even ATTEMPTED to quote Scripture to support these new requirements and prohibitions that that guy invented in 1523.... but have constantly, repeatedly, just echoed and parroted the "party line" of your denomination - while shouting that we must ignored denomination's spins, interpretations and views - and just go by the words we all see in the Bible.

Friend, YOU are the one parroting your denomination's demands of prohibitions (which I think we all can see are NOT stated in Scripture)..... so the proverbial ball is in your court. I think you know that. And thus you again leave the discussion.



.