SemperFideles, I think I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, forgive me for asking...
"Let me make this plainer yet: I don't agree that New Covenant membership is only with the Elect."
Can the New Covenant be broken?
Peace,
~JM~
Yes.
If I answer a Baptist according to his own conclusions then my point is that New Covenant membership has nothing to do with who you baptize based upon your own principles because:
1. You believe the NC cannot be broken.
2. You believe a person can be baptized and fall away - as with Simon above, you believe baptism doesn't make a person a member of the NC.
3. You believe a person can have what appears to be a true profession and fall away - as with Simon above, you believe profession doesn't make a person a member of the NC. (So much for "...evidences of the fruit of regeneration...")
Thus, Baptists have an imbalance in their argument for Baptism. It doesn't matter what we believe here and how you believe it applies to us. You must deal with your own conclusions. Starting with the argument for the unbreakability of the New Covenant you cannot get from there to believer's only baptism.
It can't be done. Richard has failed repeatedly. Doesn't matter how many times he quotes Gill and Spurgeon. They fail to make that leap as well.
__________________
Rich
Northern VA
PCA
WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site. SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion
The item on display is not “the faith” of one, but Christ and Him crucified FOR YOU. There is absolutely no power or life in another’s faith unto you, another’s faith is nothing FOR YOU nor to himself. If I believe, so what is that TO YOU? There is no gift or giving TO YOU. But Christ crucified FOR YOU, IS the power of God. If Christ is crucified for you, then it is eternal life. The difference is between eternal life and nothing on display and being given. This is why seeing our babies baptized is so powerful, it is the Gospel of Christ right before our very eyes.
So the gospel is that Christ died for you? So did Christ die for every infant of believing parents? This is covenant universalism. The picture of baptism is well taught by the Heidelberg Catechism
OF HOLY BAPTISM
XXVI. LORD'S DAY.
Question 69. How art thou admonished and assured by holy baptism, that the one sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is of real advantage to thee? Answer. Thus: That Christ appointed [a] this external washing with water, adding thereto this [b] promise, that I am as certainly washed by his blood and Spirit from all the pollution of my soul, that is, form all my sins, as I am [c] washed externally with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away.
Question 70. What is it to be washed with the blood and Spirit of Christ? Answer. It is to receive of God the remission of sins, freely, for the sake of Christ's blood, which he [d] shed for us by his sacrifice upon the cross; and also to be renewed by the Holy Ghost, and sanctified to be members of Christ, that so we may more and more die unto sin, and [e] lead holy and unblamable lives.
Question 71. Where has Christ promised us, that he will as certainly wash us by his blood and Spirit, as we are washed with the water of baptism? Answer. In the institution of baptism, which is thus expressed: [f] "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost [g]," "he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned." This promise is also repeated, where the scripture calls baptism the [h] washing of regeneration, and the washing [i] away of sins.
[a]: Mat. 28:19; Acts 2:38
[b]: Mark 16:16; Mat. 3:11; Rom. 6:3
[c]: Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3
[d]: Heb. 12:24; 1Pet. 1:2
[e]: John 1:33; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11
[f]: Mat. 28:19
[g]: Mark 16:16
[h]: Tit. 3:5
[i]: Acts 22:16
The London Baptist Confession of 1689 teaches that "Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life." Now Keach's Catechism was produced to explain in more detail the doctrine contained in the 1689 LBCF:
Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption? A.The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.
Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation? A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them.
Q. 100. What is Baptism? A. Baptism is an holy ordinance, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, signifies our ingrafting into Christ and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's.
In his FAQ Stan Reeves states:
Q. Is the sacrament of baptism a means of grace according to Reformed Baptist theology? A. Some Reformed Baptists prefer not to use the term "sacrament" due to some negative historical associations. However, Reformed Baptists fully affirm a Reformed view of the sacraments as a means of grace.
The 1689 Confession is admittedly not as clear on this point as it could be. But Keach's Catechism, which was written to clarify the theology of the Confession, makes it pretty clear:
Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation. (Rom. 10:17; James 1:18; 1 Cor. 3:5; Acts 14:1; 2:41,42)
Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation?
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them. (1 Peter 3:21; 1 Cor. 3:6,7; 1 Cor. 12:13)
Q. 99. Wherein do Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God?
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God in that they were specially instituted by Christ to represent and apply to believers the benefits of the new covenant by visible and outward signs. (Matt. 28:19; Acts 22:16; Matt. 26:26-28; Rom. 6:4)
Therefore, baptism is a means of grace in Reformed Baptist theology.
Q. How can baptism be a means of grace in Baptist theology when Baptists assert that a person must already be saved to be eligible for baptism? A. It is too narrow a reading of the terms "means of grace" and "effectual to salvation" to limit them to the moment of conversion. Christ "communicates to us the benefits of redemption" in an ongoing way not only to regenerate and justify us initially but also to sanctify and preserve us throughout our Christian lives. When the Shorter Catechism (Q. 89) and Keach's Catechism (Q. 96) ask "How is the Word made effectual to salvation?", they do not limit the effect of the Word in salvation to the moment of conversion. In fact, they explicitly affirm in the answer that the Word is effectual to salvation both in conversion and in continuing the Christian life:
A. The Spirit of God makes the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith unto salvation.
The two catechisms have identical answers to this question.
Some Reformed Baptists may be uncomfortable with this second response, but I'll state it anyway. Baptists have historically seen baptism as the culmination of the conversion experience. Among other things, it seals and confirms, both to the party being baptized and to others, that the party has engaged to be the Lord's and is now united with Him. Although no warrant is given to baptize someone with the goal of converting him, in many cases the person may exercise faith in Christ through the means either of contemplating or participating in baptism. Beasley-Murray in Baptism in the New Testament makes a very strong case that the conversion experience and the act of baptism need not be separated in our conception of the two, since the NT so often speaks of them in an interchangeable manner. This is true, in spite of the fact that the two can be separated for study or in one's experience. From the believer's perspective, baptism can be viewed as a visible prayer in which the believer "signifies [his] ingrafting into Christ and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and [his] engagement to be the Lord's."
One could also theoretically benefit from a sacrament as a means of grace before being converted, as paedobaptists argue that infants do in baptism. The objection to infant baptism in this respect is twofold. First, infants are not eligible for baptism and thus have no divine warrant to participate in a means of grace that is not designed for them. Second, baptism is a means of grace at the moment of participation (as well as before and after) that requires the awareness and voluntary participation of the party baptized. If God chose to design a means of grace to be applied to the unconverted and/or to those who can't voluntarily participate, then we should have no problem imagining how they might benefit from it. But if the design includes the awareness and voluntary participation of the party baptized, then it is a perversion and a truncation of the sacrament to admit anyone else.
So the gospel is that Christ died for you? So did Christ die for every infant of believing parents? This is covenant universalism. The picture of baptism is well taught by the Heidelberg Catechism
It's these kinds of statements that convince me you're better at cutting and pasting than you are grasping Covenant Theology and the Reformed understanding of Baptism.
3. You believe a person can have what appears to be a true profession and fall away - as with Simon above, you believe profession doesn't make a person a member of the NC. (So much for "...evidences of the fruit of regeneration...")
Theology: The Canons teach that "election is the fountain of every saving good; from which proceed faith" therefore we know that the elect will have faith.
Practice: When someone says that they have faith in Christ we take them at their word, as would a Presbyterian and a Reformed man, and baptise them.
It's these kinds of statements that convince me you're better at cutting and pasting than you are grasping Covenant Theology and the Reformed understanding of Baptism.
Perhaps so, I mean all you need to know is "Ctrl+P", but that does not show how Questions 69-71 of the Heidelberg Catechism is applicable to infants.
Nor indeed:
XXVII. LORD'S DAY.
Question 72. Is then the external baptism with water the washing away of sin itself? Answer. Not at all: for the [a] blood of Jesus Christ only, and the Holy Ghost cleanse us from all [b] sin.
Question 73. Why then doth the Holy Ghost call baptism "the washing of regeneration," and "the washing away of sins"? Answer. God speaks thus not without great cause, to-wit, not only thereby to teach us, that as the filth of the body is purged away by water, so our sins are [c] removed by the blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ; but especially that by [d] this divine pledge and sign he may assure us, that we are spiritually cleansed from our sins as really, as we are externally washed with water.
Just a few points on the imbalance of paedobaptism:
1. paedobaptists must ignore that everyone in the NC has the law written upon their hearts [2 Cor. 3:3; Jer. 31:34; Heb. 811-12]
2. this would mean infants are not born NC members [Ps. 51:5]
3. we cannot know without doubt that every confession of faith is a credible profession of true regeneration so the leap is made from a hyper covenantal approach "BAPTIZE BASED ON PHYSICAL SEED!"
4. paedobaptists willingly create covenant breakers by sprinkling every infant born of the physical seed
5. paedobaptists must ignore that circumcision is an ordinance for the physical descendants of Abraham [John 8:31]
6. paedobaptists must ignore that baptism is for his spiritual descendants of Abraham [Gal 3:7 & 4:28] because “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” [Gal 6:15.]
7. paedobaptists must ignore who the children of Abraham are and “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” [Gal 3:27-29.] the physical seed is nothing, “if ye be in Christ” is what matters and makes you Abraham’s seed, paedobaptists must ignore that we are Abraham’s seed by faith, not birth.
In closing, paedobaptists have an imbalance in their argument for baptism. You must deal with your own conclusions, starting with the argument for the physical seed being identical with the spiritual seed and children being born into the New Covenant.
Peace,
~JM~
__________________
J. M. Esq., P.V.P.M.P.C. [Perpetual Vice-President--Member Pickwick Club]
Baptist - Ontario, Canada - Feileadh Mor - The Orthodox Catechism
__________________
DAVIDIVS DOCTVS VTRIVSQVE LINGVAE
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Currently in the process of transferring membership to an as-yet-undecided church in Chapel Hill
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics
Theology: The Canons teach that "election is the fountain of every saving good; from which proceed faith" therefore we know that the elect will have faith.
Practice: When someone says that they have faith in Christ we take them at their word, as would a Presbyterian and a Reformed man, and baptise them.
That is what Peter, Paul, Phillip, John etc did.
Umm, yeah.
So you don't baptize because the New Covenant is with the elect. Exactly my point.
Just a few points on the imbalance of paedobaptism:
1. paedobaptists must ignore that everyone in the NC has the law written upon their hearts [2 Cor. 3:3; Jer. 31:34; Heb. 811-12]
2. this would mean infants are not born NC members [Ps. 51:5]
3. we cannot know without doubt that every confession of faith is a credible profession of true regeneration so the leap is made from a hyper covenantal approach "BAPTIZE BASED ON PHYSICAL SEED!"
4. paedobaptists willingly create covenant breakers by sprinkling every infant born of the physical seed
5. paedobaptists must ignore that circumcision is an ordinance for the physical descendants of Abraham [John 8:31]
6. paedobaptists must ignore that baptism is for his spiritual descendants of Abraham [Gal 3:7 & 4:28] because “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” [Gal 6:15.]
7. paedobaptists must ignore who the children of Abraham are and “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” [Gal 3:27-29.] the physical seed is nothing, “if ye be in Christ” is what matters and makes you Abraham’s seed, paedobaptists must ignore that we are Abraham’s seed by faith, not birth.
In closing, paedobaptists have an imbalance in their argument for baptism. You must deal with your own conclusions, starting with the argument for the physical seed being identical with the spiritual seed and children being born into the New Covenant.
Peace,
~JM~
Jason,
Like Richard, your tact attempts to avert direct problems with your own theology. Remember, this thread is about what Richard has positively put forward. What he prefers to do is skate around direct contradictions. "Hey, look at the Pony!" Is your answer no more than "I'm all dorked up but so are you!"
I've taken up the challenge of defending my view in many threads directed at my position and I answer questions directly because I'm a man and that's what men do. Have the courage to defend your view against a direct attack. Your weak attempt to avert fails.
Biblical circumcision? It was for the physical seed, males only, and is associated with Abraham's faith as stated in Romans 4:11. In Gen. 15:6 we see that faith came first then Abraham was circumcised.
Like Richard, your tact attempts to avert direct problems with your own theology. Remember, this thread is about what Richard has positively put forward. What he prefers to do is skate around direct contradictions. "Hey, look at the Pony!" Is your answer no more than "I'm all dorked up but so are you!"
I've taken up the challenge of defending my view and I answer questions directly because I'm a man and that's what men do. Have the courage to defend your view against a direct attack. Your weak attempt doesn't impress.
Semper, like you wrote this is Richard's thread, I'm not bound as Richard maybe to defend the op. Keeping in mind that what you posted as a defence is up for criticism just as what RJS posted was up for critique by you. I understand if you don’t want to talk about the contradictions in your own defence, but it’s not my op.
Here’s a little something to think about:
Quote:
Don't know who you're quoting but it seems a poor argument. Acknowledge the words "believe" "appears" and "seems" and his point seems to fall apart. Why post stuff like this?
It’s not hard to defend believer’s baptism even if occasional errors happen –that’s what church discipline is for. And baptism isn’t sign of the New Covenant for believers –that’s the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Baptism is a church ordinance consequent to the New Birth and regeneration. It neither confers nor confirms anything, it only “states”.
If congregations are admitting unbelievers then they are not defending the church. Easy believism, unbiblically low standards, poor doctrinal understanding, inadequate ecclesiology, poor leaders, greed for numbers, unqualified elders and so on will all give rise to a church that deserves to have its lampstand taken away. I'm not going to defend any of that.
What I would defend is independent baptist church practice. Mature Christians in leadership, seeking to honour God and obey his statutes will operate the church along the NT pattern church lines to the best of their understanding.
Independent Local churches are not that easy to join! There are no unscriptural barriers, but newcomers have to be known before they can become members. Admitting members from other churches using the Letter of Introduction system or "references" has been the downfall of many congregations. Better to require 6 months attendance at all meetings before membership can be discussed. Flexibility is permissible of course, but this would be the principle. In 6 months observation and discussion and fellowship, true colours can show reasonably clearly. And issues arising can be further discussed.
Baptism follows much the same process. Sometimes a year or three can pass when there is doubt. (Flexibility again).
To put it clearly if bluntly, If someone looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, lives like a duck, tells you they are a duck and they want to be a better duck while reading about ducks, studying duck, wanting to be with ducks and telling all their friends they should be ducks….well, you get the picture. Don’t you think we can take the scriptures at their word and recognise a “credible profession of faith”. I do.
What if….
Yes, there are what ifs.
What if a person is self-deluded? Perhaps a “stony ground” hearer who after a time falls right away from belief, or an enthusiast caught up in the moment without understanding. Well, if they have been baptised, their baptism was done in good faith and an error here that has to be addressed is not the unforgivable sin. Why make a huge deal of it? Explain to the church and get on with life –the individual is out of membership until they can credibly profess their belief.
What if a person is deliberately deceptive? (Why this should be beats me). Elders weren’t born again yesterday (1 Tim 3.6) – their judgement is one of the qualities we look for in choosing them.
When someone deserts their Christian walk then church discipline comes to bear. Remember that there are real excommunication sins and issues for the church. WE have to take these seriously.
So the fact that errors might occur, for whatever reason, doesn’t invalidate the aim to baptise believers only. How the paedobaptist camp reconcile their practice with scripture is really behond me.
I’m not sure what the posturing is about, “I’m a man that’s what men do,” because it’s really no different then "Hey, look at the Pony!" You machismo doesn’t impress me either.
Biblical circumcision? It was for the physical seed, males only, and is associated with Abraham's faith as stated in Romans 4:11. In Gen. 15:6 we see that faith came first then Abraham was circumcised.
Circumcision was not a sign of Abraham's faith. It was a sign of the righteousness which he had by faith. There's a huge difference. One is subjective, the other objective. The righteousness which Abraham had, Christ's righteousness, exists independently of anyone's obtaining it by faith.
If circumcision was a sign of righteousness and baptism is also such a sign, then Abraham's physical descendants should not have been permitted to receive the sign as children (according to your premises). You are right in saying that faith came first for Abraham, but it was not so for Isaac and Ishmael (and all the other male members of Abraham's household).
Semper, like you wrote this is Richard's thread, I'm not bound as Richard maybe to defend the op. Keeping in mind that what you posted as a defence is up for criticism just as what RJS posted was up for critique by you. I understand if you don’t want to talk about the contradictions in your own defence, but it’s not my op.
j
If you don't want to debate then you don't need to participate in a forum for debate and discussion.
Not machismo, just an observation that aversion is for those with weak arguments. If you have a strong argument then use it.
I'm thrilled it blessed you and hope it strengthens your faith.
Richard,
Quote:
“So the gospel is that Christ died for you? So did Christ die for every infant of believing parents? This is covenant universalism. The picture of baptism is well taught by the Heidelberg Catechism”
The parent must believe in no other way, this IS the essence of saving faith. To believe other wise would be to deny the promise of God which is neither save and in fact foolish. For one you are confounding particular and universal. The Gospel is communicated universally without caveats for the very sake of the elect, the particular. Any attempt to communicate it in particular way fails as Gospel, you loose the “for you” in all such attempts and end up in denying Christ altogether every time.
Similarly, you also confuse the communication of the Gospel with the eternal election. This is what Luther would call a theology of glory, ascending into heaven trying to ‘see God in the nude’ to some how detect “the elect” or other wise eternal things your foolish eyes have neither been given to see or have permission from Scripture to seek out. All theologies of glory, as opposed to the theology of the Cross, pretend to see by the means of the things that are (living by sight) into the eternal realities of God (God in the nude). They in essence attempt to “poke at God like fumbling apes” through the veiled screen of His attributes, then grunt out their ideas of what God is like, thus honing their idol. The god men attempt to see by His eternal essences and realities becomes every single time, an idol, the fallen nature can do no other thing and the new nature is a pure man of naked (sightless) faith/trust alone. In Thesis 19 and 20 of Luther’s HD he sets forth the difference between ToG (fallen religion) and ToC (the Cross); “That a person does not deserve to be called a theologian who claims to see into the invisible things of God by seeing through earthly thing (events/works/etc…)” (e.g. trying to build a regenerate or ‘believers only church’ functions this very way. Contra wise: “But that person deserves to be called a theologian (of Cross) who comprehends what is visible of God through suffering and the cross.” In Thesis 21 he sums this up nicely; “The theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil, but the theologian of the Cross says what a thing is.”
Similarly, as Calvin said we are to behold our election in the Cross of Christ as if in a mirror, not nakedly. What a foolish and disobedient parent worthy of hell I would be to turn my children’s eyes to some “signs of faith” WITHIN THEM or some “measure of conversion” WITHIN THEM or some “experimental conversion” none sense WITHIN THEM so that they can earn the merit of baptism. Rather I point them to Christ FOR THEM to which their baptism gives FOR THEM Christ. FOR THEM is Christ given, it matters little when they or adults for that matter actually come to faith. One can cast off their baptism and then if dying so, not letting Christ have you entire sin nature (good and evil works), one only is condemned greater for the rejection of so great a gift.
God suffers His gifts, like baptism and the Lord’s Supper, to be rejected such is the shear loving kindness of His Gospel. This is CENTRALLY apparent and explicit no less than at the very Cross of Christ in which all men rejected Him and to which Baptism and the Bread and the Wine all point, signify, seal and give. God suffers His gifts to be rejected, especially His Son and so the stupidity of fallen man is manifested most plainly. It is as Paul says in Romans ‘if men and women do not believe’ it is not as if the word of God has failed’. For God does not lie.
In terms of what we are to do here and now we simply proclaim the universal offer of the Gospel, John 3:16 is in the sense of proclamation real. Eternal things I leave to God and dare not ascend like a giddy spirited fanatic into the heavens so as to “see God in the nude”, no man can behold him so and all such pretend beholdings are idols of God. In the end the only sin that damns is the sin of not allowing Jesus to take care of your sins for you.
There is not ONE single work nor life of works the devil cannot bring to bear the real Law of God upon so as to show a man that he has NO evidence of conversion and by extension baptized rightly in terms of “timing”. Even faith itself, the devil, when he attacks fully he will shred to pieces like nothing and with no effort. A man will be left with nothing. The devil then, under believers only baptism, snatches the sword of baptism from you as Gospel where it was the “Sword of the Spirit” FOR YOU, and will turn it on you as a weapon against you, e.g. the cries for rebaptism and such. Left naked he will devour one. Crying out, “I am elect”, will avail you nothing when the arch enemy comes, his mind is greater than you dream. He is the lawyer supreme! Leaving you in a whirlwind of doubt of “is it really for me”.
It is as Calvin said that it is NO small issue that God has respect for one’s children for in this the parent TOO has a Gospel NO devil can rob from him/her. Baptism upon the child MOST shows forth the Gospel of God. This is why Lazarus exemplified the Gospel, a dead man called forth to live by faith, for he, like infants, could do NOTHING but receive. In a sense the baptizing of our children are a gift to us today since we only read of Lazarus but can see our children baptized so that we may see the realness of the Gospel in stark contrast…to wit…nothing of you but yet FOR YOU. This weapon no devil nor doctrine of man can rape from your hand. In fact one draws this Sword of the spirit and thrusts it into the belly of the enemy, devil or man or other doctrine and kills it. This is to suffer by faith, yet kill all enemies by nothing more than suffer to trust in another FOR ME. This is what the baptism of infants portrays to the congregation, the people of God, not the individuals of God. This is again why Jesus easily says “…for of such are the kingdom of God…” and “praise and worship are by them perfected”. Nothing worships God like the dead being raised (a type of receiving) and the babies receiving. The nothingness of their state declares His very power to call into being that which is not. NOTHING speaks of or bears witness of the total depravity of man and utter inability of man and the very power of the Gospel like the baptizing of infants. The baptism of adults are at BEST, a very very very poor second witness to which the stain of “trying to do” (make a profession) taints the entire reality of fallen man and grace of God.
May Christ bless you most deeply with His grace,
Larry
__________________
Larry Hughes
Geologist
Tates Creek PCA
Lexington, KY
PCA
Galatians 4:29, "But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also."
