Question on Church of Christ baptism

[Snitzelhoff]

Frank:

You're right in that I couldn't refute your argument about the word "disciple," but I didn't ignore your point; I granted it and rephrased my question accordingly (changing "disciples" and "Christians" to "those who belong to Jesus"), while also making the point that in the book of Acts, "disciple" only ONE time means anything other than "Christian."

You are arguing from silence because there is no Scripture that allows either allows an infidel to baptize or prohibits him from doing so.

You are right about where my belief would wind up in its logical conclusion: no Church of Christ member could ascertain a valid baptism for himself, and, therefore, he could not know whether he were saved or not.

You challenged me to provide Scriptural evidence of Paul's repentance. There is no place where Paul said "I repent of my sins," or where Ananias asked him, "Do you repent of your sins?," but he demonstrated it through turning away from his sins and following Christ. So, for Scriptural evidence of his repentance, here we go:

Exhibit A: Saul before repentance.

Acts 9:1--"And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest."

Exhibit B: Saul after repentance.

Acts 9:6--"And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?"

In that transformation, recorded for us in the pages of Scripture, is the essence of repentance.

This is not the thread to argue about the effect of baptism on the candidate. I will debate that with you later, if you really want me to. I used to believe as you do (and was quite staunch about it, in fact), and at one time WAS baptized for the forgiveness of my sins.

Finally, about hermeneutics. I understand that they're not limited to examples. I didn't provide only examples. Jesus' own instruction only gave His own (by whatever name you call them) the authority to baptize. That COMBINED with the examples leaves me no reason to conclude that an infidel could legitimately baptize.

Oh, and one more thing. You said that one's salvation is based on the blood of Christ, not the faith of another person. I say, Amen! But we're not talking about salvation. We're talking about authority to baptize.

Michael

 

[Tazman]

Michael,

Mike please consider the following;

Your thinking is in error. The only way you can make your theory work is by your implying that God will not achieve His purpose through uncoventional means.
Why would Paul "Praise God" that the word is being preached even through sinful/wicked motives? Did he have more faith in himself or in God? Answer is God.

But the command to preach was Given to the Apostles (the ones with true motives). Hmmm.

But you're not questioning this. And I know why. You do believe God can and will work in unconventional ways without compromising His commands to His disciples.

So why attack salvation (baptism) being performed by a "non-believer" and not the Preaching of the good news by people with false motives?

Because you have a theological position to defend that is based on your pride not on Gods will.

Matthew 28:18-20 has a clear specific message to the apostles. Jesus said that He (the one in whome they believe) Has all authority. The Authority is Christ.
Through Christ Authority he commission his desciples of whome has no authority of their own accord, to:

1. Teach all people to be students of Christ

2. Be baptized as students of Christ

3. To continue to teach them (the baptized students of Christ) to obey everything.

Well, if I use your line of thinking then Paul is in wrong for praising God that the word was preached through false motives (Phil 1:17 "The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.") . By your reasoning the commission was to Godly men with true motives, not to any other. So if some one believes by the testamony of people with false motives, then their faith is not valid, right?

Mike, do you realized that through this entire thread you have not once supported Gods ability to work though whomever he wants for his own will?
You never addressed Romans 9 (Romans 9:21
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?)

Can God work His will and save (through baptism) some one through unconventional ways that would not superceed His commands to his disciples without using his disciples?

 

[Snitzelhoff]

Stefon:

There is an intrinsic difference between preaching and baptism. Faith comes through the Word (Romans 10:17), and that can be accomplished completely apart from another human being. I have heard the testimony of many who have come to faith in Jesus Christ just by, at their wits' end, picking up a Bible and reading it. Without the preaching of another human as a medium, they still came to faith. It is not so with baptism; baptism can ONLY be performed by another person.

Furthermore, you do not know that those who preached with false motives were not saved. Perhaps they were and just struggled with pride? The reason I suggest that is that in Acts 16, Paul cast out the spirit of divination that was proclaiming the Gospel. Well, by your reasoning, he should not only have allowed her to continue proclaiming the truth, but rejoiced at it simply because the truth was being preached. In fact, that example seems to indicate that the "who" in a situation like that DOES matter.

So, I can praise God that the Gospel is preached by those with false motives. Even Paul did not praise God that it was proclaimed by one on the Enemy's side.

Moreover, by your logic, if the baptizer does not matter at all, we can simply eliminate him from the equation and have people baptize themselves. It would be quite expedient to do so, wouldn't you agree?

Now, it's true that I do have a theological position to defend. That theological position is based on the conclusion I came to through a sincere study of the Word after being raised and taught Church of Christ doctrine all my life. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from attributing my convictions to pride just because they do not match yours. I have not made the same accusation to you when you failed to concede my points.

And, yes, the testimonies of those who have come to faith in Jesus Christ with only themselves and a Bible tell me that God can work His will and save (by grace, through faith) someone through unconventional ways that would not supersede His commands to His disciples without using His disciples.

Michael

 

[Frank]

Snitlehoff:

You cannot prove your positon on Campbell and his baptism. I have heard this argument many times. However, when you ask for the evidence to substantiate the claim it is always hearsay. Furthermore, Campbell most certainly beleived what he taught. He converted Archibald McClean, who wrote a book about Mr. Campbell. It is entitled The Preacher: Alexander Campbell. Mr. Mcclean would know more of this subject than anyone. Again, your info is from a secterian website that is both biased and wrong on many things pertaining to Campbell and the church.

Furthermore, Jesus authorized disciples to baptize in Mat.28. The term disciple is a learner,(John 6:66 ) and at the time this, the events of Pentecost had NOT taken place. See Acts 2. By implicatiion, I can conclude from the things NOT REVEALED as well as the ones REVEALED, Deut. 29;29,I Cor. 1:11-14, baptism does not require the faithfulnes of the administrator, as it is IMPOSSIBLE to know. Your argument cannot be sustained when one examines the rational and logical IMPLICATIONS. A principle of hermeneutics that you conveniently ignore.

There is no scripture for Paul repenting of his sins. Yes, it must be ascertained through rational examination with a logical conclusion being drawn which harmonizes with the totality of the Bible. My position on baptism does exactly that. Again, EXAMPLES are not necessary to prove truth.

[ December 14, 2005, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: Frank ]

 

[Snitzelhoff]

Frank:

I never said Campbell didn't believe what he was taught; I said he came to believe that AFTER his baptism by a Baptist elder, Mathias Luce. If Baptist (what you would call "sectarian") sources are biased, do you expect that Archibald McClean would not be?

As for whom Jesus authorized, it was the eleven--the faithful. Or does context only trump lexical definitions when it's convenient for your doctrine? Anyway, notice that they did not begin carrying out the Commission until after Pentecost.

I showed you Scripture that showed Paul's repentance. Repentance is a turning away from sin and to God. Even though he never stated that he repented, he repented by definition and the Scriptures show us that account. You can show me no such account for baptism by an infidel.

You are correct that examples are not necessary to prove truth, but I will reiterate again that I did not provide only examples. I provided the Great Commission, given ONLY to the faithful disciples, by whatever name you call them.

Michael

 

[Frank]

Mike:

The laws of God are obligatory upon ALL men. Your argument is the same one that the divorce and remarriage crowd uses to justify their position. If one is not a Christian, it does not apply. In other words, since one is not a Christian, he may be divorced and remarried as he chooses. Mat. 5:32;19:9. Hogwash! You will find no examples of this in the bible. You will not find any discussion about Christians and non Christians having a different standard. They are both under the authority of Christ, whether they wish to be or not. All men are AMENABLE to Christ no matter their spirtual condition. Mat. 28:18-20. Again, your argument cannot stand in face of the harmony of the text of scripture on the totality of the evidence. When Jesus asks," Did you go into the world and make disciples, many will reply," No! I was not a Christian so it was not my duty to do so". This is simply incorrect reasoning from scripture. see Mat. 7:21-28. OBEDIENCE is required of all in all things, not just Christians.

The speed limit of 70 miles per hour on the interstates of Georgia applies to ALL regardless whether they are citizens or not. The state patrol does not ask," Are you a citizen of Georgia"? The resident status of the violator has nothing to do with his obligation to obey the authority of the law. The same is true with Christ. I Cor. 9:21.

One must consider all the evidence before making one's conclusion.

 

[bmerr]

Michael,

bmerr here. Not to get off the subject, but what do you think about folks who baptize for reasons other than those given in Scripture? Is anything they do valid?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Snitzelhoff]

Frank:

"But ye are... a royal priesthood..."--I Peter 2:9

In the Old Testament, the common people and the gentiles were not held responsible for carrying out the work of the priests. In fact, it was wrong for them to perform the ordinances of God. Now, all followers of Jesus Christ are the priests. Surely you don't mean to say that those outside will be held responsible for the responsibility that was only given to that priesthood, do you?

Bmerr:

I don't understand your question. If you are asking whether, they preach, teach, partake in the Lord's Supper, pray, and worship legitimately, well, again, that depends on their standing with God. If that's not what you're asking, can you clarify?

Michael

 

[Frank]

Mike:
I am under the law of Christ, not Moses. I Cor. 9:21, Col. 2:15, Gal. 5:4. My authority is Christ.Mat. 28:18.

I do not kill a bull or goat for a sin offering. I do not burn incense in the Holy Place. These things were shadows of the better things. Hebrews 10:1-4;8:6. There is no conjoined authority between the law of Moses and us. Christ has it all.

 

[Snitzelhoff]

Frank:

Yes, He does, and He passed the authority to carry out His Great Commission and His ordinances to His own. We are now the priesthood--that is, we are the intercessors between the world and God. To us were the ordinances of Christ entrusted, along with the responsibility of making disciples. The world does not have that responsibility.

Michael

 

[Frank]

Mike:
All men are obligated to OBEY God. Tell me, which command may one disobey and be saved? And, how do you know? Your reasoning and argumentation are faulty and ignores the totality of the harmonious evidence in the Bible.

You can assert a thing today, tomorrow, and in to eternity and it will not change the totality of what God requires of all. ALL authority is all authority. A command cannot be ignored because of one's spiritual status. In the judgment all will give and account of all things. II Cor.5:17. Jesus commands all men. However, he will not save all. I Tim. 2:3-5. Some will not be saved because they will not obey the form of doctrine delivered that makes them free from sin. Romans 6:17,18. They refuse to express their faith obediently. Romans 16:26.
The form of doctrine delivered requires faith, repentance, confession and baptism for the remission of sins. John 8:24, luke 13:3,5, Mat. 10;32, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38. For you to assert the spiritual status of the one administering baptism is efficacius in validating the baptism is an innane an erroneous argument. You have violated I Cor. 4:6. Paul says, Now these things, brethren, I have transferred to Apollus and myself for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to go beyond (a.s.v. exceed) that which is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of of one against the other. One must not add to or subtract from the word of God. Rev. 22:18. Your supposition followed to it's logical conclusion goes beyond that which is written.
As for your attempt with lnking I Pet. 2:9 and the old testament, even old testament levites were unfaithful. Furthermore, under the old economy slavery, multiple wives, and divorce were allowed. Are you saying, that the law of Christ allows this today? By your logic and reasoning it does. Where in the scriptures may I find the authortiy to practice these things.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Frank:

All men are obligated to OBEY God. Tell me, which command may one disobey and be saved? And, how do you know? Your reasoning and argumentation are faulty and ignores the totality of the harmonious evidence in the Bible.

Thou shalt not lie.

Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

By your theology heaven will be empty.

 

[Frank]

DHK:
No, heaven will not be empty by "my theology". The bible teaches faithfulness, not perfection is required to get heaven. Rev. 2:10. You have misconstrued sinless perfection with faithfulness. There is a difference.

Please note that Abraham, Issac, and Jacob are in heaven or paradise. None of these three were sinlessly perfect. However, they all had an obedient faith. Yet, Jesus said, in Mat. 8:11, that many shall come from the east and west and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. However, they all had an obedient faith. Hebs. 11. cf. Gen.12:1-4, Hebs. 11:8. The poor man of Luke 16 is with Abraham. According to Rev. 14:1; 7:4, there are a significant number of men in heaven. (144,00). These were redeeemed from the earth. vs. 4.

In short, Jesus said all men who are faithful will be saved. In Rev. 2:10, Jesus said, Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold satan shall cast some of you into prison that ye nay be tried : and ye shall have tribulation ten days : be thou faithful unto death and I will give you a crown of life.

The apostle Paul agrees, faithfulness, not sinless perfection is required. In II Tim. 4:6-8, For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand, I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: heneceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteosuness which the Lord the righteous judge shall give me at that day and not to me only but unto all those who love his appearing. Yet, Paul calls himself the chief of sinners. I Tim. 1:15. Paul recognized faithfulness, not sinless perfection were required to be saved. cf. 1 Cor. 4:1,2.

 

[DHK]

"Tell me, which command may one disobey and be saved?"

This is your statement.
The answer, as I demonstrated above is "to lie," but not only to lie, murder, adultery, covetousness, even not being baptized.
God forgives us all our sins. There isn't any sin that God will not forgive.
There isn't any command that can keep one out of heaven other than to reject Christ as Saviour. The neglect of baptism cannot keep an individual out of heaven.

It is not faithfulness that keeps one in; but rather the blood of Christ.
What saved the children of Israel as they came out of Egypt? Was it faithfulness or the blood of Christ? It was the blood of Christ. "When I see the blood I will pass over you." The death angel saw the blood on their doors, and thus they were protected, regardless of any lie they may have told, any previous sin they may have committed. It was the blood that protected them, and saved them.
So it is today. The blood of the Lamb washes away all our sin. Anything more than that is a works salvation which God rejects.
DHK

 

[bmerr]

DHK,

bmerr here. The only reason the blood protected the Israelites was that they were obedient in putting it on the door posts just as God had commanded them. And they didn't earn anything by doing so, either.

The Israelites came out of Egypt as they followed the commands of God. None of their obedience merited God's favor. However, later on, many of them were destroyed as a result of their unfaithfulness. The wages of their sin was death.

As long as they remained faithful to God's commands, things went well for them, but when they forsook the commands of God, judgement came upon them.

It's no different under the NT. We enter Christ, and thus salvation, when we faithfully obey the command to be baptized for the remission of sins. This does not put God in debt to us.

As we continue through life, we remain in the doctrine of Christ by continued obedience to the Word. But if we wander away from the paths of righteousness, we begin to earn the wages of sin.

It seems as though you've got yourself stuck in the left-hand ditch as a result of avoiding the right-hand one. The road is between the ditches.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by bmerr:
DHK,

bmerr here. The only reason the blood protected the Israelites was that they were obedient in putting it on the door posts just as God had commanded them. And they didn't earn anything by doing so, either.

They were saved because they believed God. They put the blood on the door posts and the lintel because they put their faith in the promises of God that God would protect them from the death of the death angel, that would bring death upon the first born of every other individual in the land of Egypt. But because of their faith in Jehovah they wouuld be saved from God's wrath on the ungodly.
All else to follow was a picture of what happens to a nation that had just been delivered out of bondage. It was a picture of God's redemption of a nation. The picture of redemptionn was in Israel's faith in the application of the blood of the lamb, which would ultimately be fulfilled in the Lamb of God that John pointed to in John 1:29. All other obedience to follow was the obedience of a "Christian," a saved person, one who had been called out by Jehovah--called out of the nation of Egypt. They were saved by the blood, and nothing else. They were saved by faith and nothing else. It was faith alone that saved them.

 

[bmerr]

DHK,

bmerr here. How would the faith of the Israelites protect them from the wrath of God apart from their putting the blood on the door posts? Could they have neglected God's command to put the blood on the door posts and still expect to have no deaths in the home? Certainly not!

Their obedience in putting the blood on the door posts was the work that made their faith perfect, or complete. They were not saved by merely believing in God, but in the fact that their belief was made complete by their works.

If the mere acceptance of the facts concerning God and/or Christ is enough to save, then the Israelites would have had no need to place blood on their doors and lintels.

Noah could have been saved without building the ark.

Jericho would have fallen without the Israelites marching around it.

Is there a need to go on? Faith without works is dead. Not works of the Law, or works of merit, for no man can be justified by these. But obedience is how faith is made known. Heb 11:1 says that faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is something that can be seen, that points to something that is not seen. I can't know of your faith, unless, and until you demonstrate it.

Even Abraham had to wait till after he offered Isaac to hear God say, "Now I know that thou fearest God..."

I think you have an incomplete idea of "faith".

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Frank]

DHK:
The question is not if one is saved by faith. It is WHEN is one saved by faith. One is saved by faith when he submits to God's operation of baptism into Christ. Gal. 3:26,27,Col. 2:12. By synecdoche this would include all elements necessary to be saved.cf. Romans 10;10, Acts 11:18.

When did the walls of Jericho fall by faith? When did the lamb's blood cause God to pass over them? When was Abraham judged righteous by God? The answer is: WHEN they obeyed the command of God. Obedience is a part of the form of doctrine delivered that saves. Romans 6:17,18;16:23. Obedient faith is the ONLY kind ever accepted by God. No exceptions. Faithful obedience is required of all men. Sinless perfection, however, is never achieved by anyone. Therefore, we have a savior.

 

[Snitzelhoff]

I'm sorry, all, for my absence again. I'm afraid that from Monday until Saturday, I shall be gone once again, and probably again with no access to the Internet. Anyway, since there's so much, I'll do this quote-by-quote:

You can assert a thing today, tomorrow, and in to eternity and it will not change the totality of what God requires of all.

Yes, but to carry out the ordinances of God is neither required nor permitted of all.

ALL authority is all authority.

Indeed, and we agreed that all authority was given to Jesus.

Some will not be saved because they will not obey the form of doctrine delivered that makes them free from sin. Romans 6:17,18. They refuse to express their faith obediently. Romans 16:26.

A faith that never expresses itself is a dead faith, as we would both agree. A saving faith obeys, but salvation is contingent upon the faith itself, not the expression of the faith, unless we are NOT saved by grace, through faith.

The form of doctrine delivered requires faith, repentance, confession and baptism for the remission of sins.

Find me that list in the Bible, listed as neatly as you listed it. Don't put together one verse here and another there and another passage over there to come to your conclusion, but find a step-by-step plan of salvation in Scripture. If you're going to put Scriptures together piecemeal like that, why not throw in partaking of the Lord's Supper? After all, Jesus said in John 6:54 that whoever eats his flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life. Also, what about confession of sins? I John 1:9 says that if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive them.

So, maybe your list ought to be revised a little: hearing (Romans 10:17), faith, repentance, confession of Christ, confession of sins, baptism, Lord's Supper, faithful living.

Or, we could agree that making lists of what is required of salvation is not the Biblical way at all, and is flatly ridiculous.

For you to assert the spiritual status of the one administering baptism is efficacius in validating the baptism is an innane an erroneous argument.

Nice assertion. Where's your proof? I've stated my case with clear Biblical evidence, both in doctrinal passages AND in Biblical examples. I've figured out that you think I'm arguing erroneously. You've yet to show me why.

As for your attempt with lnking I Pet. 2:9 and the old testament, even old testament levites were unfaithful

There was no attempt. It says what it says. I merely repeated what it said.

Furthermore, under the old economy slavery, multiple wives, and divorce were allowed. Are you saying, that the law of Christ allows this today? By your logic and reasoning it does. Where in the scriptures may I find the authortiy to practice these things.

Nowhere in the Scriptures would you find such authority, and for good reason: it doesn't exist. The ordinances of the New Covenant include baptism and the Lord's Supper. We, as the priesthood of the New Covenant, have the responsibility and authority to carry out those ordinances. The ordinances of the Old Covenant included things like sacrifices. Only the priests could carry those out. Only they had the responsibility and only they had the authority.

I'll get to the rest of the thread tomorrow some time. Meanwhile, let me clearly state everything so it is not misconstrued.

1. There are no "lists" in Scripture concerning how to be saved.

2. Only those given the authority to baptize have that authority and responsibility.

3. Only Christians were given that authority, by whatever name you want to call them before Antioch.

Also, I want to make it clear that I REALLY did not want to get into a debate about baptism's role in salvation. I thought the debate could be conducted without getting into that.

Michael

 

[Frank]

Mike:
Quote/
Yes, but to carry out the ordinances of God is neither required nor permitted of all.Quote/

The Bible teaches all men are amenable to the commands of Christ. Mat. 7:21-24, II Cor. 5:10, I Cor. 9:21, Rev. 22:14. Of course, if one desires to go to hell for eternity, all he has to do is to refuse to obey the commands of God. After all, only Christians are amenable to his authority. The logical conclusion of your argument is reduced to ad absurdeum.
Quote/
No where in the Scriptures would you find such authority, and for good reason: it doesn't exist. The ordinances of the New Covenant include baptism and the Lord's Supper. We, as the priesthood of the New Covenant, have the responsibility and authority to carry out those ordinances. The ordinances of the Old Covenant included things like sacrifices. Only the priests could carry those out. Only they had the responsibility and only they had the authority.
Quote/
The new testament requires sacrifices, too. see. Romans 12:1,2. Again, the argument is absurd.
So, since the old testament levites and the royal priesthood do not practice the same things why make the attempt to link them as though they are synonymous? The Bible places no salvic significance on the faith of the priest who performs any sacrifice on the behalf of another. See Hophni, Phineas and Nadab and Abihu. These men were held acountable for their actions as individuals, not collectively. see Leviticus 10:1-6,I Samuel 1:12-17, Ezekiel 18;21, 22. There faithfulnes or the lack thereof was not attributed to others. You continue to go passed what is written. I Cor. 4:16.
Quote/
I'll get to the rest of the thread tomorrow some time. Meanwhile, let me clearly state everything so it is not misconstrued.

1. There are no "lists" in Scripture concerning how to be saved.

2. Only those given the authority to baptize have that authority and responsibility.

3. Only Christians were given that authority, by whatever name you want to call them before Antioch.

Also, I want to make it clear that I REALLY did not want to get into a debate about baptism's role in salvation. I thought the debate could be conducted without getting into that. Quote/.

1. There are no lists required. The Bible provides the conditions required for salvation. Jesus said the following are conditions for salvation. Belief John 8;24, Repentance, Luke 13:3, Confession, Mat. 10:32, Baptism, Mark 16:16.

2. There is authority to baptize in his name. It is commanded of all for all times. One is amenable to the laws of Christ whether he is a Christian or not. Again, the argument is reduced to absudity when taken to it's rational conclusion. Mat. 28:18-20. God does not even excuse ignorance my friend. Acts 17: 30.

3. This is unsubstantiated conjecture on your part. There is no inference that the faith of the baptizer places any salvic validity to the penatant believer. In fact, it is insignificant according to I Cor. 1: 10- 14.

4. Why bring up the administration of baptism if the act has no importance spiritually?

Quote/
A faith that never expresses itself is a dead faith, as we would both agree. A saving faith obeys, but salvation is contingent upon the faith itself, not the expression of the faith, unless we are NOT saved by grace, through faith.Quote/

A faith that does not act, does not save. Hebrews 11:6. Abraham was saved by faith when he went out, not before. Hebrews 11:8. The walls of Jericho fell by faith after they were compassed about, not before. Hebrews 11:30. The same type faith saves us today. The Bible says in Galatians 3:26-29, For you are all the children of God by WHAT? faith WHERE? in Christ Jesus for as man of you as have been WHEN? baptized into WHOM? Christ have put on Christ There is neither Jew not Greek neither male nor female ye are all one in Christ and if ye be Christ then are You Abraham's seed and hiers according to the promise. The only way into Christ by faith is by baptism into him by faith.

The scriptures that Christ spoke were all in the context of being saved by him, your assertion not withstanding. see John 8:24, Luke 13:3, Mat. 10;32, Mark 16;16.

Quote/
Also, I want to make it clear that I REALLY did not want to get into a debate about baptism's role in salvation. I thought the debate could be conducted without getting into that.Quote/

You brought the validity of baptism up my friend. Read your original posts.