The False doctrine of Catholic Sacramentalism

[The Biblicist]

The Roman Catholic Catechism makes it crystal clear that before the cross circumcision was the equivalent to baptism after the cross with regard to sacramental value. According to Rome the sacramental value of baptism is that the grace of justification is received through baptism.

Paul makes it just as crystal clear that Abraham is "the father of all who are of faith" with regard to the doctrine of justification before and after the cross and that his justification occurred within "uncircumcision" and NOT "in circumcision (Rom. 4:9-11). Therefore, Paul denies that circumcision, and thus baptism are mediums for receiving the grace of justification either before or after the cross.

One could replace the term "circumcision" with "baptism" or "circumcised" with "baptized" and replace the term "uncircumcision" with "unbaptized" and you have the intended sense in Romans 4:9-11 with regard to the Biblical teaching of justification in relationship to all external divine ordinances.

Sacramentalism is a false doctrine and "another gospel" and those who preach "another gospel" are said to be "accursed" by Paul - Gal. 1:8-9

 

[agedman]

The Roman Catholic Catechism makes it crystal clear that before the cross circumcision was the equivalent to baptism after the cross with regard to sacramental value. According to Rome the sacramental value of baptism is that the grace of justification is received through baptism.

Kind of makes one wonder how many Jews were circumcised by John the Baptist in the Jordon river.

Paul makes it just as crystal clear that Abraham is "the father of all who are of faith" with regard to the doctrine of justification before and after the cross and that his justification occurred within "uncircumcision" and NOT "in circumcision (Rom. 4:9-11). Therefore, Paul denies that circumcision, and thus baptism are mediums for receiving the grace of justification either before or after the cross.

One could replace the term "circumcision" with "baptism" or "circumcised" with "baptized" and replace the term "uncircumcision" with "unbaptized" and you have the intended sense in Romans 4:9-11 with regard to the Biblical teaching of justification in relationship to all external divine ordinances.

Sacramentalism is a false doctrine and "another gospel" and those who preach "another gospel" are said to be "accursed" by Paul - Gal. 1:8-9

Just a word of caution. The word "sacrament" is used differently in protestant churches in comparison to the Greek Orthodox and the Roman Catholic church.

Protestants have the Lord's supper and Baptism as the sacraments.

The Romans and Greeks have those plus as many as necessary for them to hold control over the life and living of the people.

Just because one uses the word sacrament, doesn't mean that they hold more than to baptism and Lord's supper, or all the extras that the Greek or Roman churches teach. Especially, if that person is from the protestant background.

 

[The Biblicist]

Kind of makes one wonder how many Jews were circumcised by John the Baptist in the Jordon river.

What do you mean?

Just a word of caution. The word "sacrament" is used differently in protestant churches in comparison to the Greek Orthodox and the Roman Catholic church.

Protestants have the Lord's supper and Baptism as the sacraments.

The Romans and Greeks have those plus as many as necessary for them to hold control over the life and living of the people.

Just because one uses the word sacrament, doesn't mean that they hold more than to baptism and Lord's supper, or all the extras that the Greek or Roman churches teach. Especially, if that person is from the protestant background.

I am referring to the basic theological meaning behind the word "sacrament" rather than to the various number of sacraments used by Rome versus Greek or Protestants, or different interpretations about the finer differences between them over the sacraments. My understanding is that a "sacrament" is a means to convey grace (quickening, justifying, sustaining, etc.).

 

[Craigbythesea]

I am referring to the basic theological meaning behind the word "sacrament" rather than to the various number of sacraments used by Rome versus Greek or Protestants, or different interpretations about the finer differences between them over the sacraments. My understanding is that a "sacrament" is a means to convey grace (quickening, justifying, sustaining, etc.).

“Before a man begins teaching, he should begin learning. “ J. W. Townsend

http://www.theopedia.com/sacraments

 

[The Biblicist]

“Before a man begins teaching, he should begin learning. “ J. W. Townsend

http://www.theopedia.com/sacraments

Well, that fully explains why you are keeping quiet on this subject. So, let me spell it out for you so you can learn.

The Roman Catholic Catechism spells out in no uncertain terms that circumcision under the Old Covenant is equivalent to baptism under the New Testament. Do you need me to show you so you can see with your own eyes that is precisely how the Catholic catechism presents circumcision to baptism?

1150 Signs of the covenant. The Chosen People received from God distinctive signs and symbols that marked its liturgical life. These are no longer solely celebrations of cosmic cycles and social gestures, but signs of the covenant, symbols of God’s mighty deeds for his people. Among these liturgical signs from the Old Covenant are circumcision, anointing and consecration of kings and priests, laying on of hands, sacrifices, and above all the Passover. The Church sees in these signs a prefiguring of the sacraments of the New Covenant.

527 Jesus’ circumcision, on the eighth day after his birth,209 is the sign of his incorporation into Abraham’s descendants, into the people of the covenant. It is the sign of his submission to the Law 210 and his deputation to Israel’s worship, in which he will participate throughout his life. This sign prefigures that “circumcision of Christ” which is Baptism.21

CIRCUMCISION: The rite prescribed in Judaism and other cultures which involves cutting off the foreskin of a male. Circumcision was a sign of the covenant between God and his people Israel and prefigured the rite of Christian initiation in Baptism. Jesus was circumcised eight days after his birth in accord with Jewish law (527). - Glossary of the Catholic Catechism

The Catechism spells out in clear language that sacraments "communicates" spiritual life:

683 “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit.”1 “God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’”2 This knowledge of faith is possible only in the Holy Spirit: to be in touch with Christ, we must first have been touched by the Holy Spirit. He comes to meet us and kindles faith in us. By virtue of our Baptism, the first sacrament of the faith, the Holy Spirit in the Church communicates to us, intimately and personally, the life that originates in the Father and is offered to us in the Son. Baptism gives us the grace of new birth in God the Father, through his Son, in the Holy Spirit. For those who bear God’s Spirit are led to the Word, that is, to the Son, and the Son presents them to the Father, and the Father confers incorruptibility on them. And it is impossible to see God’s Son without the Spirit, and no one can approach the Father without the Son, for the knowledge of the Father is the Son, and the knowledge of God’s Son is obtained through the Holy Spirit.3 684 Through his grace, the Holy Spirit is the first to awaken

1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:40

CONCLUSION: Circumcision under the Old Covenant is sacramental like baptism under the New Covenant. Baptism "communicates" spiritual life. Justification is communicated through baptism.

However, Paul's explanation of the relationship between justification and circumcision repudiates the Roman Catholic doctrine of sacraments.

According to Paul, the "blessing" of justification (imputed righteousness and forgiveness of sins) with was not received "in circumcision" but "in uncircumcision":


6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.


Rome as acknowledge that circumcision under the old is equivalent to baptism under the New and so one merely can replace the terms "circumcision" with "baptism" and it would read as follows:


6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the BAPTIZED only, or upon the UNBAPTIZED also? For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in BAPTISM, or UNBAPTIZED? Not in BAPTISM, but UNBAPTIZED.

11 And he received the sign of BAPTISM, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being UNBAPTIZED: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not BAPTIZED; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

12 And the father of BAPTISM to them who are not of the BAPTIZED only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet UNBAPTIZED.


No doubt Catholics and Catholic sympathizers will not like this. They may attack the person who presents this. They may scorn it. However, it is clear that Paul did not believe that circumcision was a sacrament, nor "communicated" life or justifying grace. So the Catholic church has digged their own pit and fallen in it.


Moreover, redemptive language is commonly used for all Old Testament ceremonial ordinances and sacrifices. However, New Testament writers claim the ordinances and sacrifices themselves did not literally save or remit sins but did so only by type or like a "shadow" and never were able to remit sins literally (Heb. 10:1-4; Col. 2:14-16). Hence, the issue is not whether or not baptism and the Lord's Supper save for they do! But the issue is HOW do they save and the answer is FIGURATIVELY (1 Pet. 3:21; Rom. 4:11).


So learn!

 

[agedman]

What do you mean?






I am referring to the basic theological meaning behind the word "sacrament" rather than to the various number of sacraments used by Rome versus Greek or Protestants, or different interpretations about the finer differences between them over the sacraments. My understanding is that a "sacrament" is a means to convey grace (quickening, justifying, sustaining, etc.).

You are right!

My apologies for not remembering the title as a part of the exclusion of the protestants.

It is important that one also remember that the Episcopal church is basically also papist in some of their teaching on the sacraments, too.


Such sacrament thinking is all a matter of trying to control people, to build loyalty to the institution, and to make certain that power of the church can also sway that of the politics.

Those that hold to some grace given or attained by sacrament are heretical in teaching, however there is another group that I find may also be just as problematic. It is that of some churches who privileges such as membership and voting right tied directly to baptism. Even the taking of the Lord's supper must not be taken unless one is baptized in many assemblies, and some withhold even over membership issues. Again, it is matter of attempting to control people and to promote exclusivity that the Scriptures do not support.

Such things are not scriptural.

Such things are not practical.

Such things deny the place and purpose of both the Lord's table and that of Baptism.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are right!

My apologies for not remembering the title as a part of the exclusion of the protestants.

No problem.

It is important that one also remember that the Episcopal church is basically also papist in some of their teaching on the sacraments, too.

Such sacrament thinking is all a matter of trying to control people, to build loyalty to the institution, and to make certain that power of the church can also sway that of the politics.

Those that hold to some grace given or attained by sacrament are heretical in teaching,

Yep, heretical to the core!

however there is another group that I find may also be just as problematic. It is that of some churches who privileges such as membership and voting right tied directly to baptism. Even the taking of the Lord's supper must not be taken unless one is baptized in many assemblies, and some withhold even over membership issues. Again, it is matter of attempting to control people and to promote exclusivity that the Scriptures do not support.

Such things are not scriptural.

Such things are not practical.

Such things deny the place and purpose of both the Lord's table and that of Baptism.

Can you find anywhere in Scripture where an unbaptized man partook of the Lord's Supper? Do you know of any church in the New Testament that consisted of even one unbaptized member? Perhaps another thread could be opened up to discuss this issue?

 

[agedman]

Can you find anywhere in Scripture where an unbaptized man partook of the Lord's Supper? Do you know of any church in the New Testament that consisted of even one unbaptized member? Perhaps another thread could be opened up to discuss this issue?

You cannot prove that it never happened. For there is no record of every church member.

Rather, I would suggest there are two statements that would indicate that any who desire should partake of either Baptism and/or the Lord's supper.

First, children. Did not our Lord state that believers should not "prevent" them, for "such is the kingdom of heaven." Now I realize there are those who would argue the matter, but in reality, the child is "safe" until such a time as they come to that awakening and willful determined rejection of God's authority. So, why then would the Lord's table be kept from them? And even after that "safe" is passed, can it be unrighteous for the child to enjoy the blessings of God? Certainly not. But let the child partake, understanding that, as God allows, they will one day be found in him.

Second, the cause for the Lord's table was the celebration of the meals relating to the Passover. Everyone of the family took of the meal, none excluded. Yet, in the church the typical assembly would exclude the child of believing parents? Is that a right and privilege that is adult only? Did not the children eat of the herbs and lamb, too?

How was membership determined in the earliest accounts of assemblies? "Such as should be added..." It was not a matter of baptism, but a matter of belief.

No doubt baptism was and is important as a symbol, a sign, but it carried no authority over member ship rights and privileges, and neither did the Lord's table. That is the point.

On a side, one could argue that there is no account of Paul being baptized with water.

There are only two accounts of the "baptism" of Paul. The first is when he received the Holy Spirit but no water is mentioned, and the second does not mention water, but does state "wash your sins away." Now does water baptism was sins away? Of course not, but the Holy Spirit does. So the accounts agree, and it stands that there is no Scripture statement of when and where Paul was baptized.

Please do not consider that I am opposed in the slightest to baptism, to membership roles, or to the Lord's table.

But what I am very concerned about is the inconsistency among the typical baptists who want to beat their chests over the Papist Sacraments, yet have a very similar view of their own exclusivity issues relating to the Baptism and Lord's supper.

Why be exclusive at all?

Believer's should be baptized. But that shouldn't mark them as completing some ritual initiation rights that must be performed to gain membership admission and the right to partake of the Lord's table, any more than contributing a large sum of money would allow one to spend less time in purgatory or the last rites given so one doesn't bust hell wide open.

Believers should partake of the Lord's supper, but the Scripture emphasis is upon not taking it with such sinfulness as to mock the importance, not whether one is baptized or a member of the local assembly.

Either Baptists stand for these being symbols ONLY, with no great impact upon grace and standing, or they actually fail in the discussion of distinctions and fall into the same condition of the Papist sacrament.

 

[The Biblicist]

You cannot prove that it never happened. For there is no record of every church member.

You are building a doctrine completely upon SILENCE, and then you are inferring that Paul never obeyed the Great Commission but applied it to others. You then attempt to literalize the Old Covenant ceremonial ordinances with regard to infants and children and continue them under the new covenant, when the former were TYPES of spiritual born children under the latter covenant (2 Pet. 2:2).

1. The baptism in the Great Commission is water baptism because it is administered by men ("ye") to men "them".

2. It is the apostolic practice as clearly seen in Acts 2:41

3. Paul was water baptized and the accounts are clear and Paul administered water baptism (1 Cor. 1:11). To suggest otherwise, accuses Paul of personally violating the Great Commission while administering it to others, thus a hypocrite.

Rather, I would suggest there are two statements that would indicate that any who desire should partake of either Baptism and/or the Lord's supper.

First, children. Did not our Lord state that believers should not "prevent" them, for "such is the kingdom of heaven." Now I realize there are those who would argue the matter, but in reality, the child is "safe" until such a time as they come to that awakening and willful determined rejection of God's authority. So, why then would the Lord's table be kept from them? And even after that "safe" is passed, can it be unrighteous for the child to enjoy the blessings of God? Certainly not. But let the child partake, understanding that, as God allows, they will one day be found in him.

No ordinances, neither baptism or the Lord's Supper are even hinted at in such references. You just as well as embrace infant baptism as infant participation in the Lord's Supper. Such contexts are similes for describing spiritual born babes.

Second, the cause for the Lord's table was the celebration of the meals relating to the Passover. Everyone of the family took of the meal, none excluded. Yet, in the church the typical assembly would exclude the child of believing parents? Is that a right and privilege that is adult only? Did not the children eat of the herbs and lamb, too?

How was membership determined in the earliest accounts of assemblies? "Such as should be added..." It was not a matter of baptism, but a matter of belief.

Again, you just as well as practice infant baptism and argue it on the Old Covenant circumcision as to argue for infant/child participation in the Lord's Supper on the basis of Old Covenant passover. You obviously can't see that the Old Covenant ceremonial ordinances were TYPES of spiritual things (spiritual family of God, regeneration, etc.).

No doubt baptism was and is important as a symbol, a sign, but it carried no authority over member ship rights and privileges, and neither did the Lord's table. That is the point.

No one argues it "carried...authority over membership rights and privileges" but rather both ordinances act as filters for maintaining the purity of church membership. This is obvious if 1 Corinthians 5, 11 is rightly interpreted. Baptism is a command that precedes church membership both in Matthew 28:19-20 and Acts 2:41. First, it is a command (imperative mode - Mt. 28:19) until the end of the age. Second, it precedes the command to submit to instruction in an assembled state of observation and that is precisely how the apostles understood it in Acts 2:41. Notice the very same order in Acts 2:41-42. (1) evangelization; (2) baptism; (3) assembled observation under instruction

On a side, one could argue that there is no account of Paul being baptized with water.

There are only two accounts of the "baptism" of Paul. The first is when he received the Holy Spirit but no water is mentioned, and the second does not mention water, but does state "wash your sins away." Now does water baptism was sins away? Of course not, but the Holy Spirit does. So the accounts agree, and it stands that there is no Scripture statement of when and where Paul was baptized.

This is ridiculous argument that has nothing but pure presumption for its basis. It presumes Paul and Ananias were disobedient to the Great Commission command. It presumes Paul is a hypocrite who administered to others what he did not submit to himself. It presumes Paul was still in a lost condition, still in his sins prior to the point of baptism in Acts 22:16 when in fact he already acknowledged Christ as "Lord" and was obedient to Christ's commands, and was already commissioned by Christ, and was already acknowledge as "brother" by Ananias. It presumes that the ordinary meaning of "baptized" is to be rejected on the basis of all the previous presumptions. In a word, it is a ridiculous argument.

Baptism and the Lord's Supper act as divine filters to protect the church. The first filters out all who will not publicly identify and profess Christ. The second filters out of the membership publicly known sinners and requires personal examination, thus sustaining a holy membership.

The fact is that the Great Commission demands the inclusion of baptism before inclusion into an observing teaching assembly. The fact is that this Great Commission order is apostolic doctrine (Acts 2:41-42). The fact is that there is no record of no unregenerates (infants, children) being baptized or partaking of the Supper. The fact is there is no record of any unbaptized believer observing the Lord's Supper. To assume otherwise is pure presumption.

 

[HankD]

The core of popish sacramentalism is the power of the Church of Rome to maintain the state of sanctifying grace of the sheep without which they are lost (so they say).

There are seven sacraments in the Church of Rome:
Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the sick (aka Last Rites), Matrimony, and Holy Orders.

There are also Prayers for the Dead, Novenas and the Stations of the Cross which, although are not sacraments, have the supposed power to release souls from Purgatory (a supposed cross over punitive dwelling place between earth and heaven of departed souls).

These heretical practices and dogma were built up and enhanced by the church of Rome for several centuries.


HankD (Former Roman Catholic)

 

[agedman]

The fact is that the Great Commission demands the inclusion of baptism before inclusion into an observing teaching assembly. The fact is that this Great Commission order is apostolic doctrine (Acts 2:41-42). The fact is that there is no record of no unregenerates (infants, children) being baptized or partaking of the Supper. The fact is there is no record of any unbaptized believer observing the Lord's Supper. To assume otherwise is pure presumption.

Your statements deriding my own arguments are based upon supposing because "there is no record" then it never occurred. They are no less valid or invalid then my own, for as you state, there is no record. It is as much a presumption on my part as it is on your part. So let us dispose of that argument and not return to it.

Now, I take the view that the Lord's supper and the baptism are both symbolic. That they do not represent or present any authority in themselves. This is the typical Baptist view.

As a result of them ONLY being symbolic, there should be absolutely no rights and privileges attached to them. That both are and should be done.

As far as them being some "divine filter" is removing them from the estate of symbolic into the realm of having certain rights and privileges attached. As a result, they become just as papist as any other papist gate keeper demanding obedience in order to gain favor.

And that is the point, I was making.

Therefore, even the smallest child should not be denied from participation.

Certainly the OT was given with the history of types and symbols used as pictures in which the believer may read and understand the mysteries once hidden. That is why I can rely upon such pictures as some indication of the openness the Lord's table and baptism.

I realize it is some affront to some Baptist who consider they must serve as God's gate keeper. Doing so through "closed" of "close" communion, and the rejection of "infant" baptism.

However, if these are symbolic ONLY, then in the final practice the participants are doing what is symbolic ONLY and has no true effect upon either salvation or the grace of God.

Therefore, certainly, let the child that desires baptism come. The child that desires to participate with the parents (or with out) in the Lord's table, come.

What right does mere adult believers have to withhold that which our Lord would allow from a child that is far closer to the attitude Christ desires than they?

Did not ALL the children pass through the Red Sea with the adults, were they not all included in the sacrifices and offerings from the time of the first 8 days after birth?

 

[HankD]

Your statements deriding my own arguments are based upon supposing because "there is no record" then it never occurred. They are no less valid or invalid then my own, for as you state, there is no record. It is as much a presumption on my part as it is on your part. So let us dispose of that argument and not return to it.

Now, I take the view that the Lord's supper and the baptism are both symbolic. That they do not represent or present any authority in themselves. This is the typical Baptist view.

(snip)

I realize it is some affront to some Baptist who consider they must serve as God's gate keeper. Doing so through "closed" of "close" communion, and the rejection of "infant" baptism.

However, if these are symbolic ONLY, then in the final practice the participants are doing what is symbolic ONLY and has no true effect upon either salvation or the grace of God.

Therefore, certainly, let the child that desires baptism come. The child that desires to participate with the parents (or with out) in the Lord's table, come.

What right does mere adult believers have to withhold that which our Lord would allow from a child that is far closer to the attitude Christ desires than they?

Did not ALL the children pass through the Red Sea with the adults, were they not all included in the sacrifices and offerings from the time of the first 8 days after birth?

Greetings agedman,

I do see a scriptural principle in support of "believer's baptism": of being only allowed to those who believe with "all their heart".

Acts 8.
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Certainly not a commitment that a baby can make?


HankD

 

[agedman]

Greetings agedman,

I do see a scriptural principle in support of "believer's baptism": of being only allowed to those who believe with "all their heart".

Acts 8.
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Certainly not a commitment that a baby can make?


HankD

It is not an affront to Scriptures for a child to desire to be included in what parents do. And I have witnessed at times the child becoming angry that they were excluded.

The accounts given in the Scriptures are of adult decision making, in which their authority is not in the power of other adults.

The only one that I have remembered is that point in which the disciples are trying to prevent the children from crowding around Jesus. They were rebuked and the statement, "forbid them not" could also include those special occasions in which the work of the Holy Spirit is impressing those around them.

The attraction of the child to Christ at those times is a reflection of their innocence and vulnerability.

The basic question resolves to how one actually views the "sacraments."

If they are symbolic, then they are not used to exclude but should be as inclusive as any who desire may come and take.

If they are not symbolic then they have restrictive ability and are the "keys" to certain rights and privileges.

The typical Baptist teaching is that the Lord's table and baptism are symbolic.

But in PRACTICE, the typical Baptist church uses them in restrictive terms and that moves them out of the realm of symbolic into that of attaining rights and privileges held by that assembly, and at that point they have adopted some thinking of the papists.

 

[HankD]

Hi agedman,

Well IMO when one starts calling the ordinances "sacraments" one has already taken a step towards Rome.
They do not confer sanctifying grace or propitiate sin.

Baptism is a witness of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The Lord's Table is a memorial of that death, burial and resurrection as well as the promise of His return "this do in remembrance of me"; "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come".

IMO children must understand that they are sinners and have the mental capacity to understand and receive the promise of the gospel - forgiveness of that sin and eternal life by grace through faith in the death burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.


HankD