# Objection To Infant Baptism



## Bryan (Mar 22, 2004)

This is the first objection that has been given to me, after I have come to understand Infant Baptism, that has made me pause and think. 

If Baptism replaced circumcision why did the apostles not write this in the letter that they sent to the gentiiles that were confused about what they were to keep from the law? Nothing is written at all about a connection regarding Baptism and Circumcision in a latter that was written in direct responce to the question of circumcision. It seems quite odd that it is not addressed.

Bryan
SDG


----------



## Saiph (Mar 22, 2004)

St. Paul did:


Col 2:10-17

And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, [b:cf685b623e]in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, [/b:cf685b623e]wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 
[And] having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

[Edited on 3-22-2004 by Wintermute]


----------



## Tertullian (Mar 23, 2004)

[quote:18c1932d87][i:18c1932d87]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:18c1932d87]
hmmm, I don't know...probably the same answer as: why were letters written to jews who had children in the covenant for thousands of years and we don't even hear a PEEP that the children are now out.

These types of arguments from silence get nowhere

-Paul [/quote:18c1932d87]

Actually if Paul and the other Apostles allowed circumcison to continue among Jews which no doubt they did (see Acts 21:21) it is no wonder they didn't complain... what is surprising is that Paul never told the Jews that they must stop circumcising their children if baptism had really replaced it


----------



## Tertullian (Mar 23, 2004)

[quote:7783d3eb0c][i:7783d3eb0c]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:7783d3eb0c]
St. Paul did:


Col 2:10-17

And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, [b:7783d3eb0c]in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, [/b:7783d3eb0c]wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 
[And] having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

[Edited on 3-22-2004 by Wintermute] [/quote:7783d3eb0c]

Barth has amassed this amazing amount of riddles and questions that are left unanswered by the Paedobaptist and hence weighs against interpreting this passage as connecting baptism to circumcision the way paedobaptist do here. Barth writes: 

1) Is not the statement: "You are baptized in Him" (along with: You are dead and you are raised again in Him), without any parallel in the New Testament? 

2) Even with the strongest concentration on its deeper sense, can baptism, which is in any case a human act performed with water, be described so simply as a work not done with human hands? 

3) In what tolerable sense can the statement in v. 11: "You are baptized...," be set in juxtaposition with that in in. 12 the power which effects their resurrection is expressly said to be that of faith in the operation of God who raised Jesus from the dead, so that it cannot be described as baptism. 

4) Finally, how odd it is if the whole attack on the rituals commended by the false teachers depends at the decisive point on the argument that they are not needed because in this respect Christians are best provided for in baptism!

5) Positively, when the clause in c. 12a, which undoubtedly refers to baptism, calls it a being buried with Christ, is it not point back to a preceding dying with Him? All these difficulties disappear if one assumes that the circumcision effected on Christians- described in an expression peculiar to Colossians but most appropriate to its thesis- there is denoted the crucifixion of Christ which took place for Christians and embraces them.


Barth continues to show how all of theses unanswerable questions when the Paedobaptist interpretation is allowed to stand can be answered upon the interpretation that Christ crucifixion was what the circumcision without hands refers to and can make sense out of the passage: 

Christians receive a share in the fullness of the Godhead. This was the work done on them, not by human hands in the body of the flesh in which they existed was put off and set aside like an old garment. If v. 11 speaks of the death of Christ which embraces Christians, it relation to the parallel v. 12, which speaks of their resurrection with Christ, is meaningful; it is also one which is found elsewhere in Paul. The reference to Christ death is a clear and cogent argument against the false teachers by whose onset the Colossians community was threatened. To call the death of Christ which embraces Christians His circumcision, i.e, the circumcision effect by God in Him, is justifiable in a defense against Jewish-Gnostic ritualism, in which (cf. Col. 3:11) the demand for circumcision probably played a prominent part. It is also justifiable on the ground that herein- in accordance with the meaning of Old Testament circumcisions (cf. Tit 2:14)- God purified a people for His possession. On this view (but only on this view) one can also see why there is in v. 12a a resemblance of baptism as the burial of Christians with Christ. This resemblance is not an argument. As in Rom 6:2-4 it gives emphasis to the real argument. It is to this effect: Even in your own lives as Christian you being with the event in which you burial with Christ, and there with you liberation from all autonomous attempts at deification of salvation, was... confirmed and registered by that which yourseleves desired and received from the community. Hold fast to this! (The Doctrine of Reconciliation p. 119-120)

Colossians 2:11-13 does not teach an identity between the two rites men do.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Mar 23, 2004)

Like St John said there were ALOT of things Jesus both did and taught that we wont know about the majority of NT is to ahh loss of words but encourage faith is the best way I can say it there is plenty said in the NT as well as the OT but there is alot we dont and wont know at least for awhile even things the apostles taught anyway just saying thats all.

blade


----------



## Saiph (Mar 23, 2004)

There are at least three Old Testament baptisms that included children, and two those definitely included infants.

Noah's flood (those on the ark sprinkled), The Red Sea, and the Crossing Of Jordan.



Seems like those baptised even ate a symbolic communion that Paul equates with Christ, yet not all were saved.

I cor. 10:1-5
[quote:7f2b2f3993]
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 
And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 
And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 
But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 
[/quote:7f2b2f3993]

The sons of Noah were in the ark, (hebrew for coffin), which was covered with pitch (hebrew for atonement), and passed through the flood(of death), while being sprinkled with the rain of heaven.

St. Peter clearly equates that to baptism here in I Pet. 3:20-22


[quote:7f2b2f3993]
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 
The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 
Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him. 
[/quote:7f2b2f3993]

Yet look at the atrocity committed by the sons of Noah afterward. 

The reception of the sign does not save them. But it IS placed upon the whole of the covenant community. Just as circumcision was applied to the males physically, and by Federal headship to the females (since no woman was ever out from the authority of either her father, husband, or elders).

St. Paul says children of believers are hagios (holy, set apart for God's purposes). What more do you baptists need ? ? ?

BELIEVE the promises of God ! ! !

[b:7f2b2f3993]
Isa 59:21 As for me, this [is] my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that [is] upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever. [/b:7f2b2f3993]


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 23, 2004)

[quote:c2998fc7e9][i:c2998fc7e9]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:c2998fc7e9]
[quote:c2998fc7e9][i:c2998fc7e9]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:c2998fc7e9]
St. Paul did:


Col 2:10-17

And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, [b:c2998fc7e9]in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, [/b:c2998fc7e9]wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 
[And] having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

[Edited on 3-22-2004 by Wintermute] [/quote:c2998fc7e9]

Barth has amassed this amazing amount of riddles and questions that are left unanswered by the Paedobaptist and hence weighs against interpreting this passage as connecting baptism to circumcision the way paedobaptist do here. Barth writes: 

1) Is not the statement: "You are baptized in Him" (along with: You are dead and you are raised again in Him), without any parallel in the New Testament? 

2) Even with the strongest concentration on its deeper sense, can baptism, which is in any case a human act performed with water, be described so simply as a work not done with human hands? 

3) In what tolerable sense can the statement in v. 11: "You are baptized...," be set in juxtaposition with that in in. 12 the power which effects their resurrection is expressly said to be that of faith in the operation of God who raised Jesus from the dead, so that it cannot be described as baptism. 

4) Finally, how odd it is if the whole attack on the rituals commended by the false teachers depends at the decisive point on the argument that they are not needed because in this respect Christians are best provided for in baptism!

5) Positively, when the clause in c. 12a, which undoubtedly refers to baptism, calls it a being buried with Christ, is it not point back to a preceding dying with Him? All these difficulties disappear if one assumes that the circumcision effected on Christians- described in an expression peculiar to Colossians but most appropriate to its thesis- there is denoted the crucifixion of Christ which took place for Christians and embraces them.


Barth continues to show how all of theses unanswerable questions when the Paedobaptist interpretation is allowed to stand can be answered upon the interpretation that Christ crucifixion was what the circumcision without hands refers to and can make sense out of the passage: 

Christians receive a share in the fullness of the Godhead. This was the work done on them, not by human hands in the body of the flesh in which they existed was put off and set aside like an old garment. If v. 11 speaks of the death of Christ which embraces Christians, it relation to the parallel v. 12, which speaks of their resurrection with Christ, is meaningful; it is also one which is found elsewhere in Paul. The reference to Christ death is a clear and cogent argument against the false teachers by whose onset the Colossians community was threatened. To call the death of Christ which embraces Christians His circumcision, i.e, the circumcision effect by God in Him, is justifiable in a defense against Jewish-Gnostic ritualism, in which (cf. Col. 3:11) the demand for circumcision probably played a prominent part. It is also justifiable on the ground that herein- in accordance with the meaning of Old Testament circumcisions (cf. Tit 2:14)- God purified a people for His possession. On this view (but only on this view) one can also see why there is in v. 12a a resemblance of baptism as the burial of Christians with Christ. This resemblance is not an argument. As in Rom 6:2-4 it gives emphasis to the real argument. It is to this effect: Even in your own lives as Christian you being with the event in which you burial with Christ, and there with you liberation from all autonomous attempts at deification of salvation, was... confirmed and registered by that which yourseleves desired and received from the community. Hold fast to this! (The Doctrine of Reconciliation p. 119-120)

Colossians 2:11-13 does not teach an identity between the two rites men do. [/quote:c2998fc7e9]

You can't be serious here, can you? You're going to cite Barth? uzzled:

The same Barth who is so out to lunch on Covenant theology that he is a practical universalist?

Sheesh.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 23, 2004)

*Karl Barth: Philosophical Systematician; No Safe Guide*

This post will be no attempt to answer Barth any more than fredtgreco's was. It is pure [i:c53751f3f5]ad hominem[/i:c53751f3f5], and justifiably so.

I must agree with fredtgreco. Barth is so self-consciously postmodern he doesn't even pretend to seriously engage in traditional exegesis. True, he and the neo-orthodox again &quot;got serious&quot; about the Bible after the modern philosophical school had relegated it to antiquarian status. But aside from an outward show of respect for the likes of the Reformers and their accomplishments, he and the others ever considered them to be &quot;products of their own time.&quot; Gramatical/ Historical exegesis was fitting, they felt, for a time when [i:c53751f3f5]ad fontes[/i:c53751f3f5] was the reigning intellectual motto and rubric. 

But today (said they) we filter this book (oooh, verrrry seriously now) through the existential grid of present understanding. We posit an existential context for its original composition. We read it existentially for [b:c53751f3f5]our own[/b:c53751f3f5] time. 

Thus, his first hermeneutical principles are compromised before he begins textual examination. Consequently the seriousness with which he takes the text is vitiated (in our more traditional, historical, and may I add [i:c53751f3f5]biblical[/i:c53751f3f5] view) by its fundamental silliness.

For the interested, try reading Barth's famous [i:c53751f3f5]Romerbrief[/i:c53751f3f5], (Letter to the Romans, 2nd ed.), or some other work of his, as a piece of traditional exegesis, in [b:c53751f3f5]or out of[/b:c53751f3f5] the vein of Reformed, Puritan thought from Calvin to Murray, and see for yourself how he is no safe guide. 

Barth's conundrums are existential chimeras. Sir, I beg you, give us Gill or Boyce or Mohler or Nicole to get serious with.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 23, 2004)

Yep, as a Baptist I would never read or quote Barth to prove anything!

So many more have done so much better and lived lives that upheld the truth of Scripture - holy men - that we need not dredge up anything Barth has contemplated to exegete Scripture.

To be profound: Barth should make us barf. 

Phillip


----------



## Optimus (Mar 23, 2004)

[quote:9c21455c62]
Actually if Paul and the other Apostles allowed circumcison to continue among Jews which no doubt they did (see Acts 21:21) it is no wonder they didn't complain... what is surprising is that Paul never told the Jews that they must stop circumcising their children if baptism had really replaced it
[/quote:9c21455c62]


I dont know, but that kind of seems like a dispensational view. Why? Because if baptism did not replace circumcision, than God made an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed, which only the Jews partake in. So we are not Abrahams seed? If we are, why arent we getting circumcised?

Am i makng sense?


----------



## pastorway (Mar 23, 2004)

[quote:d9d4792990][i:d9d4792990]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:d9d4792990]
[quote:d9d4792990]
Yep, as a Baptist I would never read or quote Barth to prove anything
[/quote:d9d4792990]

Well, the great baptist sophist P.K. Jewett cited Barth all the time....he said &quot;Barth destroyed the arguments for paedoism, but still, for some reason, continued to do it.&quot;

And, if memmory serves me correct, you enjoy Jewett. And Jewett is basically Barthian in his polemic, therefore, by accepting Jewett you accept Barth.

-Paul [/quote:d9d4792990]

I have not ever read Jewett! :shocked:

Phillip


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Mar 23, 2004)

I think Im going to BARTH


----------



## Roldan (Mar 23, 2004)

*Karl Barth*

:thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::wr30::wr30::wr30::wr30::wr30::exclamation::exclamation::exclamation::exclamation::exclamation:


----------



## py3ak (Mar 23, 2004)

Not to defend Barth (whom I personally find incomprehensible unless I read at a rapid clip without worrying about the meaning of the individual words), but Barth-bashing, while fun, does leave his objections untouched. Say that they are screened through an idiotic interpretive grid --wouldn't it be better to show how the invalid grid resulted in a pathetic interpretation which could never be true? Or perhaps a detailed, thoughtful response definitively establishing the relationship of circumcision and baptism in Colossians 2? In the long run that would seem to be a little bit more helpful.


----------



## Tertullian (Mar 23, 2004)

Paul could quote pagan philosophers to prove his points but I can't quote pagans to prove mine- I hope you guys have crossed out Acts 17 after all what is wrong with following the example of Paul.

It is called common grace...


----------



## Tertullian (Mar 24, 2004)

[quote:49753b5693][i:49753b5693]Originally posted by Optimus[/i:49753b5693]
[quote:49753b5693]
Actually if Paul and the other Apostles allowed circumcison to continue among Jews which no doubt they did (see Acts 21:21) it is no wonder they didn't complain... what is surprising is that Paul never told the Jews that they must stop circumcising their children if baptism had really replaced it
[/quote:49753b5693]


I dont know, but that kind of seems like a dispensational view. Why? Because if baptism did not replace circumcision, than God made an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed, which only the Jews partake in. So we are not Abrahams seed? If we are, why arent we getting circumcised?

Am i makng sense? [/quote:49753b5693]

I am not sure, the Dispensational would say that New replaced the Old but is that what Paedos say about circumcison and baptism... namely one replaced the other? 

In truth it is clear Paul never forbid Jews to contineu to circumcise their children... hence the Jews would not have complained about not being able to adminster the old sign to their children... as we would have expected them to if Paul told them to stop because now baptism has taken its place.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 24, 2004)

[quote:2c9a64873b][i:2c9a64873b]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:2c9a64873b]
Paul could quote pagan philosophers to prove his points but I can't quote pagans to prove mine- I hope you guys have crossed out Acts 17 after all what is wrong with following the example of Paul.

It is called common grace... [/quote:2c9a64873b]

Propert interpretation of the Scriptures does not come from common grace - see 1 Corinthians 2. Paul's citation of the pagan philosophers was completely unlike your citation of Barth's interpretation of Colossians 2.

In Paul's case, he was showing how a truth culled from general revelation was in harmony with special revelation (i.e. his preaching). In your case, you were attempting to say that a question of considerable debate by many godly and learned Christians is best answered by a pagan fool who does not believe the very Bible he is interpreting is true.

This is a case where you are taking a secondary issue (baptism) and driving a wedge against a primary issue (Biblical authority) merely to &quot;win&quot; an argument. It is foolhardy.


----------



## Tertullian (Mar 24, 2004)

[quote:65a94d815f][i:65a94d815f]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:65a94d815f]
[quote:65a94d815f][i:65a94d815f]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:65a94d815f]
Paul could quote pagan philosophers to prove his points but I can't quote pagans to prove mine- I hope you guys have crossed out Acts 17 after all what is wrong with following the example of Paul.

It is called common grace... [/quote:65a94d815f]

Propert interpretation of the Scriptures does not come from common grace - see 1 Corinthians 2. Paul's citation of the pagan philosophers was completely unlike your citation of Barth's interpretation of Colossians 2.

In Paul's case, he was showing how a truth culled from general revelation was in harmony with special revelation (i.e. his preaching). In your case, you were attempting to say that a question of considerable debate by many godly and learned Christians is best answered by a pagan fool who does not believe the very Bible he is interpreting is true.

This is a case where you are taking a secondary issue (baptism) and driving a wedge against a primary issue (Biblical authority) merely to &quot;win&quot; an argument. It is foolhardy. [/quote:65a94d815f]

Barth made a good point... I never asked you to accept the authority of the speaker but just the validity of the arguements


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 24, 2004)

Barth does not make a good point. His &quot;points&quot; rest upon a virulant hatred of covenant theology and a complete inability to understand the nature of Genesis 15, Genesis 17, Romans 5 and Colossians 2 for that matter.

I have neither the time nor desire to refute Barth's butchery of covenant theology because it interfered with his hatred of Calvinism and limited atonement. You may read many books and articles on that. Barth is a fool, and his hermeneutics are completely untrustworthy.

I say this not because I have an axe to grind right now on baptism, but because Barth is one of the worst and most dangerous teachers of the past century and to give him any place is (literally) to give place to the devil.

Any covenantal and reformed baptist (Waldron, Chantry, Martin come to mind) will agree that Barth is just simply out to lunch on covenant theology. if you want to keep citing him, fine - but don't expect an audience with anyone who knows anything about covenantal theology, hermeneutics or liberalism.


----------



## Saiph (Mar 24, 2004)

Two of my favorite philosophers to quote are Sartre and Kant . . . . sometimes they are not only right, in spite of their ignorance, but have more eloquently put forth the truth thet have discovered better than anyone else.

Fred:
[i:6e1e62335a]Abusus non tollit usam:[/i:6e1e62335a] The abuse does not abrogate the proper use.

[Edited on 3-24-2004 by Wintermute]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Mar 24, 2004)

I think Im going to BARTH


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 24, 2004)

[quote:a7cde78dc3][i:a7cde78dc3]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:a7cde78dc3]
sorry guys. I am backing up Tertullian on this one. Mike Horton quotes Barth in his book &quot;Covenant and Eschatology&quot; and agrees with Barth on a point. 

Van Til, Plantiga, Bahnsen, Mike Butler, all quote Barth when barth says that apologetics cannot lead to God if the apologist uses natural theology. Now, Van Til is known for his decimation of liberals. Who wants to say he is Barthian!

I use Doug Wilson sometimes. Now, I don't agree with where he goes, or even his foundations, but I can still use points and idea's and incorporate them within my system.

Furthermore, it shouldn't even be an issue. You guys have to admit that you are arguing fallaciously. You are. Flat out. Not even a discussion.

Sheesh (as Fred said) I can't believe you guys are making me defend the use of Barth!

-Paul [/quote:a7cde78dc3]

Paul,

Let me be a bit clearer here. I am not saying that we can never use the thoughts of others (even pagans) in expressing our arguments and thoughts. But they must be - as you excellently point out in the case of your use of Wilson - in service to our (Biblical) system.

What Tyler attempted to do (at least as I read it) was to say that Barth had formulated a (seemingly) unanswerable series of objections to the Classical covenantal understanding of Colossians 2. But the problem is twofold with doing that:

1. Barth's system was such that it militates against his interpretation being correct. It would be as if we took the argument of a Romanist on the sacraments as posing a &quot;grave exegetical problem&quot; for the Reformed view of the sacraments. Barth was an avowed enemy of covenant theology (which he saw as the work of the d.evil ), Calvinism in general and specifically limited atonement. He skewed all his exegesis (if you can call it that, since he whenever he did not agree with a text, he simply waived it off as &quot;not containing the Word of God&quot; ) in order to avoid limited atonement and classical covenantal formulations. So he is [b:a7cde78dc3]especially[/b:a7cde78dc3] untrustworthy with respect to any covenantal texts.

2. That means that it is singularly unhelpful to interact with Barth (as Reformed Christians). There is no reason to have to wade through mounds of incorrect fundamental (to Barth) theology that both Baptists and paedobaptists would disagree with in order to address the issue of Col. 2.

I simply won't take time to refute a heretic's heretical view of a text that is necessitated in order to keep a heretical system.

[Edited on 3-25-2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 24, 2004)

[quote:0319d8c48c][i:0319d8c48c]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:0319d8c48c]
no, I uderstand what your saying, Fred. I am speaking ultimately. That is, ultimately, when push comes to shove, someone would need to be refuted by something other than, &quot;your a heretic.&quot; Ultimately, if forced, we would need to show [i:0319d8c48c]why[/i:0319d8c48c] barth was wrong. I understand that you don't want to wade through that in this particular forum, but, as I said, we ultimately want to show how he is wrong...from Scripture, not by genertic fallacies, or slippery slopes, and the like. A duck is a duck, and an ad hominem is still an ad hominem.

-Paul [/quote:0319d8c48c]

Paul,

No disagreement here. But there is a time and a place for the ad hominem, especially when interpretation is involved, given 1 Cor 2. Thanks.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 24, 2004)

[quote:c53ac11d42][i:c53ac11d42]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:c53ac11d42]
no....thank [i:c53ac11d42]you[/i:c53ac11d42] [/quote:c53ac11d42]

So, Paulie, how come youz never hang around?

Everybody was here earlier, Big Tony, Little Tony, Regular Tony, Joey Bag O' Donuts....

Sheesh -- whadda ya wanna do now?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 24, 2004)

Leave the gun.....Take the cannolli's


----------

