DO BABIES GO TO HEAVEN?
The day I was born, the cradle roll at Bethany Baptist Church added my name. I have been Baptist ever since. I have been indoctrinated in Southern Baptist doctrine. So, I've never believed the Catholic concept of a "limbo", or purgatory. Are the two concepts the same thing? I don't know.
Yesterday, I read this article in AOL news. Here is an excerpt:
Pope Benedict XVI has reversed centuries of traditional Roman Catholic teaching on so-called limbo, approving a Vatican report that says there were "serious" grounds to hope that children who die without being baptized can go to heaven.
Theologians said the move was highly significant - both for what it says about Benedict's willingness to buck a long-standing tenet of Catholic belief and for what it means theologically about the Church's views on heaven, hell and original sin - the sin that the faithful believe all children are born with.
Although Catholics have long believed that children who die without being baptized are with original sin and thus excluded from heaven, the Church has no formal doctrine on the matter. Theologians, however, have long taught that such children enjoy an eternal state of perfect natural happiness, a state commonly called limbo, but without being in communion with God.
This is an issue about which I've long been undecided. We (and by "we", I mean Baptists) have been taught that man is born in depravity. "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Isn't that what the Bible says? Babies come into this world sinners.
So, do babies who die before they are saved go to heaven?
God is a loving God, this is true, but we must not forget that God is a just God. He has pronounced that the unrepentent sinner has consigned himself to Hell. If a child does not accept Christ's offer of eternal life, does the child go to Hell?
On the other hand, if God is indeed just, does that mean He has compassion for lost children who aren't old enough to understand how to attain salvation? I would like to think He does. I would like to think that innocent children who die before they reach the so called age of accountability go to Heaven.
But I don't know. In my minimal human understanding of God and His infinite wisdom, I think it would be cruel for God to allow these innocent children to go to Hell. But He is the omniscient One, not me. I can only see things as a fallible human being can. I cannot presume to know the mind of God.
What does the Bible say about this?
In Psalm 51:5, David wrote, "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me."
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?" - 1 Cor 6.9a
"The wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies." Ps 58.3
"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Rom 3.23
This would appear to support the idea that babies are sinners and as sinners, would go to Hell.
On the other hand, perhaps the strongest passage in the Bible that would seem to support the idea that babies go to Heaven is this:
"And he (David) said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." - 2 Samuel 12:21-23
David is saying that he will go to where his child (now dead) is, which is Heaven.
Also, there are these verses:
"Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it (the Promised land)."- Deu 1.39
"For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings." - Isa 7.16.
In doing some research for this post, I came across a couple of websites that used scripture to support the idea that not only do babies go to heaven, anyone under the age of 20 do, also! This I cannot accept.
What about babies that are aborted before they are even born? Surely God would bring these poor unwanted souls into His bosom. Why wouldn't He? And, are unborn babies already sinners, as babies who die within minutes are, according to the Bible? Or, are they excused from judgment because they had no chance to sin?
Personally, I don't believe that preborn babies go to Hell. But then again, that may be because I think like mortal man, and not like God.
And so, I remain confused. What are your thoughts?
About Me
- Mark
- I don't borrow, cut and paste, or otherwise echo other Conservative blogs and talk show hosts. I sometimes refer to other opinion pieces, but the opinions presented herein are my own. Just because some talk show hosts or bloggers sometimes say the same things I do, any apparent similarities between myself and other commentators is purely coincidental.
29 comments:
I can't argue with what you've written here. But I will add my own two cents.
Baptism of infants is unscriptural and therefore sprinkling a baby a week or so after birth is meaningless. Baptism is an outward expression of obedience to demonstrate before the world what one has already expressed in their heart to God... when the Holy Spirit took up residence... when people old enoough to understand and choose, make the choice to accept Christ. Baptism is not necessary to enter heaven in the sense some denominations claim. For example, what if a man who has just accepted Christ is asked by the pastor to return in the evening for baptism, but is killed in an auto accident before the evening service? Does that man go to hell? Some people say yes, but Romans 10:9 says otherwise...
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
...no mention of baptism, but over at Acts 10:44-48 we get this...
"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. "
So, belief and salvation come first at which point baptism should follow as our first act of obedience to the will of God.
Babies, therefore, should not be baptized, fr even if they are cannot be cleansed of original sin-- No one can be cleansed of it. No full grown man or woman is ever cleansed of original sin, and are therefore subject to its penalty.
As to where David went when he died, he went to the same place the beggar Lazarus went... to Abraham's bosom, which was a compartment of hell otherwise known as paradise, where the righteous dead went.
Babies, by virtue of the fact that they have yet to commit any sin of their own are, in my estimation, 'Righteous', but righteousness doesn't mean we have been cured of out debt to-- or rather 'freed' from --original sin. Christians sin each and every day.
But God, being Just, must give even babies the opportunity to accept Christ. In line with that, we mustn't assume there will be any babies in heaven. It is my firm belief that there will be no babies in heaven, only 30-something men and women who never had the opportunity in life to reach that age.
Also: God, being Holy, cannot allow sin in His presense. Therefore, babies, tainted by original sin, must be judged.
And God, being Righteous, cannot (to my mind, at least) judge innocent (of personal sin) children and consign them to hell. He must (to my mind) give them an opportunity to hear the Gospel, believe the Gospel, and accept Jesus Christ as Savior, Lord, and King.
There is no scriptural basis that I can find to support the concept of an 'age of accountability'. But I can point to one verse that might suggest it...
"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." --James 4:17
Personally, I can't imagine a single child, raging from entirely ignorant of, to just short of corrupted by the 'lust of the eye,' the 'lust of the flesh' and the 'pride of life,' NOT choosing Christ.. He did say, after all, "Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein" --Luke 18:17
I find it curious in the extreme that both John Paul II & Benedict XVI have bucked Catholic tradition, but it's amazing to me that Benedict seems to have gone further than mere 'bucking'. There are a number of issues within Catholic tradition that I find troubling, not the least of which is infant baptism. Much of what Roman Catholicism teaches startlingly resembles Pauls admonition to the Colossians regarding 'Commandments and Doctrines of men'
Greetings! Saw your post in Google...
>"So, I've never believed the Catholic concept of a "limbo", or purgatory. Are the two concepts the same thing? I don't know."
As one of the Catholics, perhaps I can assist.
Limbo, which the article is about, is a theological construct and not a doctrine/dogma.
Purgatory is purification of the soul that many require prior to entering into heaven. Per Rev 21:27, nothing impure may enter heaven. Purgatory is not a second chance. A being undergoing purgatory will most assuredly enter into heaven. The clearest Biblical description of purgatory is 1 Cor 3:15. 1 Cor 3:15 is clearly about the after-life and there seems to be some sort of refining/purification which occurs, which is nether part of heaven or hell. One doesn't suffer loss in heaven, nor is one saved in hell. Purgatory is doctrine. Your individual interpretations may differ.
Regarding babies and heaven, this is not a theorectical theological arguement for me. We have lost two infants, once before and once after birth.
I must live by faith and trust that God had a perfect plan for each of our children and that He will be merciful.
I find it interesting that both you and elashley hold similar, and very Catholic, views with little, if any, scriptural basis for your beliefs.
Regarding elashley's comment:
>"Baptism is an outward expression of obedience"
I don't find those words or that teaching in my Bible. That seems to be a tradition of man.
I do find:
"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5, KJV)
Which looks a lot like:
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" (Titus 3:5, KJV)
We also have Peter saying:
"Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to Him." (Acts 2:38-39)
"...in the days of Noah,...eight persons were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,... " (1 Peter 3:20-21)
Hmmm... Noah. Cleansing the world of sin and regenerating life by covering with water. Old testament support as well.
Finally, if Baptism is just an "outward expression of obedience" why did Christ make a point of the importance of Baptism in the Great Commission and the specific words to use? That makes no sense at all. None.
No, the preponderance of evidence in the Bible (OT & NT) is that baptism is regenerative and does remove sin, regardless of personal interpretations or statements of belief to the contrary.
God bless one and all...
- Timothy
I don't argue that Baptism isn't important in the salvation experience, only that it isn't what washes a man's heart clean.... 'Nothing but the blood of Jesus' can do that.
"Born of Water" likely means "Born of Amniotic Fluid" as everyone refers to a woman's water "breaking" just prior to giving birth.
Neither do I disagree with Timothy's other verses regarding Baptism... those verses are there, but in light of Romans 10:9 they must mean something slightly different. God cannot lie, and would never contradict Himself. Baptism is important, but it's the blood of Jesus that Baptizes the heart, that's what needs to be cleansed. The body will never be clean until the resurrection, where it will be raised incorruptible. Belief comes first and the entering in of the Holy Ghost, THEN comes baptism... an outward act of obedience, commanded of God, in the spirit of 'if any man deny me before men, I will deny him before my Father in heaven'. Since cities then were generally much smaller, by being publically baptized one definitely made a very public statement about repenting of their sin and accepting Jesus Christ. Baptism is a public declaration as to whom you have chosen to belong/align yourself with...in who's camp you have chosen to reside. We as Christians are engaged in an Invisible War, whether we know it or not... Everyone chooses sides.
More on Purgatory later... gotta get ready for church.
Hello from a Baptist in Venezuela.
The problem with infant baptism is that it it no where to be found in the scripture. Baptism was only after conversion. Infants are "innocent" and as David said he would see his little son in paradise, we can trust God to take all innocents to heaven.
Timothy, and Jungle Mom, thanks for you contribution. I would be interested to know what words or phrase you Googled to discover my blog.
"So, do babies who die before they are saved go to heaven?"
Traditionally, Baptists (Southern Baptists included), along with many other evangelicals, have believed that children must reach an "age of accountability" where they can make a deliberate decision to follow Christ and accept God's salvation. Therefore, traditionally, Baptists have believed that children who died before the vague and un-nameable "age of accountability" go to heaven.
I don't know if today's Southern Baptists have rejected this teaching (as they have many traditional baptist teachings), but it was the common one I grew up with.
Some sources:
Answers about the SBC position (search for "age of reason")
And This one from one specific church.
I'm pretty sure this is still the norm within the Baptist world, but of course, I could be wrong.
"Let the little children come unto me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God."
-NIV
This is one of those questions that conjure memories of George Carlin's routines about Catholic school, wherein the priest responds, "Well, it's a mystery."
We, as Christians, believe that we are saved by our belief in and acceptance of Christ. But what of the Jews? They are God's chosen people with whom He made a covenant. Also, what of Abraham, Moses, and other great names of the OT? They never knew Christ. But of course they did, since Christ and God are One. But they never accepted Christ as Savior. Another conundrum that parallels this issue of babies who die before baptism. Yet, would God leave these great men of the OT out in the eternal cold? Doesn't seem just, and God is a just God. I have to side with those who believe that God will accept the babies, born or otherwise ("You knew me in my mother's womb"), since they haven't had the chance to refuse Him. The tough part of this dilemma is refraining from opinion based on what we'd like to believe in this matter and try to focus on what God would/will do.
I also seem to recall some mention along the lines of one's family getting "a pass" as it were, based on their overall behavior, but more importantly, the devotion to God/Christ of the father/husband in the household. Thus, if I'm a believer and live as one, then my wife is covered and so are my kids. I just haven't been able to find where I picked that up. Maybe I made it up. Can't rightly say.
One can easily go in circles on this question, and judging by my dizzinenss, I think I have.
"I also seem to recall some mention along the lines of one's family getting "a pass" as it were, based on their overall behavior, but more importantly, the devotion to God/Christ of the father/husband in the household. Thus, if I'm a believer and live as one, then my wife is covered and so are my kids."
Not sure where you got it but I can say with some authority that this is thoroughly outside of most evangelical belief systems. Probably outside of Catholic beliefs as well, although I'm not as well-versed in them.
You may be right. I kinda think it has something to do with the idea of the man of the house being the head and thus ultimately responsible for what goes on inside. This too is possibly more projection than fact, but I'll continue to look for validation. Just looking for some way to get those babies to heaven!
Well, again, I believe it is safe to safe that most Christian faith traditions believe in the concept of an Age of Accountability or something similar, saying that, although children may be born with original sin, that they must reach a more mature place in their life before God would hold them accountable for rejecting God, should they do so.
Most denominations I'm familiar with place that Age at 8-16.
I would note that, while I believe this, I'd think it would be a difficult concept to find support for biblically. "Age of Accountability" is not a biblical phrase or concept.
Hi Mark,
First off, I must strongly disagree with elashley on his comments that infant baptism is unscriptural. Baptism is the sign of the covenant, and just as circumcision was a sign of the covenant, given to male infants 8 days old, so too is baptism given to those who are of the covenant keeping community. When we believe and are baptized, we are entering into the covenant keeping community. Therefore, why would we exclude our children from the community, as Baptistic denominations do? They keep their children at arms length.
Genesis 17 says that those who refuse the sign of the covenant are to be cut off, for they are breaking the covenant of God. So we see that those who refuse to baptize their infants are doing the same thing. (Read about it more at www.grace-of-aiken.com).
To say that infants cannot believe is also to go against scripture. The Holy Spirit moves when and where and how He pleases, not the will of the parents, etc. For example, see John the Baptist. He leaped inside his mother's womb and believed since birth.
So the Spirit could move in a child before that child can even talk or walk, etc. Those of us who baptize our infants, giving them the sign of the covenant, are doing so on the promises of God to move in our children so that they later believe.
Also, you must know that the Baptist position of not baptizing infants is new to the church... started by the anti-baptists. Why? Because if you look at what a first century Jew would have expected when coming to Christ, they would see it as covenantal and that the entire family was to receive the sign of the covenant. This why the entire households of Lydia and the Philippian Jailer were baptized.
Paul and the other writers of the NT had ample opportunity to correct this if it were an error, yet they did not do so. History shows that it was common practice early on, to baptize infants.
So a blanket statement of saying that baptizing infants is unscriptural, is wrong an unwarranted. We do have scriptural reasons for baptizing our children...
Another assumption that is made ist hat it is meaningless because the child cannot believe. This again is false. Meaning in baptism is not based upon the one being baptized, or the one who does that baptism, but is found in God Himself. The baptism becomes effectual when the child later believes, but it is still a real baptism. If it is a Trinitarian baptism, then it is a real baptism.
As for the age of accountability, there really is no support for that. The basis for believing any children that die before baptism going to heaven is based upon the promises of God to the covenant-keeping community.
OK, enough for now.
Blessings
I like Timothy's answer. At least the last paragraph where it actually came out. The rest must have been background for it as much as response to EL. Now the next question is, do we need a water baptism, or are we baptized by the Holy Spirit upon acceptance of Christ as our Savior? Is water baptism simply symbolic ritual?
Hi Marshall,
Good question. The Bible indicates the use of water. It is the outward sign of the inward reality. God gives us two visible pictures of the gospel, baptism and communion. Both are given for our benefit to remind us of the gospel. When we partake in them, by faith, we are being strengthened by Christ spiritually.
BTW, I get to baptize my second son this weekend! Amen, and Amen. Another covenant-child welcomed into the covenant keeping community!
Blessings
Timothy,
Congratulations on the boy. Amen indeed and Praise God! Another in the body of Christ!
I guess my point is more clearly posed this way: Is there a tangible downside, i.e. no heaven, without water baptism? Is it a reqirement of salvation? I have no problem doing it BTW, just wondering? Haven't really studied this particular issue. From what I have read, I accept Christ as my Savior, beyond repentance of my wickedness, I need nothing else. Or do I? On the surface the practice seems to be no more than ritual.
The best Biblical answer I can point to on whether baptism is required for salvation is the thief on the cross. Jesus told him, "Today, you will be with me in Paradise."
That would indicate baptism is not required for salvation, and it brings up another controversy: Jesus said, "Today..." which would indicate Jesus went immediately to heaven as soon as He gave up the ghost. However, three days later, He showed up bodily to present himself risen to His disciples and to Mary.
I imagine you're referring to the belief that He descended into hell. I suppose he could have done both, one after the other. He could also be referring to the Father when He said "Me" I guess. It's one to ponder for sure.
But the answer in response to my query is a good one and I never considered it. Thanks for that.
Hi Marshall,
Yes, to answer your question bluntly, you need water baptism. It is by faith alone that you are saved, but faith that is not alone. In other words, once faith has been worked in us and we have been converted, then we will respond to God's word with obedience. The NT links baptism and faith so closely that it almost seems as though you cannot be saved without baptism. I know that the thief on the cross is given as the example. And it is true, that in certain situations, baptism is not necessary. But since we are having this conversation... baptism is necessary, for it is the mark of the covenant.
If we want to be obedient to Christ, then we must be baptized. The Scripture never truly allows us the privilege of not being obedient to His Word. Therefore, if we are His bondservants, bought with a price, then it should be our pleasure to do as He has instructed us to do.
As for it being just a ritual, there are many views on this. But in the Reformed camp, we believe that our faith is actually strengthened and built up through the means of grace, (preaching of God's word, Baptism, communion, prayer, etc.). Therefore it is essential to avail ourselves to these means, for by it, Christ is feeding us spiritually, by faith, so that we might grow to maturity. All this to say, baptism and communion, are more than just rituals. They are our spiritual food. We feed on Christ (John 6), by faith through these means, in order to grow spiritually.
Hope this helps.
Blessings
Then baptism is an act of obedience to Christ? Is it the first act of obedience that must be done before witnesses, as proof that the conversion is a true conversion, or as a public demonstration of obedience?
It is also symbolic of the transition from everlasting death to everlasting life. As the baptism ritual proclaims "raised in the newness of Life."
Hi Mark,
Yes, baptism is obedience to Christ. He is the One that gave us the ordinance, therefore to refuse it for any reason, is to refuse what Our Lord has commanded us to do.
As for proof of conversion? Well, I won't go that far. There are many people who get baptized that I would not say are converted (wheat and tares, etc.). My son was baptized this weekend, by ME! And hopefully in the future, by the Holy Spirit. He has received the sign of the covenant-keeping community, but his conversion will take place when He moves in my son's life.
When will I be sure he is converted? On judgment day! Only he will know for certain and even then, he may struggle with assurance.
But I might be willing to say that if someone were to refuse baptism, I would not trust their testimony of faith at all. Is that what you were looking for?
Blessings
Timothy, Being raised a Baptist, I never really believed in infant baptism, but I don't believe Whether I believe in it or not, matters in the long run. We are brothers in Christ regardless.
Baptism itself is mostly symbolic as I see it, but you are correct. It is an act of obedience. I also agree that I would have to question the conversion experience if onew were to refuse baptism.
Now, back to the topic. Do babies that die go to Heaven? And if so, wouldn't abortion save a lot of babies from going to Hell because not only have they not accepted Christ, they also have not rejected Him. If they are permitted to live, they may never become Christian.
I am not pro-abortion, but it is a thought.
Is obedience the right word here, or would "devotion" be more accurate? Baptism as an act of devotion. I can't recall a mandate for Baptism, that's why I ask. If you have the verse, I'd appreciate it. And I'm not really talking about "refusing" Baptism, more like just not getting it done, procrastinating, whatever. I never considered the topic in terms of refusing.
Hi Marshall
How about Acts 2:38
"Repent, and let everyone one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remissions of sins..."
Matthew 28:18... Jesus commands us to go and baptize...
Also, from the way that it is viewed in the NT, specifically Acts, it is seen as a priority...
Let me encourage you, if you have trusted in Christ as your Savior, then you need to be baptized. I hope and pray that you will grow and see the importance of baptism.
Blessing
A Pentecostal preacher told me once that, when he was ill and nigh unto death, he crossed over, or had a vision of heaven, wherein he saw an angelic being teaching aborted babies how to continue growing to become human babies; he assumed that once they were cultivated inti full humanity, then they would continue to grow further in their relationship with God -- which makes one wonder what would become of Original Sin in such a situation.
BTW, as far as Pastor Tim insisting that baptism is a requirement for salvation: I'd say that that's only ONE post-repentance requirement for salvation as Tim sees it. I'm pretty sure that if one doesn't agree with Timothy on every doctrinal point, since he has the whole truth, then the rest of us are sunk if we disagree with him on very much. But I could be wrong.
Just to clarify, I have been baptized, as has my wife, her two older daughters, and our younger daughter. Our little one had the privilege of getting baptized at age 10. I was lay leader that day, and so excited, I forgot to have the water on hand. How embarrassing!
I would challenge you over your interpretation of David's words concerning his dead son. Notice that David NOWHERE said "Paradise", or "heaven" or any such words to indicate that he was speaking of the child being with God.
I will outline the SPECIFIC CONTEXT in this passage:
1. David's son was ALIVE, and David was intolerably miserable - covered with ash and torn clothing, refusing to eat as he prayed and BEGGED God for his son's life.
2. David's son is now DEAD, and David discontinues his miserable behavior. He bathes, eats, combs his hair, and begins to reassume a normal existence.
3. His servants are baffled. How can he just stop mourning so abruptly?
4. David explains it this way:
"And David said, I fasted and prayed while the child was still alive. I did this because I reasoned in my heart that no one knows if I might be able to persuade God that my repentance is genuine, and that God might repent from his promise to take my child's life, and to be gracious to me.
"But now my son is dead. So why should I continue to fast? Why should I not bathe myself, comb my hair, and eat? What good would all of that do now?
"If I continued to fast and remain covered in ash, would it bring him back from the dead again? I can go to his grave because I still have life and can walk, but he cannot any longer return to me, because he is dead, and in his grave." - 2 Samuel 12:20, 22, 23 (My paraphrase)
You see, David's whole purpose for explaining himself is as a means of indicating that he can no longer effect God's decision. Death is FINALITY. He petitioned God in ash and sackcloth, and he continued to petition God until he knew that God had answered. The death of his son was the FINALITY of that answer.
While David's son was still alive, he could go to him, and he might be able to elicit a response from him. But now, he is no longer able to even hear the child wimper. The child is dead. He can call him, but he will not answer. He can go to him, but the child can no longer come to David.
There is NO VERSE in the Bible which confirms that children go to heaven.
As can be evidenced by the many responses to your query, men have many different doctrines and verses that they use to comfort themselves concerning children, but the Bible does not do that for us.
But still, I like to think that God has a plan concering children that he has not told us about......I too am confused on what He will do......
We can be sure that there is lots that God has not revealed to us, in Scripture or out.
Oh, and as for my own baptism, at age 8:
They shoulda tossed in some Tide and held me down longer. Used a washboard.
Oh, I have a Baptist-Methodist story.
In college, a good friend of mine, a Methodist, was trykng to convince me, then a Southern Baptist, that infant baptism was, well, real. I would have none of it. But for the cause of peace one day I said:
"Well, I guess it doesn't really matter whether you're sprinkled or baptized."
Not realizing what I'd said. :-) He was a good sport about it.
Hi Marshall,
That is hilarious. But I'm sure it was a blessing all the same.
Sorry, but I was under the impression that you had not been baptized. Glad you shared the story.
Blessings
Post a Comment