Why do Catholics baptize infants?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Question:  Why do Catholics baptize infants?  Where is that in the Bible?
Firstly, when Catholics are asked to show where in the Bible a particular teaching is, the first thing a Catholic should ask is, "Could you please show me where in the Bible it says that all Christian beliefs must be found there?"  (The Scriptures, in fact, do not proclaim this at all.  Rather, the Bible states that there are many things that the Bible could not contain (John 16:12-13) and that one must not look to the Bible as the pillar and foundation of Truth, but to the Church (1 Tim 3:15).

This is not to denigrate or dismiss the Scriptures, which are the Divine Word of God, but to say that the Scriptures do NOT state that all theological truths are found in totality in the Bible.  Scripture is NOT sufficient--and nowhere in Scripture does it proclaim this.  (Note:  while Scripture is materially sufficient, it is not formally sufficient--but this is discussion for another day).  Yet it remains that the Bible is the glorious, magnificent, sacred and inspired Word of God and must be treasured.  "For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body...In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, but as what it really is, the word of God." -- 103-104 Catechism of the Catholic Church
Secondly, we ought to ask the question to those who object to infant baptism, "Where does the Bible say that we can't baptize infants?"  (Answer:  nowhere! In fact, the Bible states that "entire households" (Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33) were baptized, and one could assume that in ancient Israel "households" included infants.)
While many Christians see baptism as an "ordinance", in which an adult must proclaim belief in Christ as his Lord and savior prior to receiving baptism (something NOT found in Scripture, interestingly), Catholics view baptism as a sacrament (an outward sign, instituted by Christ to give grace), confirmed by the faith of the parents.
From Catholic convert Steve Ray:  "Infant Baptism is discussed and argued about quite a bit in some circles. I, of course, was raised Baptist and taught that Infant Baptism was a man-made tradition invented by the heretical Catholics who abandoned the Word of God to follow ill-advised tradition."  

So why do Catholics baptize infants? 
"Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth." --1250 Catechism

Again from Steve Ray (ibid) "To grasp the background and origins of Infant Baptism we must understand the original recipients of the New Covenant. During the first years, the members of the Church were exclusively Jewish. The Jews practiced infant circumcision, as mandated to Abraham (Gn 17:12), reaffirmed in the Mosaic Law (Lv 12:3), and demonstrated by the circumcision of Jesus on his eighth day (Luke 2:21). Without circumcision no male was allowed to participate in the cultural and religious life of Israel.

The rite of circumcision as the doorway into the Old Covenant was replaced in the New Covenant with the rite of Baptism—both applied to infants. St. Paul makes this correlation: “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism” (Col 2:11–12)."

In other words, the OT ritual of circumcision of infants prefigured the NT sacrament of infant baptism.  Infants were circumcized; infants ought to be baptized. 

When we are born, we are born "in the flesh", with a fallen human nature, separated from God.  After Christ "made it right" through his atoning death on the cross, we can be brought into right relationship with God. This is accomplished through baptism, in which we are "born again" in the Spirit.  We become united again, as was originally intended, with God.  We become children of God, members of His Body, the Church. We receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  We become born again into a state of grace.

Why would we want to exclude infants from this? 

As was stated in a previous discussion, paraphrasing Fr. Vincent Serpa of Catholic Answers:  If we could see the change that occurs in the soul of the newly baptized, nuclear fission would appear as child's play!  A sublime, profound change occurs, at our very essence, at the very moment we are baptized.  An indelible (unchangeable, immortal) mark has been placed on our soul--more powerful than any mere nuclear fission!
The Catholic Church is nothing if not consistent:  all our sacraments provide indelible, ontological (at our very essence) change to the universe!  That is, what happens at a priestly ordination, wedding, baptism, etc is a change so profound, so sublime, so wondrous, that the explosive power of nuclear fission pales in comparison!  We simply cannot fathom what power is unleashed via the sacraments! Crash helmets ought to be mandatory! 

Finally, many non-Catholics often point out that the Catholics believe we can work our way into heaven.  Infant baptism is proof that we believe that God's salvation is entirely a free gift unto humanity--that we can do nothing to "earn" our salvation--for what "work" does an infant do in order to receive baptism?  Absolutely nothing!  Salvation is offered to the infant, freely and through no deed of his own.

Baptism saves you now, as our first pope said in his first "encyclical", 1 Peter 3:21.  Infants ought not be denied this salvific gift.                                         

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholic Bible online
 
Catechism of the Catholic Church online

Catholic Teaching Regarding Baptism of Infants

Evidence That the Early Christians Baptized Infants

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

30 second apologetics: What's the reason for the ashes?

What's the reason for the ashes?

Contrary to what some Fundamentalists may believe, the practice of marking one's forehead with ashes is not a pagan custom; rather, it has its roots in Old Testament practices in which  ashes were symbolic of mourning,  penance and humility.  

We mark the beginning of Lent with ashes, indicating we mourn and repent of our sins. The ashes serve as a humble reminder that we are humans, not God.  Creatures, not the Creator. 

"In Bible times the custom <for mourning> was to fast, wear sackcloth, sit in dust and ashes, and put dust and ashes on one's head"

A Benjaminite fled from the battlefield and reached Shiloh that same day, with his clothes torn and his head covered with dirt.--1 Sam 4:12

Tamar put ashes on her head and tore the long tunic in which she was clothed.--2 Sam.13:19

Ashes also symbolize death and so remind us of our mortality. When the priest uses his thumb to sign one of the faithful with the ashes and says, "Remember, man, that thou art dust and unto dust thou shalt return," he is echoing God's address to Adam:

For you are dirt, and to dirt you shall return.--Gen. 3:19

This phrase also echoes the words at a Catholic burial, "Ashes to ashes; dust to dust," which is based on God's words to Adam in Genesis 3 and Abraham's confession, "I am nothing but dust and ashes" --Gen. 18:27.

Catholics are not required to have their foreheads signed with ashes. It is, though, strongly advised as a visible spiritual reminder that encourages us to adopt an attitude of prayer, repentance, and humility."  source

Interestingly, there are now a number of Protestant denominations that are adopting this custom of marking the beginning of Lent with ashes.  So don't assume that all ash-y folks today are Catholics! 

Why do Catholics fast during Lent?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Question:  Why do Catholics fast during Lent?  Doesn't the New Testament abolish fasting?  Doesn't the Bible tell us that God does not want us to fast, but rather to set captives free?

While it is true that Scripture does state that the fasting God wishes is for us to "set captives free"--it must be understood that it's not fasting itself that God condemns, but rather external works done without internal sincerity.

This, rather, is the fasting that I wish: releasing those bound unjustly, untying the thongs of the yoke; Setting free the oppressed, breaking every yoke;--Isaiah 58:6

It is, however, NOT TRUE that the NT abolishes fasting.  In fact, the NT speaks often of fasting.

    Whoever wishes to be my follower must deny his very self, take up his cross each day, and follow in my    steps.--Luke 9:23
 
    Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off.--Acts     13:3
   
    But the days will come, and when the bridegroom is taken away from them, then they will         fast in those days.--Luke 5:35

    But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face--Matt 6:17

(note the "when you fast", not "if you fast"). 

Protestants seem to consider the Catholic practice of fasting during Lent at best a curiosity, and at worst a testament that Catholics really do believe that we can "work" our way into heaven.  In fact, on this anti-catholic website by an ex-Catholic, he states, "But we are never taught in Sacred Scripture that fasting and other personal sacrifices atone for sin."

Just to be clear:  the Catholic Church does NOT teach that our fasting will "atone for sin".  Only Christ atones for our sins.  (This is a sad testament that those who leave the Catholic Church, as the author of the above quote did, usually don't even know the teachings of the Church that they left.)

From Catholic convert Jimmy Akin:  "When I was a young Protestant and much opposed to any form of penance ("Hey, Jesus forgave our sins! Why do we need to do penance?"), my Episcopalian aunt pointed my attention to the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus says: "And when you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, that your fasting may not be seen by men but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you" (Matt. 6:16–18; cf. Mark 2:18–20)."

So why do we fast?  Why do we practice self-denial and sacrifice? 

Because we love.

As anyone who's ever loved, (parent, spouse, child, sibling), we know that it's absolutely impossible to love someone without sacrifice and self-denial.  We get up at 3am to tend to a coughing child. That's sacrifice.  We sit vigil at our sibling's bedside at the hospital. That's self-denial. We drive an hour away to watch our spouse finish a marathon.  Sacrifice. 

There is no love without sacrifice. 
While our fasting does not atone for others' sins, it can produce good in others. It echoes what was mentioned in another apologetics discussion regarding the "dignity of causality".  God gives us the dignity of actually causing good, by our offering up a prayer/work/sacrifice for the sake of another's intention.  It is a supreme privilege we've been given as Christians to be able to change the course of someone's destiny by our actions/prayers/sacrifices.  Just like our physical efforts produce food on our table for our families--God does not simply magically make the food appear on our plates--our spiritual efforts also produce fruit in the world.

Our self-denial/sacrifices/penance during Lent also produces good in us.  For who can doubt that in our privileged, indulged, affluent society--where entertainment is nano-seconds away at our fingertips at every minute of the day--that a spiritual retreat from these things is good for our souls?  Our human natures do not thrive when over-indulged!  How wise of the Church to "mandate", so to speak, a spiritual "time-out" from our tendency to pamper ourselves.  It's just not healthy physically. And it's not healthy spiritually.  Who wonderful for us that Holy Mother Church is always looking after her children's health!

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

A Short Primer on Fasting

Why Do Christians Eat Fish on Friday?

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

Do Catholics believe in the Rapture?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Question:  Do Catholics believe in the Rapture?
The Rapture is the false belief that a period of time is close at hand in which Christians will be gathered together to secretly and silently vanish, meeting Christ "in the air' (i.e. be "raptured") before His Second Coming.  Those who are unbelievers will be left behind to suffer violently in a time of Tribulation. Christ will then return, a third time, years later (some say after seven years, some say after a thousand) in order to slay the anti-Christ.  These verses in Scripture are used to support the Rapture:

For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.--1 Thess 4:16-17

For as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

In (those) days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day that Noah entered the ark.

They did not know until the flood came and carried them all away. So will it be (also) at the coming of the Son of Man.

Two men will be out in the field; one will be taken, and one will be left.--Matt 24:37-40

as well as a multitude of verses in Revelation.

Prior to the 19th century, this question (do we believe in The Rapture?) would have puzzled Christians, for the idea of "The Rapture" was non-existent. Historically, you will not find any church father, theologian, pope, saint or ecumenical council mention The Rapture.   It became a novelty in the 19th century. 

(Note:  this should be contrasted with the objection posed to Catholics that, like the Rapture, the Immaculate Conception was only proclaimed in 1854 (see previous discussion on this here).  These are 2 very different ideas:  the IC was believed from the time of the Apostles--and mentioned by church fathers, theologians, saints, popes, etc throughout history, but only formally defined in 1854.  The idea of the Rapture was virtually non-existent until the 19th century.)
 
That people are making "end time speculations" is not new.  This, of course, has been going on for millenia.   However, the concept that we will be caught up in the air or left behind is a new innovation.  In the 1990's the wildly popular (and very anti-Catholic) series of books called the "Left Behind" series re-vitalized this concept, selling over 10 million books.  It received more legitimacy when actor and Christian evangelist Kirk Cameron became a convert to this belief and starred in a series of movies proclaiming that Christians will be Raptured.

Catholicism rejects this interpretation of Scripture.  There will be no Rapture as understood by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists.  "Though it does not use the term rapture, the Church does acknowledge that there will be an event where the elect are gathered to be with Christ.  The point of contention is the timing of this event: It occurs at the Second Coming, not several years before it. This is indicated by Paul’s reference to it taking place when Christ descends from heaven: the Second Coming. Scripture does not envision the Second Coming accomplishing the Rapture, followed by a "Third Coming" inaugurating the eternal order or the Millennium." source.  In other words, the Church proclaims that Scripture tells us that Christians who are alive at the parousia (the end of the world) and who are living in the state of grace will witness the Second Coming and will live eternally with Jesus in His kingdom. 

Incidentally, the Left Behind series posits that those who are "left behind" are the un-saved.  However, if one looks at the verse in Matthew cited above we see that, as in the days of Noah, the ones who were "left behind" were the good guys, not the bad guys!  That is, during the flood, Noah and his family (the good guys) were left behind, not raptured.

Finally, I'd like to point out this irony: Evangelical supporters of The Rapture object, in different discussions, to the Catholic Church's teaching on Mary's Assumption.  I find this ironic, as is it not essentially a "Rapture" that is happening to Mary?  Why do Evangelical Christians believe in The Rapture for every other Christian, except for Jesus' mother?  Just sayin'.

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

What about the Crusades?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

What about the Crusades?  It seems that in any discussion on religion the "ace in the sleeve" of the non-Catholic is: "Well, you Catholics went around slaughtering millions of non-Catholic folks during the Crusades, didn't you?"  Silence often is the embarrassed response. You know, as I was researching this topic, I remembered why history class made my eyes glaze over:  because it's boring. 

After reading one too many mind-numbing articles about "feudal systems" and phrases like "the states remained vulnerable, and in 1144 the northern state of Edessa was captured by Muslim forces" I decided that rather than tackle this subject of the Crusades I will simply quote apologist Jimmy Akin, from this article:

"Christians today certainly should deplore evil acts committed during the Crusades, such as the massacres of innocent Muslims and Jews that periodically occurred, as well as the entire debacle of the Fourth Crusade. However, the enterprise of the Crusades themselves had two important goals at its core: the defense of Christian civilization against outside aggression (making the Crusades as a whole wars of self-defense) and securing access to the holy sites that commemorate to the most important events in world history."

Also, for those interested, there's a discussion on the Catholic Answers forums, here, on the Crusades.

More interesting to me, and somewhat on the same topic, is a discussion on the Church and Galileo.  The perception is that the Church persecuted Galileo, and in doing so this proves that the Church cannot be infallible, and that that she (the Church) is an enemy of science and intellectual pursuits.

In response to the latter criticism, please see this list of the great number of Catholic physicists, scientists, astronomers, etc in history who contributed to western civilization--all through the patronage of the Catholic Church.  The CC is not the enemy of science, but, rather, its biggest enthusiast.

And the Catholic Church has been the champion of faith and reason, together, as a means of discerning truth.  There can be no contradiction between religion and science, for both are truth and both find its authorship in the same Being--God.

As for Galileo, where he made his error was in proclaiming that his scientific theory of heliocentric (the sun is the center of the solar system) was a theological truth that trumped Scripture.  Scripture has a few verses which seem to indicate that the sun does not move:  And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed--Josh 10:13.  Galileo proposed that Scripture, then,  was in error.  The Church objected to this, for the Church has always proclaimed that Scripture is inerrant.  To be sure, as we have stated earlier, Scripture is about truth, not about facts.  So even when Scripture states that the sun rises and sets (Malachi 1:11), it is not proclaiming a fact of cosmic motion, but rather proclaiming a truth about eternity.

Regarding infallibility:  "The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.

No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility." source

The judgments and consequences imposed upon Galileo were disciplinary and procedural, and not related to theological dogma or doctrine (see previous discussions on discipline vs dogma/doctrine).  If the Church had proclaimed anything regarding Galileo with regard to dogma, it could not have reversed itself.  However, on October 31, 1992, Pope John Paul II proferred an acknowledgment of the errors committed by the Church tribunal that judged the scientific positions of Galileo.
One other comment:  despite secular sources which claim that Galileo was tortured for challenging the Church, history shows that he was not tortured, nor even imprisoned.

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

What about the Inquisition?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

What about the Inquisition?  Often, in a discussion on religion all that's needed is for someone to say "Well, you Catholics had the Inquisition", and that seems to be enough to put the Catholic down for the count.  How does a Catholic respond to this?  

The usual response is either an awkward silence (or a snicker from you menfolk fans of Monty Python or Mel Brooks; these apparently humorous sketches of "The Inquisition" are puzzling to us womenfolk.  Maybe my sense of humor is not sophisticated enough--I dunno.)

But, back to the question.  This is indeed an objection that is often posed to Catholics:  how could the Catholic Church, which proclaims it cannot teach error in the areas of faith and morals, be part of this infamous period of history in which the "Church killed millions"?

While even one death "at the hands of the CC" is troubling and ought not be dismissed, one ought to be quite suspicious of the wild figures that have been thrown about regarding the number of deaths. 

Case in point:  a few years ago I received an email advertisement from a Catholic friend.  As an aside, the advertisement said, "It is estimated that close to 9 million women died during the Inquisition." 

This is absurd.  9 million deaths in medieval Europe would have depopulated Europe. 

Some facts: 

• There were a few different Inquisitions. 
• The most notorious was the Spanish Inquisition.
•  Most historians agree that the number of deaths totaled no more than a few thousand, over several centuries. 
• Protestants also had Inquisitions in order to extinguish Catholic "heretics".
• There was no formal "Inquisition", run by the Vatican.  Rather, there were local "ecclesial investigations" managed by local officials.
• While these local church officials conducted the trials, the punishment was left to the secular officials.

That sinners exist in the Church, that the authority of the Church has used poor judgment, that sometimes over-zealous Catholics misunderstand the teachings of Christ--these should be acknowledged.  No one can deny that the Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints.  As Pope JPII professed, "Men of the church, in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospels in the solemn duty of defending truth."

What Catholics in authority erroneously did was to wrongly destroy heretics when it was attempting to rightly destroy heresy.

This does not change the fact that the Catholic Church is the church established by Christ to proclaim the Truth of God's revelation.

What the Church proclaims (its orthodoxy--literally, "right teaching") should not be confused with how some of its members act (its orthopraxy--literally "right practice").  That is, the Church did not ever teach that it was good to burn dissenters at the stake.  That was never part of its orthodoxy.  That Catholics did this (its orthopraxy) is a testament to the fact that the church is comprised of sinners.  And when Catholics become enmeshed with the cultural norms and ethics of society (rather than being cleaved to Christ), sin abounds in the Church.

"The crucial thing for Catholics, once they have obtained some appreciation of the history of the Inquisition, is to explain how such an institution could have been associated with a divinely established Church and why it is not proper to conclude, from the existence of the Inquisition, that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ. This is the real point at issue, and this is where any discussion should focus.

To that end, it is helpful to point out that it is easy to see how those who led the Inquisitions could think their actions were justified. The Bible itself records instances where God commanded that formal, legal inquiries—that is, inquisitions—be carried out to expose secret believers in false religions. In Deuteronomy 17:2–5 God said: "If there is found among you, within any of your towns which the Lord your God gives you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it; then you shall inquire diligently [note that phrase: "inquire diligently"], and if it is true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring forth to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones." source

So as such, Catholics in the church sin. Even the pope.  Every day.  But it remains true that the Holy Spirit has protected the Catholic Church (the Magisterium) from ever teaching error. 

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15

Why pray if God is omnipotent and omniscient?

“Love the Lord with all your heart, and with all your soul,

and with all your MIND”--Matt 22:37

Question: Why pray if God is omnipotent and omniscient? 
In other words, what's the point of prayer of petition, especially if God's will is going to be done anyway?
I've heard it said that the reason we pray is not because it changes God, but that it changes us.  I think this is a good and appropriate answer, but I also think it is incomplete.

This is from Peter Kreeft's book, "The God Who Loves Us" and I think wiser words were never written to answer this question.  He states: 

"Why pray?  Because we are commanded to.  Pascal answers, “God instituted prayer to communicate to his creatures the dignity of causality.”  If you say that we should not pray because God already knows our needs, then you must say that we should not farm or eat or read for the same reason.  God lets us really cause events and really lets us make a difference not only by physical work but also by spiritual work."

That is, in giving us the "dignity of causality" God has allowed us the supreme privilege of being able to actually cause a change in events. We are given the dignity of working (spiritually as it were, through prayer) to effect (or cause) a result, just as it is indeed a privilege to be able to do physical work (Monday mornings notwithstanding .  (Think of the spoiled and obnoxious adult who has had every single thing handed to him, never having to lift a finger.  This type of "inability to work" corrodes our humanity.  Thus, it is indeed a supreme privilege to be able to work/labor. And God has given us the dignity of being allowed to do spiritual work (i.e pray) for an effect.)

Thus, God does not miraculously produce wheat in our fields.  We must farm them in order to get our food.  And God does not miraculously produce cures in our ill.  We must pray these healings into existence and by our prayers contribute to causing a change.  "If it is foolish and impudent to ask for victory in a war (on the ground that God might be expected to know best), it would be equally foolish and impudent to put on a mackintosh - does not God know best whether you ought to be wet or dry?  The two methods by which we are allowed to produce events may be called work and prayer. Both are alike in this respect – that in both we try to produce a state of affairs which God has not (or at any rate not yet) seen fit to provide 'on HIS own'. And from this point of view the old maxim laborare est orare (work is prayer) takes on a new meaning. “What we do when we weed a field is not quite different from what we do when we pray for a good harvest."source.
An interesting corollary to this discussion arises about what God's will is and if we can "change" it through our prayer.  God, in one sense, does not and cannot "change". And all that occurs is part of His Will.  However, there's a difference between God's antecedent will, and God's consequent will.  The antecedent will is, essentially and inevitably, fulfilled.  The consequent will, however, is that which has its origins in our choices. 

For more in-depth study visit these websites:

Catholic Bible online

Catechism of the Catholic Church online

God's Will

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - 1 Peter 3:15