Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
William

The Baptism Debate

Recommended Posts

Staff

 

 

And a follow up from William Shishko:

 

October 19, 2006, brought a long-awaited "great debate" between Dr. James White and myself on the topic, "Resolved: The subjects of Christian baptism are only those who have personally repented and believed in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord."

 

Dr. White, pastor of a Reformed Baptist church in Phoenix, Arizona, a well-known author, and the director of Alpha Omega Ministries (a Christian apologetics organization), presented and defended the affirmative. I, as a "paedobaptist," presented and defended the negative. Dr. White and I have been friends for many years, and we approached the debate as Christian brothers and fellow servants of Christ. Many commented on that aspect of the debate. It was attended by perhaps five hundred people.

 

The purpose of this article is to reflect on this debate. We can learn from projects like this, and become better able to respond biblically to those who differ with us. (The entire debate may be downloaded from our church website, opcli.org, or it may be ordered on CD from: OPC, Franklin Square, P.O. Box 66, Franklin Square, NY 11010.)

 

All Baptists (including Reformed Baptists, who hold to the basic Calvinistic doctrines of salvation by sovereign grace) believe that the New Testament pattern is "Believe and be baptized." Infants, they say, cannot believe, and so should not be baptized. Reformed Baptists, such as James White, grasp the covenantal character of God's dealings with his people, so they make a further argument from the nature of the new covenant (see Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:7-13; 10:16-17). Because only those who "know the Lord" and have received forgiveness of sins are part of the new covenant, only they (the regenerate) are to be baptized and received as part of the Christian church. This is a more sophisticated (but no less problematic) argument for the historic Baptist view that the church is composed only of the regenerate.

 

Reformed Baptists say that Presbyterians emphasize only the continuities in God's covenantal dealings (what we call "the covenant of grace"), but do not see the discontinuities between the old and the new covenants. For Baptists, the essential discontinuity is that, in the new covenant, the church is not a "mixed multitude" of the regenerate and the unregenerate, but rather a body of those who are "truly saved," as evidenced by repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. The issue with our Baptist friends is, actually, more over the nature of the church than it is over the subjects of baptism.

 

On the surface, these arguments may seem compelling, particularly because the New Testament does speak frequently (but not exclusively) of a person believing in Christ prior to his being baptized. What is the best way to present the traditional Presbyterian and Reformed view of the subjects of baptism in response to that?

 

1. We have not helped ourselves by beginning with the Old Testament covenants, and then working to the new covenant. It is far better to start with the New Testament data and then go back to the Old Testament roots. This puts us on the same "turf" as the Baptists. We are too defensive about the New Testament! We should stop using the term "paedobaptism" (baptism of infants) and use the more biblical expression "oikobaptism" (baptism of households). The point is not that infants were baptized in the New Testament, but that whole households were baptized. There are specific references to household baptisms in the New Testament. See Acts 10; 16:15, 33; 1 Cor. 1:16 (a text which indicates that household baptisms were the norm in the apostolic age). Certainly in the missionary context of Acts, there had to be faith in new converts to Christianity before they could receive the sign and seal of Christian baptism (in the same way that Abraham received the sign and seal of circumcision only after he believed the promises of God, Rom. 4:11-12). But even as whole families were received as part of the covenant people in all previous ages, so that pattern continues in the New Testament. If, in fact, this household principle was abrogated in the new covenant, one would not expect the household formula to be used as it is in the New Testament.

 

2. It is not the case that the New Testament always speaks of a person believing before he or she is baptized. Lydia is baptized with her household, but there is no mention of each member of that household exercising faith prior to baptism (Acts 16:14-15). And in the case of the Philippian jailer and his family, the text clearly speaks only of the faith of the jailer himself. Acts 16:34b literally reads, "And he rejoiced with all his household, he having believed in God." If the discontinuity of the new covenant is that only those who personally repent and believe in Christ are to be baptized and received as part of the church, why is that not clearly indicated in a text like this?

 

3. All of God's covenants have included families. Even the major prophecies of the new covenant clearly indicate the continuance of the household as the basic unit of the people of God. See Gen. 12:3; Isa. 54:10, 13; 59:21 (the Old Testament backdrop to Acts 2:39); 61:8-9; Jer. 32:38-40; Ezek. 37:25-26; Zech. 8:5; 10:7, 9; 12:10-14; 14:17. In response to the use of the new covenant passages made by our Baptist friends, we must show that in those very passages the household principle remains as an aspect of the new covenant. If noble Christians "searched the Scriptures" (i.e., the Old Testament) to find out whether the things taught by the apostles were so (Acts 17:11), where would they have found warrant to abrogate the household principle? (I am indebted to G. I. Williamson for this significant observation.)

 

4. Baptist views cannot account for the language used of children in the New Testament. While it is true that Jesus did not baptize little children, what did he mean when he took little children and said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17)? If, as our Baptist friends say, Jesus was simply speaking of childlike faith, he could have (would have?) used an adult with childlike faith as an object lesson, but he did not. On a Baptist model, how are children regarded as part of the kingdom of heaven (the visible representation of which is the church)?

 

Children of at least one believing parent are regarded as "holy"—separated unto God (1 Cor. 7:14). How are they regarded as such on a Baptist model? It is an evasion to say that this means the children of at least one believing parent are "legitimate." Paul would not have used a term connected with covenantal holiness if he wanted to say this. (Besides, children are "legitimate" whenever they are born in the context of the marital union.)

 

On a Baptist model, how is it that children are included among "the saints" in Ephesians 6:1-3 and Colossians 3:20 (cf. Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2)? Paul gives specific instructions to husbands, wives, children, and servants because these were the basic constituents of a household in the first century. How can our Baptist friends instruct the children of their believing adults to "obey your parents in the Lord" (Eph. 6:1)? "In the Lord" does not mean that children should only obey "Christian" parents. Rather, it indicates that children should obey their parents in the context of their covenantal connection to Jesus Christ—which is signified and sealed in baptism. On a "household baptism" model, all of this makes sense. Baptist responses in any of the standard treatments are lame, at best.

 

5. Can our Baptist friends point to one church that is composed only of the regenerate? This is the Achilles heel of any Baptist view. In the new heavens and the new earth, when the new covenant will be consummated, only the elect will compose the church. Until then, even the best of Baptist churches and any other Christian church will be composed of both regenerate and unregenerate people. Hence, there are stern warnings addressed to people in the church (e.g., Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26-36). There are calls to examine ourselves, to see whether we are in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5). Paul has doubts about those in Galatia who had professed faith and been baptized, but were falling back into legalism (Gal. 4:19-20). Simon the sorcerer "believed" (outwardly) and was baptized (Acts 8:13), yet he was hardly regenerate (see Acts 8:21-23). People left the church because they never were truly a part of it (1 John 2:19). Whole churches were threatened with Christ's judgments because they had left their first love, given in to sexual immorality and false doctrine, and become lukewarm; they had the reputation of being alive, but they were dead (Rev. 2, 3). These are new covenant realities, and they are hardly the realities of a fully regenerate church!

 

6. What exactly is a Baptist theology of children, and how can it be aligned with the specific passages of the New Testament that deal with children? On a household baptism view, we can develop a coherent view of children and the church that does justice to all of the material of the Old and New Testaments. It is the inability of our Baptist friends (including Reformed Baptists) to present such a view that has caused many Baptists who have gotten a taste of covenant theology to abandon the so-called credobaptist (believer's baptism) view and become believers in household baptism.

 

One recent Baptist writer stated, "The true test for anyone's theology is this: Does it do justice to all the biblical data?" It is precisely for this reason that we maintain the baptism of whole households and the theology of God's covenant, the church, and children that undergirds the practice. In this, and in all theological debates, may we present our views graciously, unapologetically, and above all biblically!

 

The author is pastor of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Franklin Square, N.Y. He quotes the NKJV. Reprinted from New Horizons, March 2008. Source

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The Baptist view is indefensible, other than the lack of explicit examples of infant baptism in the Bible. That's really their whole case. But, the implicit case for infant baptism is strong.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
The Baptist view is indefensible, other than the lack of explicit examples of infant baptism in the Bible. That's really their whole case. But, the implicit case for infant baptism is strong.

 

I understand what Bill Shishko is advising, to stop avoiding the NT. Though I think it really simple.

 

Was there an OT Covenant?

Was there a sign seal and mark for the OT Covenant?

Were children recipients?

Is there a NT Covenant?

Is there a sign seal and mark for the NT Covenant?

Are children recipients?

 

If no, explain from Scripture why or why not children are better off under the OT Covenant rather than the NT Covenant.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post

The early church was composed mostly of jewish converts. How could they not have thought of baptism as analogous to circumcision? So much so that there would be no reason to explicitly say infants raised Christian should be baptized. If infants weren't to be baptized, that would be something that would needed to be said, especially given the teaching of households being baptized.

 

Baptists misunderstand baptism. They believe it to be window dressing upon the first confession of faith. But, it's a symbol of a covenant relationship, exactly as circumcision. Christians do not raise their children as non-believers, waiting for the day their children choose to convert to Christianity, at which time the children would be baptized as the examples of converts in the NT. Christians raise their children as Christians, just as OT Jews raised their children as Jews.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Christians raise their children as Christians, just as OT Jews raised their children as Jews.

 

 

Some do some do not, some did some did not. Baptism does not help per se, circumcision did not help per se. But circumcision is still good for your and your wife's health (if not wealth, if you are a Jew - this is self irony :)).

Share this post


Link to post
The early church was composed mostly of jewish converts. How could they not have thought of baptism as analogous to circumcision? So much so that there would be no reason to explicitly say infants raised Christian should be baptized. If infants weren't to be baptized, that would be something that would needed to be said, especially given the teaching of households being baptized.

 

Baptists misunderstand baptism. They believe it to be window dressing upon the first confession of faith. But, it's a symbol of a covenant relationship, exactly as circumcision. Christians do not raise their children as non-believers, waiting for the day their children choose to convert to Christianity, at which time the children would be baptized as the examples of converts in the NT. Christians raise their children as Christians, just as OT Jews raised their children as Jews.

 

 

Well said. Modern Christians often forget how radical it was "to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." The first believers were basically being told to leave behind the old Jewish Covenant way of getting right with God, and follow this man, Jesus, who they knew of and many had seen. Jesus was being declared as The Way, in fact, the only way to the Father. So being baptized in the name of Jesus (or the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) was even more controversial back in the day (in fact, as we know, many followers of Christ were put to death for this proclaimation of the supremacy of The Way).

 

What started as a beautiful representation of a thing that had already taken place, became an obligation. I even have heard people speak of being immersed in front of the congregation as an act of humility. So the person must suffer somewhat to get into the club? That's ridiculous! Recorded in the new Testament were people overjoyed to be baptized.

 

One of the first to enter into heaven through believe in Christ was the criminal who perished along side of Christ. This man's hands were secured to a hunk of wood, never to be able to complete any act of obedience or kindness. He even chided the other man who was mocking Christ, by stating "... we deserve to be here.." He admitted that he deserved to die a horrible and painful death, birds at the ready to pick his flesh, ... a slow an agonizing death. What in the world did he do!? It must have been bad. But this man was with Christ that day in Paradise! What an honor! For what .... for the acknowledgement of Jesus as the Christ. You'll note, he didn't even ask to be forgiven ... And he surely wasn't sprinkled or immersed.

 

While Christian's may feel that being baptized is a washing or cleansing, I see it (as others have) as a "total immersion." When something is totally immersed in a thing, it takes on that thing, intimately.

 

Baptizo: “Bapto is the basic verb. It means ‘to dip in’ or ‘to dip under.’ It is often used of dipping fabric in a dye. Baptizo is an intensive form of bapto. From early times it was used in the sense of immersing” (Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, Lawrence O. Richards, pp. 100-101).

 

If you have a white cloth, and you Bapize it into red dye. You don't have white cloth anymore. It is forever identified as a red cloth.

 

We are a new creation, baptized into Jesus Christ, forever changed. We're baptized into Christ not by an outward act, but by an inward accepting of the Truth and a calling upon the name of the Lord for salvation

 

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Romans 10:13

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Best arguments for Covenant/Household Baptism

      Really short version by JTB.SDG:   1) The covenant promises to Abraham were about salvation in the fullest sense (Gen.17:7-8; NT scripture). "...to be God to you and to your descendants after you." This is the essence of God's covenant with Abraham; and if you get this, everything else falls into place (below).   2) The covenant promises were made not only to Abraham but also to his offspring (Gen.17:7-8). "I will be God" --not just to Abraham--But: "to you and to your descendants after you. . .I will be their God." The exact same promise that is made to Abraham is equally made to his descendants.   3) The covenant sign of circumcision was given to Abraham as a sign of THAT salvation. The sign of the covenant represents what the covenant is. If the covenant is about salvation, the sign is about salvation. This means that circumcision wasn't actually an ethnic or national sign--it was a spiritual sign. a) Abraham was marked with circumcision to signify his faith only after he believed (Rom.4:11). True. So why infant baptism? Abraham believed FIRST, and then and only then did he receive the sign.   b) Because he was then to apply that same sign to his infant sons before belief was possible (Gen.17:7-8). The exact same sign that he only received AFTER believing, he was to mark his infant sons with at 8 days old. It's what God commanded. Adult-circumcision for Abraham; but infant circumcision for his sons.       4) New Testament believers have entered into the SAME covenant promises made to Abraham (Rom.11:17 makes it clear there was not an OT tree and separate NT tree, but we are grafted into the same tree begun with Abraham). Galatians 3 and other Scripture make it really clear that the promises made to Abraham are GOSPEL promises that extend also to us as NT believers. Our only hope as NT believers are the covenant promises made to Abraham.   5) The NT Scriptures confirm that those covenant promises still extend to our children (Acts 2:39; household baptisms in the NT; and think about 1Cor.7:14--children of believers are "holy"--in what sense? Are they automatically saved? No. In the sense that they are "set apart" from unbelieving children. How set apart? They are part of the covenant--the same pattern as OT children).   6) THUS, our infant children should continue to be marked with the covenant sign.   IMPORTANT CLARIFICATIONS:   7) This doesn't mean that all Abraham's children (or ours) will be saved: this is by faith alone (cf. Ishmael, Esau; Rom.9:6-8, etc).   8) But it does mean that our children are included in the covenant and should receive the sign.   So--a question for you--I would love to hear. What about this would you object to?

      in Covenant/Household Baptism

    • Baptism and Circumcision According to Colossians 2:11–12

      What follows is taken from a larger essay, “A Contemporary Reformed Defense of Infant Baptism:”   What is the Connection Between Circumcision and Baptism?   The connection between baptism and circumcision is quite clear in Colossians 2:11–12. The connection is not direct, but indirect and the point of contact between them is Christ and baptism is the sign and seal of that circumcision. In v.11 Paul says “in him [i.e. in Christ] you were also circumcised with the circumcision done by Christ” and in v.12 he says exactly how it is that we were circumcised in and by Christ: “having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith….” For Paul, in the New covenant, our union with Christ is our circumcision. In baptism, we are identified with Christ’s baptism/circumcision, as it were, on the cross. Neither baptism nor circumcision effects this union (ex opere operato), rather God the Spirit unites us to Christ, makes us alive and gives us faith.   The point not to be missed is that, in Paul’s mind, baptism and circumcision are both signs and seals of Christ’s baptism/circumcision on the cross for us. By faith, we are united to Christ’s circumcision and by union with Christ we become participants in his circumcision/baptism. Because circumcision pointed forward to Christ’s death and baptism looks back to Christ’s death, they are closely linked in Paul’s mind and almost interchangeable. Paul’s point here is to teach us about our union with Christ, but along the way we see how he thinks about baptism and circumcision and his thinking should inform ours.   One of the reasons that Paul so strongly opposed the imposition of circumcision upon Christians by the Judaizers is that, by faith, we have already been circumcised in Christ, of which baptism is the sign and seal. We were already identified as belonging to God and we have undergone the curse in Christ. So actual physical circumcision is, in the new covenant, unnecessary. Paul tells those who wish to circumcise themselves, to go the whole way and emasculate themselves.   Acts 2:38, 39 also links circumcision and baptism. In Acts 2:38 the Apostle Peter calls for repentance, faith in Christ and baptism by Jews who are hearing his preaching. In v.39 he gives the reason for this action: “the promise is to you and to your children, and all who are far off….” The Apostle Peter consciously uses the same formula in his preaching as the LORD himself used when he instituted the sign of circumcision in Genesis 17, which the Jews listening understood precisely.   What are the Relations Between Faith and Circumcision?   Romans 4:1–8, 13–25 teaches that Abraham was justified by grace alone, through faith alone and not by works and yet God required that Abraham take the sign (mark) of circumcision. Romans 4:11 says that circumcision was a sign and a seal of “the righteousness that he (Abraham) had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.” Circumcision was a sign of God’s covenantal relationship to Abraham and to Abraham’s children, all who believe in Christ. The meaning of circumcision was spiritual and not just outward. Circumcision as a sign of faith and entrance into the covenant people as a member was also applied to children.   What is the Relationship Between Faith and Baptism?   Acts 2:38, 39 says, Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins may be forgiven and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and for your children and for many who are-for all whom the Lord our God will call. For adult converts, baptism is a sign of what Christ has done for them, forgiven them and washed them. Adult converts are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Forgiveness is through faith in Christ. Baptism is a sign of our new standing with God through faith. Notice, v.39 “The promise (of salvation to those who believe) is for you and for your children.” Our faith is in the Christ who died for us. Like circumcision, baptism is a sign of being united to him in his death by faith. Peter says that the flood waters of Noah symbolize baptism, because baptism is a sign of dying to sin, the washing away of sin by Christ’s blood, and living by faith in Christ.   Everyone, (adults and children), who has been baptized must be united by faith to Christ for salvation. Unbaptized, adult converts, profess their faith before baptism. Children of believers who received the sign in infancy profess their faith as soon as they are able. Both are responsible before God to be faithful to the grace represented by the sign and seal they have received.   That, however, has always been true. No one has ever been accepted by God except by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Christ and his benefits were illustrated by a forward-looking sign and seal under Abraham, Moses, David, and the prophets. In Christ the fulfillment has come and we no longer have need of the bloody illustration. It has been fulfilled and replaced by an unbloody, sign and seal that looks back to Christ’s finished work. The promise that God made to Abraham, however, is explicitly repeated in the New Covenant by the Apostle Peter. Therefore that promise (the promise is to you and to your children) does not belong to the illustration (Abraham, Moses et al) only. Rather, the promise is also part of the covenant of grace. The administration of the promise included adults and children under Abraham and, according to Peter, it includes them in the New Covenant as well. This is why the Apostle Paul links circumcision and baptism via Christ’s death.

      in Covenant/Household Baptism

    • Five elements of water baptism in the bible

      1 The baptist should baptize the believer in the name of Jesus but not in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The name of Father, Son and the Holy Spirit is Jesus. Jesus is the only God dwelling in the world and appearing to human in flesh. Jesus has flesh body and die in cross for our sin. The sinless lamb became a sacrifice on Passover for saving human’s life. He burdens our sin and takes over the punishment of death. Then we may gain the salvation by the faith in Jesus. Peter said in Acts 2:38 “ Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. In Acts 10:48 “ So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.”   2 The water baptism can only be conducted in living water like river, sea or lake. Water baptism conducted in pool is sin. “ My people have committed two sins: They have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own pools, broken pools that cannot hold water.” Jeremiah 2:13.  Jesus set an example for us who was baptized by John Baptist in Jordan river. John Baptist also baptized others in River called Aenon. Baptism in living water also indicates Jesus is living water of our life. “On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin the impurity.” Zechariah 13:1.   3 The water baptism in bile is full immersion. The Greek word from which we get the word baptism is “baptizo”, which literally means “to immerse”.  All water baptisms in scripture were by full immersion.  Jesus was water baptized by being fully immersed in the water and rising out of it. (Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:10, Acts 8:38-39). Full immersion means we die together with Jesus.  “ Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death” Roman 6:3. Submersion in the water symbolizes the death and burial while raising out of the water is a picture how Jesus raised us and gave us a fresh start in life. Sprinkling or any other ways of baptism were not matching the scriptures of bible.   4 When receiving water baptism, the believer should bow his head. Water baptism means die with Jesus. In Roman 6:4-5” We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death.  For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his.” What is the shape of Jesus when he die in cross? John 19:30 “When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “ It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” It is also a sinner’s altitude to bow the head.   5 The baptist must be baptized with the Holy Spirit before baptizing others. John 20:22-23 “ And with that he breather on them and said, receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” It is Holy Spirit forgiving sin. People without being baptized with the Holy Spirit cannot forgive sins. Only the ones who have been baptized with the Holy Spirit can baptize others with the function of washing up sin. Water baptism has water, Jesus blood and Holy Spirit. 1 John 5:6-8 “ This is the one who came by water and blood- Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”

      in Baptism

    • Death of Missionary Sparks Debate over Mission Work

      Some call him a martyr. Others call him a colonialist. A few just call him tragically misguided. Almost everyone, it seems, has an opinion about John Allen Chau. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • The Lord’s Supper in Pill Form? New Product Sparks Debate

      A Colorado woman is selling the elements of communion in two pills -- matzo bread powder in one pill and red wine extract in the other -- and sparking debate over the definition of the Lord’s Supper. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.