Priests - What For?

[Archangel]

No. You need to refresh (or start learning) your knowledge of Church history, because baptisms of infants and immature children did take place, though they weren't of the norm.

Maybe I do need to start learning Church History...but church experience does not jusift doctrine, rather the scriptures are the Word of God and our doctrine and guidlines of administration of the Body of Christ. We cannot base our practices on the what the Church has done unless it is supported by scripture.

Fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance.

Did Jesus baptise a child, or did he command us to?

Which "disciples?" What were these disciples? They were the Apostles, not just any follower but those whom God Himself ordained. They were, as Tradition holds, the very first bishops. That is why a bishop (or a priest with permission) is the only clerical order that can baptize new initiates.

Not just the apostles...but rather disciples.
Who or what is a disciple of Christ. We are all disciples of Jesus. When Jesus addressed the 11 in Matthew 28:16 he was addressing them as represtentatives of all christians [v20] until the end of the age.

Jesus' commission is to all Christians. We are all called to make disciples for Christ, leading them to salvation, baptising them in and being a Body.

False.

1) Acts of the Apostles 2:38-39 directly states that immature children (including infants) are welcome to baptism. This seals infant/child baptism.

Acts 2:38-39 does not directly state that infant baptisim is to be practiced. You made it indirectly state that. Peter says that "this promise is for you and your children". What promise? The promise of baptisim? Who promised baptism?[retorical questions]

Peter didn't promise baptisim and neither did Christ...both commanded it. Rather this promise is the promise of the Holy Spirit [v38] The whole chapter 2 of Acts is about the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on all nations [v17], the fullfillment of Joel's prophecy. The promise for the people and their children is the promise of the filling and sealing of the Holy Spirit.

"In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy" [Acts 2:17]

"And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession - to the praise of his glory" [Eph 1:13-14]

The promise for the children is the Holy Spirit...not a promise of baptisim. Baptisim is a command not a promise...the context of the children in Acts is in the context of the Holy Spirit.

2) Baptism itself is the "new circumcision" and in the Council of Carthage, in 253), directly stated that baptisms of children should wait until the eighth day after birth. Why would this apostolic Council ask that baptisms for infants wait? It implies that baptisms of children were indeed done earlier to this point in time!

Baptisim is not a "new circumcision". First of all, circumcision was a sign of physical descent from Abraham. But physical descent is no longer the issue in the NT: the issue is personal faith. Spiritual life is not passed on from parents to children - God has no grandchildren. Each must make his or her own personal decision.

Secondly, circumcision was for males only, Christian baptisim is for male and female.

Thirdly, there is no positive command in the NT to baptise babies as there was a positive command that all male Jewish babies should be circumcised. Something so important would surely have been made unmistakeable, and be repeated.

Does the scripture command the children of believers to be baptised? Read the NT from cover to cover and you'll find no such command. The teaching of Christ concerning baptisim and the examples given in the first century church make it clear that baptisim is for believers in Christ. Whatever changes were made later in church history, whatever traditions of the church, our authority must lie in the positive teaching of the Word of God itself.

And the Bible specifically shows A) Jesus saying not to hinder children to come unto him B) Whole households (including children and infants!) being baptized C) A direct command that children and infants are welcome to baptism.

Nope...no direct command...no command at all in fact!

I have already commented on Jesus' love of children, but you've called it ignorance. Are you ignorant to what I said?

As for the whole households, I took the time to look into it and to study the passages, then took the time to outline the mistake of the assumtion. Infants were not included with the whole households, and I have already explained why above...please refer back to it if you want to read it again.

3. A "believer's baptism" in those cases in Acts and in other places in Scripture needs to be looked at a lot more carefully. They all have people who were Jews who, as we already know, already believe in God! They already believed that the Messiah would come. All they needed was to be told that He was Jesus. There is no case where a Gentile received a "believer's baptism" in the Scriptures. Logic then dictates that these folks were already believers, and that they just needed a baptism to initiate themselves into the Christian faith.

There is in fact a case were a Gentile received a believers baptisim.

In Acts 10, Cornelius, a Gentile, believes in Jesus and is then filled with Holy Spirit. Upon seeing this, Peter baptises him.

Only by picking and choosing. The Jews already believed in God, thus you took those "believer's baptisms" completely out of context. The Acts of the Apostles specifically states children and infants shouldn't be withheld from baptism. Jesus said not to disallow them to come to Him. The Scripture shows whole households (the world in Greek means everyone of the house) being baptized. And, I gave you an apostolic Council's canon specifically stating that infant baptisms were normal and allowable.

The Jews already believed in God the Father, but not in Christ. You are not a believer if you do not believe in Jesus...he is the way the truth and the life. Upon belief in Jesus as their Messiah, Saviour and Lord, these people were baptised...they were baptised after Belief In Christ...so yes they were believers baptisims...not out of context... the context is the belief in Christ...not the belief in Yahweh, Father God.

Where does Acts directly say that infants should not be withheld from baptisim?

Yes...Christ loved and accepted children...but did he baptise them or command them to be baptised?

Yes the greek word means everyone in the house...but there were no children in the house...because everyone had come to believe in Jesus before baptisim...can the infant believe and accept Christ as their Saviour and understand this...you will have to debate what the age of understanding is.

All of this of course is a moot topic away from the primary one. Shall we continue on that one?

Yes...I would like to get back on track...I question why priests are the only allowed to baptise and baptise infants. I am grateful for your opinion and it has been very helpful..thank you very much.

 

[Archangel]

Actually whole households were baptised en mass, infants included...

Infant baptism is no different that infant circumcision.

Do you think that a Jewish baby can make a decission as to whether he wishes to follow the Lord, or did his parents choose to:

[size=-1]"Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." (Proverbs 22:6)[/size]


Forgive me....

Hey

I have addessed your query in the post above and the post of mine that you quoted.

Thank You

 

[Oblio]

Did Jesus baptise a child, or did he command us to?

He commanded us to baptize all nations.

Please give us Scripture that says except for children.

 

[Archangel]

Prove there are no invisible pink unicorns in your garage, or blue aliens somewhere in the universe. Take your time.

Well...ive never seen a pink unicorn...and I live in Northern Ireland..I have no garage on my house. I have never explored the universe...the highest Ive got is in a plane...and the only blue aliens were the air hostess serving me coffee.

That's your opinion and fallible interpretation of what the Scriptures say, nothing more.

My opinion definatly...but so is your post.

As for interpretation...i dont claim to be perfect...but please show me were it is fallible so i can correct myself.

 

[Archangel]

He commanded us to baptize all nations.

Please give us Scripture that says except for children.

I have not said at all that we should not baptise children have I? You are assuming that I am against the practice and that Im saying it is biblically wrong.

As a matter of fact...I am arguing that infant baptisim is not the baptisim Jesus commanded . Im not saying its wrong. It is based on traditions...fair enough.

I am saying it is not biblically based...i have shown in my past few posts that anywhere in scripture that would hint that the bible supports the practice is not actually.

I have provided scripture to show that Christ's commanded baptisim is for believers in him. Infant baptisim is not a biblical practice or Christ command.

 

[PaladinValer]

Maybe I do need to start learning Church History...but church experience does not jusift doctrine, rather the scriptures are the Word of God and our doctrine and guidlines of administration of the Body of Christ.

Historically incorrect. Church came before the Holy Canon was established. The Church was the decision-making body that decided upon the Holy Canon, as aided through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

We cannot base our practices on the what the Church has done unless it is supported by scripture.

The Church existed for roughly 400 years without any established Holy Canon. The key reason why a Canon was even set was due to heretics.

Did Jesus baptise a child, or did he command us to?

Again, same fallacy of appealing to ignorance. Repeating it doesn't change the facts.

Not just the apostles...but rather disciples.

Again, find me a non-Apostle "disciple" who baptized within the Scriptures. THERE ISN'T ONE!

Who or what is a disciple of Christ. We are all disciples of Jesus. When Jesus addressed the 11 in Matthew 28:16 he was addressing them as represtentatives of all christians [v20] until the end of the age.

Moot point due to an invaid premise.

Jesus' commission is to all Christians. We are all called to make disciples for Christ, leading them to salvation, baptising them in and being a Body.

Such a baptism would not be considered valid in any church or denomination I know (and I know of quite a few) due to its unorthodox application. It isn't a valid baptism unless it is:

1) Done by a bishop or priest with permission
2) Done in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit
3) That the candidate is immersed/poured upon/sprinked once for each Person of the Blessed Trinity
4) That they establish their baptismal vows before God, His cleric(s), and all witnesses

Unless those are done, such a baptism would be considered invalid today as it would be back in 400 CE.

Acts 2:38-39 does not directly state that infant baptisim is to be practiced. You made it indirectly state that. Peter says that "this promise is for you and your children". What promise? The promise of baptisim? Who promised baptism?[retorical questions]

Yes it does, unless of course the Holy Spirit lied to the Apostles...

Peter didn't promise baptisim and neither did Christ...both commanded it. Rather this promise is the promise of the Holy Spirit [v38] The whole chapter 2 of Acts is about the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on all nations [v17], the fullfillment of Joel's prophecy. The promise for the people and their children is the promise of the filling and sealing of the Holy Spirit.

Invalid due to a false premise.

"In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy" [Acts 2:17]

"And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession - to the praise of his glory" [Eph 1:13-14]

The promise for the children is the Holy Spirit...not a promise of baptisim. Baptisim is a command not a promise...the context of the children in Acts is in the context of the Holy Spirit.

Tell that to the Early Church, especially those Church Fathers who lived in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE who were taught by the Apostles who taught that baptism could be given to anyone and that baptism was necessary.

Baptisim is not a "new circumcision".

False. You need to learn Church history.

Secondly, circumcision was for males only, Christian baptisim is for male and female.

Straw Man.

Thirdly, there is no positive command in the NT to baptise babies as there was a positive command that all male Jewish babies should be circumcised. Something so important would surely have been made unmistakeable, and be repeated.

I've shown you a number of places as have others. I even shown you a Spirit-inspired Council. Did the Holy Spirit lie to those Councils. Are now Manicheans Christians? Are Iconoclasts Christians? Are Arians Christians. God forbid!

Nope...no direct command...no command at all in fact!

The way the Greek is put, it is in a command structure.

I have already commented on Jesus' love of children, but you've called it ignorance. Are you ignorant to what I said?

Fallacy of Equivocation. I said your reasoning was flawed because you committed a logical fallacy known as the fallacy of appealing to ignorance. If you wish to prove your arguments, you cannot use logical fallacies.

As for the whole households, I took the time to look into it and to study the passages, then took the time to outline the mistake of the assumtion. Infants were not included with the whole households, and I have already explained why above...please refer back to it if you want to read it again.

Yes, they would have. I don't have a BA in history because I looked in a few books and suddenly because an "expert." I went to college for four long years and I do know something of ancient Greek custom. A household included all.

There is in fact a case were a Gentile received a believers baptisim.

In Acts 10, Cornelius, a Gentile, believes in Jesus and is then filled with Holy Spirit. Upon seeing this, Peter baptises him.

God had already come to him however. A good point, but you forgive the whole context.

Still, it warrants a rephrase: there is no Gentile "believer's baptism" that is of his or her own desire and his or her own impluse and influence.

The Jews already believed in God the Father, but not in Christ. You are not a believer if you do not believe in Jesus...he is the way the truth and the life. Upon belief in Jesus as their Messiah, Saviour and Lord, these people were baptised...they were baptised after Belief In Christ...so yes they were believers baptisims...not out of context... the context is the belief in Christ...not the belief in Yahweh, Father God.

You forget that in the early days, Christianity was simply another sect of Judaism. Until the Christians were kicked out of the synagogues, they weren't a new faith. So a "believer" they still remain. You are using a Stran Man argument here.

Where does Acts directly say that infants should not be withheld from baptisim?

Already answered.

Yes...Christ loved and accepted children...but did he baptise them or command them to be baptised?

Jesus didn't baptize anyone. I guess then baptism isn't necessary? That'd be a fallacy of appealing to ignorance...again! So for your first fallacy of complex question's question, the answer is no, but any argument you could give about that, I just defeated in the first three sentences of this paragraph. The answer to the other half is yes.

Yes the greek word means everyone in the house...but there were no children in the house...because everyone had come to believe in Jesus before baptisim.

Cop out and invalid logic. Just because it doesn't fit your idea of what a baptism is means that no kids where there? That's another logical fallacy, this time of consequences

 

[Archangel]

Historically incorrect. Church came before the Holy Canon was established. The Church was the decision-making body that decided upon the Holy Canon, as aided through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.



The Church existed for roughly 400 years without any established Holy Canon. The key reason why a Canon was even set was due to heretics.



Again, same fallacy of appealing to ignorance. Repeating it doesn't change the facts.



Again, find me a non-Apostle "disciple" who baptized within the Scriptures. THERE ISN'T ONE!



Moot point due to an invaid premise.



Such a baptism would not be considered valid in any church or denomination I know (and I know of quite a few) due to its unorthodox application. It isn't a valid baptism unless it is:

1) Done by a bishop or priest with permission
2) Done in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit
3) That the candidate is immersed/poured upon/sprinked once for each Person of the Blessed Trinity
4) That they establish their baptismal vows before God, His cleric(s), and all witnesses

Unless those are done, such a baptism would be considered invalid today as it would be back in 400 CE.



Yes it does, unless of course the Holy Spirit lied to the Apostles...



Invalid due to a false premise.



Tell that to the Early Church, especially those Church Fathers who lived in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE who were taught by the Apostles who taught that baptism could be given to anyone and that baptism was necessary.



False. You need to learn Church history.



Straw Man.



I've shown you a number of places as have others. I even shown you a Spirit-inspired Council. Did the Holy Spirit lie to those Councils. Are now Manicheans Christians? Are Iconoclasts Christians? Are Arians Christians. God forbid!



The way the Greek is put, it is in a command structure.



Fallacy of Equivocation. I said your reasoning was flawed because you committed a logical fallacy known as the fallacy of appealing to ignorance. If you wish to prove your arguments, you cannot use logical fallacies.



Yes, they would have. I don't have a BA in history because I looked in a few books and suddenly because an "expert." I went to college for four long years and I do know something of ancient Greek custom. A household included all.



God had already come to him however. A good point, but you forgive the whole context.

Still, it warrants a rephrase: there is no Gentile "believer's baptism" that is of his or her own desire and his or her own impluse and influence.



You forget that in the early days, Christianity was simply another sect of Judaism. Until the Christians were kicked out of the synagogues, they weren't a new faith. So a "believer" they still remain. You are using a Stran Man argument here.



Already answered.



Jesus didn't baptize anyone. I guess then baptism isn't necessary? That'd be a fallacy of appealing to ignorance...again! So for your first fallacy of complex question's question, the answer is no, but any argument you could give about that, I just defeated in the first three sentences of this paragraph. The answer to the other half is yes.



Cop out and invalid logic. Just because it doesn't fit your idea of what a baptism is means that no kids where there? That's another logical fallacy, this time of consequences

A lot of my points you have waved aside probably because they dont fit into your many years of research and experience. I have provided pure bible to show that infant baptisim is not a biblical aspect and not a biblical command. I am afriad you have not shown me how i am out of context or how i am wrong biblically.

Im grateful for your views and opinions...and i feel ihave made my point. I guess we shall have to leave this topic here because i have given all the biblical answers i can to show my point. I guess when it comes to bible against tradition it can be ahard time. Personally I draw my commands and life from the bible as God's Word. I do not include experience alone to validate my views and doctrine...but in saying that you have just views to do so yourself.

Thank you very much for your time and patience. I hope my points will have been of benift to you as well, even if you still disagree with them, lol.Even though in my opinion i see your responses as unbiblical and traditionalist..they have still been of benift to me...so thank you.

 

[PaladinValer]

A lot of my points you have waved aside probably because they dont fit into your many years of research and experience.

No; it is because they are based on bad reasoning. They utilize "logical fallacies" which are always invalid. If you wish to learn about logical fallacies, go here: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

I have provided pure bible to show that infant baptisim is not a biblical aspect and not a biblical command. I am afriad you have not shown me how i am out of context or how i am wrong biblically.

I believe I and others have. You keep using the same invalid premise: that the Bible was the source for all theology. That simply is not true. How could it be when no Bible existed for nearly 400 years as we know it today?! You are left now relying on Holy Tradition, to which the Scriptures are a part of.

If you wish to think otherwise, you are, of course, welcome to that opinion. Historically however, it is just not possible, and that is why most Christians utilize Holy Tradition.

 

[Ann M]

Archangel,

You seem to base alot of your arguments around what is written in the Bible, and you argue on a Bible alone, no tradition stand point.

Whilst this is well and good, you above comments about baptising infants and households etc leave alot of logic out of it. Whilst the argument above about the making of the Bible is relevant, go closer to home.

If i were a Christian in the year 80AD what 'Bible' would I have available to me? What Books and letters would be available for me to read from (assuming I can read)? What parts of the Bible were not even written yet?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Again "Ann M" speaks wisley...

Forgive me....

 

[Leimeng]

Historically incorrect. Church came before the Holy Canon was established. The Church was the decision-making body that decided upon the Holy Canon, as aided through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

~ The Word of GOD existed before the formation of the Church. "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
~ At the same time the Jewish Canon (Old Testament) was recognized in 90 AD. The Jewish scriptures were the ones that Paul taught from before his letters became part of the Canon of scripture.

The Church existed for roughly 400 years without any established Holy Canon. The key reason why a Canon was even set was due to heretics.

~ The Word of GOD existed before the formation of the Church. "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
~ About 400 years after Christ the final recognition of the New Testament Canon was offically reconized, both in a 367 AD Easter letter of Athanasius, and at two separate Councils in 382 and 397. These were not creations of canon, but confirmation what was already recognized and accepted. The acceptance of an official canon was a very good thing for a lot of reasons, but the Scriptures that are part of the canon were valid with or without the acceptance of them as such.
~ At the same time, the usage of incense in a service was not introduced into the western churches until almost 500 years after the life of Christ. Does that mean it is not valid? It is certainly part of modern tradition that was not part of the first 400 - 500 years of the church.

Again, same fallacy of appealing to ignorance. Repeating it doesn't change the facts.

~ There is no ignorance in applying the WORD of GOD to the practices of the Church. In fact, when you ignore the WORD of GOD, the church becomes meaningless and dead. Repeating a statement is important if you ignore the content of it and try to throw it away.

,
Again find me a non-Apostle "disciple" who baptized within the Scriptures. THERE ISN'T ONE!

~ Was John the Baptist an Apostle? Who was he a disciple of? Can you tell me in the Bible where the stripes of zebras are mentioned? If they are not mentioned in the Bible, does that mean they do not exist?

Moot point due to an invaid premise.

~ The premise is completely valid. That you do not want to addess the points does not invalidate them.

Such a baptism would not be considered valid in any church or denomination I know (and I know of quite a few) due to its unorthodox application. It isn't a valid baptism unless it is:

1) Done by a bishop or priest with permission
2) Done in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit
3) That the candidate is immersed/poured upon/sprinked once for each Person of the Blessed Trinity
4) That they establish their baptismal vows before God, His cleric(s), and all witnesses

Unless those are done, such a baptism would be considered invalid today as it would be back in 400 CE.

~ We are all priests of the most High God. Since baptizo (baptise) means basically to dunk, it seems the MOST of time, barring certain circumstances, a person should be dunked. Why cleric(s)? Whose cleric(s)? (I know that true clerics belong to GOD, but who determines who is true and not?) Besides your appealing to your own tradition, is there anything to validate your views? The mormons appeal to their traditions. The various of muslim groups appeal to their traditions. Besides your own claims, what makes your traditions any more special than any other tradition?

False. You need to learn Church history.

~ I think you mean to say that you want him to learn YOUR version of church history as taught to you. Much of what is considered church history is very selective in what it mentions. A lot of it can be told from many different perspectives that both have the same validity.

Straw Man.

~ How does your not wanting to answer a question or reply to a comment make something a strawman?

Cop out and invalid logic. Just because it doesn't fit your idea of what a baptism is means that no kids where there? That's another logical fallacy, this time of consequences

~ The exact same thing could be said of you and your argument. Just because you dont like another persons idea of baptism, does not mean that YOUR idea is correct. You are using a logical fallacy to debate another persons logical fallacy.
~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

Peace,

Leimeng

Flatulo Ergo Sum ~~~

~ If an optimist fell from a ten-story building, would he yell out to his friends, "All right so far" as he passed each floor?

 

[PaladinValer]

~ The Word of GOD existed before the formation of the Church. "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

Fallacy of Equivocation. Jesus is not the Holy Bible.

~ At the same time the Jewish Canon (Old Testament) was recognized in 90 AD. The Jewish scriptures were the ones that Paul taught from before his letters became part of the Canon of scripture.

By the JEWS, not by us.

~ The Word of GOD existed before the formation of the Church. "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

Same fallacy.

~ About 400 years after Christ the final recognition of the New Testament Canon was offically reconized, both in a 367 AD Easter letter of Athanasius, and at two separate Councils in 382 and 397. These were not creations of canon, but confirmation what was already recognized and accepted. The acceptance of an official canon was a very good thing for a lot of reasons, but the Scriptures that are part of the canon were valid with or without the acceptance of them as such.

Historically false. Commonly recognized? Nonsense! The Western half didn't accept the Catholic Letter to the Hebrews to be worth beans and the Eastern half didn't accept the Revelation of St. John the Divine due to its misuse by chiliasts and other heretics! And those are just two examples.

~ At the same time, the usage of incense in a service was not introduced into the western churches until almost 500 years after the life of Christ. Does that mean it is not valid? It is certainly part of modern tradition that was not part of the first 400 - 500 years of the church.

You don't seem to understand what "apostolic" means.

Plus I'd like to see a reference.

~ There is no ignorance in applying the WORD of GOD to the practices of the Church. In fact, when you ignore the WORD of GOD, the church becomes meaningless and dead. Repeating a statement is important if you ignore the content of it and try to throw it away.

Oh good grief. Do you even know what "fallacy of appealing to ignorance" means? Fallacy of Equivocation on your part. Brush up on your logical fallacy knowledge here: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

~ Was John the Baptist an Apostle? Who was he a disciple of? Can you tell me in the Bible where the stripes of zebras are mentioned? If they are not mentioned in the Bible, does that mean they do not exist?

1. No
2. The Law of Moses
3. I was obviously implying a Christian non-Apostle. True, I should have worded it better, but common sense by the topic at hand should have been enough to figure out the context of my statement.

~ The premise is completely valid. That you do not want to addess the points does not invalidate them.

It was based on the assumption that the Spirit didn't inspire the Council of Carthage.

~ We are all priests of the most High God. Since baptizo (baptise) means basically to dunk, it seems the MOST of time, barring certain circumstances, a person should be dunked. Why cleric(s)? Whose cleric(s)? (I know that true clerics belong to GOD, but who determines who is true and not?) Besides your appealing to your own tradition, is there anything to validate your views? The mormons appeal to their traditions. The various of muslim groups appeal to their traditions. Besides your own claims, what makes your traditions any more special than any other tradition?

1. Fallacy of Equivocation. The Greek word use for "priesthood of all believers" is not the same Greek word presbyteros which is also translated as "priest."
2. Why clerics? Because the Scriptures say so.
3. God's clerics. Who determines who is cleric? The bishops with their Apostolic Succession as influenced by the Holy Spirit
4. History validates it quite thoroughly
5. Holy Scripture is a part of Holy Tradition, as Holy Tradition was consulted to decide what would be canonized to form the Holy Bible and what wouldn't.

~ I think you mean to say that you want him to learn YOUR version of church history as taught to you.

My version? Dude, I got my BA from a secular college, making my scholary training completely neutral in terms of "which denomination or church or religion for that matter is right." I learned the facts then chose accordingly.

Much of what is considered church history is very selective in what it mentions. A lot of it can be told from many different perspectives that both have the same validity.

Moot point due to a false premise.

~ How does your not wanting to answer a question or reply to a comment make something a strawman?

I have no reason to comment on a Straw Man fallacy other than to say that it is a Strawn Man. It argued a minor part of a bigger problem (and badly too).

~ The exact same thing could be said of you and your argument. Just because you dont like another persons idea of baptism, does not mean that YOUR idea is correct. You are using a logical fallacy to debate another persons logical fallacy.

My "idea of baptism" is the same one that has been handed down from bishop to bishop to bishop in a pure line from my bishop all the way to the Apostles themselves.

And what does this continued debate have to do with the original topic?