I'm re-reading most of the book as I progress, because it's very fruitful for me to refer to some Bible verses as Steve cites them. The footnotes especially, are very important to me. I'm learning so very much about the origins of the Christian Faith in the Catholic Church.

If I started to summarize what I've learned, I'd write too much here. All I can say is that I highly recommend study of this book. You will be very glad to be a Catholic, and, if you are a Protestant Evangelical, you will doubt your denomination after you read and study Steve's book.

There's no point in trying to argue with a Baptist or Fundamentalist Evangelical. If you point out that all of the early records demonstrate that the Catholic position on Baptism was held as early as 130 AD, they will argue that the Catholic Church destroyed all of the records of the non Catholic Early Church supporting the Baptist view. If you point out that Roman Catholicm's doctrines and tenets are apparent as early as 130 AD, the Baptist will argue that the Catholic Church had already gone astray by then and that the Apostles taught the Baptist Church's doctrines. Of course, the anti-Catholic's arguments are ridiculous, but, what do we expect of them? Any Baptist Pastor that admits that his faith is wrong will lose his job and his ability to earn a living as a Baptist Pastor, so, they will make any ridiculous argument to maintain their Pastorship.

But, make no mistake - any honest and thorough study of the historical records of ancient Christians and their Church is a study of the Roman Catholic faith as handed down from the Apostles for over 2.000 years.

Welcome! I am glad to hear you are enjoying the book. Steve Ray has put out many things that are useful. I personally enjoy his Footprints of God video series particularly.

I should let you know that while it still says "hosted by Steve Ray" in the upper left hand corner he gave the board over to Ave Maria Radio some time ago and no longer is involved here. We are still happy to discuss his books or other things you find interesting, of course.

Hello Mr. Champagne,

I hope you are well. I too have the book and have read it. Baptism is a fascinating topic to study.

I'm curious, when you said: "the Catholic position on Baptism was held as early as 130 AD"

What is the significance of that date? The book begins with the Didache, then lists Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr. There's a footnote that speaks to Justin's conversion in the year 130 AD but other than that, the dates for the other accounts are before or after this...just trying to understand why you specifically mentioned this date.

The very first text mentioned, the Didache (usually dated to around the turn of the 2nd century), says this:

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.viii.i.iii.html

"Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then 'baptize' in running water, 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.' If you do not have running water, baptize in some other. If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the head three times 'in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.' Before the baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand."

I've always had a hard time picturing parents not feeding their newborn infants for 1-2 days, then immersing them in a cold river. Affusion and warm water seem to be considered exceptions, perhaps in a place like the Syrian desert where there wasn't much water. On the other hand, there does not seem to be a similar exception made for fasting, as there is for mode and medium. It is the only one of the instructions that uses the word "must," though. It's also always intrigued me that the title of the Didache is: "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" which seems to imply this was a widely used instruction, rather than the opinion of a single author. Thoughts?

Immersion baptism was avoided by the church in cold environments (The Eastern Churches would only pour over the head for sure for this very reason) As for making an infant fast I've never heard of that as it would be pointless and only harmful. I don't get that conclusion from the Didache' either.

There are many disciplines which have come and gone in the Church. For example, we used to fast for hours prior to communion; now its only one hour.

That fasting was required before baptism is simply a discipline that is no longer required.

Why the changes in disciplines?

Because the Holy Ghost guides the Church and He knows what's best for people's conversation and salvation. Strict disciplines might have been needed at that time given the still strong influence of Judaism on the early Christians. The earliest Jewish converts might have struggled with accepting a faith that required much less rigor and therefore, thought Christianity wasn't the truth and wouldn't convert (or would revert).

I'm merely speculating here, but you get the idea.

Trust the Church.