Debating CoC preacher about Infant Baptism

[NotWorthy]

Why some people think infants can’t be baptized is a problem for which I have never heard a satisfactory scriptural answer. Has anyone?

It’s actually a problem that often comes from another heresy - Once Saved Always Saved.

If Baptism is linked to being saved, and once one is saved, they are always saved, then it stands to reason that an infant can’t be baptized, since they never made the choice. They view it as Catholics trying to use a “get out of jail free” card.

Hence, you can argue til your blue in the face, and still your trying to stick a square peg into their round hole.

 

[Michael19682]

It’s actually a problem that often comes from another heresy - Once Saved Always Saved.

If Baptism is linked to being saved, and once one is saved, they are always saved, then it stands to reason that an infant can’t be baptized, since they never made the choice. They view it as Catholics trying to use a “get out of jail free” card.

Hence, you can argue til your blue in the face, and still your trying to stick a square peg into their round hole.

May I ask if John 15:16 helps out the heretics? I.e. We didn’t choose Christ, he chose us. No one chooses his salvation; it’s God’s work and our continual compliance. If an adult doesn’t choose, how much less an infant? Is there anything in it, or are we still blue in the face?

 

[jcrichton]

Acts does record that Peter baptised Cornelius and his household, those who spoke in tongues.
Acts 10:44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,
47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
Notice it records the Spirit fell on those who heard the word, infants can’t understand what we are saying. Now it is possible for very young children to understand the Gospel, a friend of mine recently baptized his 6-year-old son. In addition, those who received the Spirit began talking in tongues and babies can’t speak. Just to clarify, talking in tongues is not insensible babbling, it is talking in a language unknown to the speaker. I have never heard of an infant speaking in tongues. If an early church infant had spoken in tongues I think it would have to have been recorded as a miracle, no less amazing than a healed leper or restored paralytic.
Acts also records Paul preaching to and baptising households, as in chapter 16 with Lydia. However Paul went on to write verses like these.
Romans 10:17 No one can have faith without hearing the message about Christ.
Galatians 3:2 I want to know only one thing. How were you given God’s Spirit? Was it by obeying the Law of Moses or by hearing about Christ and having faith in him?

Just to show that I’m not anti-Catholic, here is a selection from the Didache.
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism.
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
Notice the command for the baptized to fast a day or two before baptism, clearly not intended for infants. Also note that water poured on the head is a last resort, which makes me think early church baptisms were by immersion.
There are many more passage of Scripture that lead me to believe that conversion and baptism must be made by informed, older children. I’ve posted them many times on CAF so if you would like to hear my rationale feel free to pm me.

…yet you have no problem with the dance rutine… if there’s nothing else use club soda ir no club soda, sprite, if no sprite, cream soda… the fact of the matter is that Scriptures do attest to the Baptizing of whole household and Infant Baptism is evident from Church and historical records… as far as understanding, who is to judge to whom the Holy Spirit will reach… how old was John the Baptist when Jesus came to visit his household?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Yes. Thank you and point well taken as very direct.

Also,

Strangely, these many CoC types argue vehemently that infant baptisms “don’t count.” They ignore Ephesians 4:5. “One lord, one faith, one baptism.” and try to use the “doesn’t count” accusation to invite conversion to their own church. I commiserate with anyone trying to debate with such an argument.

Why some people think infants can’t be baptized is a problem for which I have never heard a satisfactory scriptural answer. Has anyone?

…nor is there found a formula, in Scriptures, where the “correct” age of a child/person to be Baptized is given!

If we were to follow that same reasoning (awaiting for the person to reason out his/her Salvation) we would have a world full of innept and immature simpletons running every aspect of our existence… oh, wait, we already have that in many of the world’s governmental bodies!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Jerry-Jet]

What part of “entire households” does the Church of christ preacher NOT understand?

Can’t he read the bible.

If the bible says that “entire households were baptized” what gives him the right or authority to say that that does not include infants?

The Holy Spirit for centuries until the Protestants came along led the Catholic church iunto teaching that infants were included.

Can he PROVE that the Catholic Church for all those centuries was lying about what the holy spirit was telling it?

Can he give proof of his church–the Church of Christ existing for all those centuries and teaching that infants weren’t included?

Exactly when does the church of christ interpret the bible literally and when does it MAKE it up to suit its Protestant theology.

Here’s a clue–if it believes in grape juice–not wine–and certainly NOT the blood of Jesus as taught by Jesus then you have your answer!

There’s no reasoning with such an inconsistent and narrow mind.

 

[jcrichton]

What part of “entire households” does the Church of christ preacher NOT understand?

Can’t he read the bible.

If the bible says that “entire households were baptized” what gives him the right or authority to say that that does not include infants?

The Holy Spirit for centuries until the Protestants came along led the Catholic church iunto teaching that infants were included.

Can he PROVE that the Catholic Church for all those centuries was lying about what the holy spirit was telling it?

Can he give proof of his church–the Church of Christ existing for all those centuries and teaching that infants weren’t included?

Exactly when does the church of christ interpret the bible literally and when does it MAKE it up to suit its Protestant theology.

Here’s a clue–if it believes in grape juice–not wine–and certainly NOT the blood of Jesus as taught by Jesus then you have your answer!

There’s no reasoning with such an inconsistent and narrow mind.

I think that the major problem that many non-Catholic Christians have is that they subscribe to a fallacy that reasons like this: “…if it is taught by the Catholic Church it must be challanged, ignored or maligned!”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[NotWorthy]

What part of “entire households” does the Church of christ preacher NOT understand?

Can’t he read the bible.

For a proof of this statement, ask him what did Jesus turn the water into at the wedding in Cana (in John’s Gospel). Down here in Texas, because of their belief that ALL alchohol consumption is sinful, they believe that Jesus turned the water into grape juice.

Its become quite convenient to interpret the bible according to your beliefs.

 

[stevekehl]

Ah, jc and NotWorthy, we meet again. How were your summers? I hope they were great. I think we have dsebated this enough for you to know that I would never tell anyone they weren’t a Christian because they were baptised as an infant, however, I’m pretty sure thee are a lot of Catholics who would say that my baptism wasn’t valid because I wasn’t baptised by a priest with blessed water under the auspices of the Catholic Church. There are a couple of Catholics who attend out Christian Church and take communion every week (by the way, I like the kneeling before entering the pew). But the church would say their worship is invalid because there is no priest there to initiate the real presence. Two Catholics who have attended our church for a while were baptized by immersion because they felt it was the right thing to do. Would the church condemn them as heretics? The op asked about Protestants reasoning for their beliefs about baptism, I gave them. They are based on Scriptural study. You say whole households would include infants, how do we know the ages of the household members? Corneleus was a high official, probably not a young man, Lydia was a merchant, unusual for a woman unless widowed or unmarried, the Roman jailer was preparing to kill himself after the earthquake opened the jail doors, not really the act of a man with young children.

jc, did you refer to the instructions of the Didache as a dance routine? Aren’t those part of the traditions your church reveres? I was merely making the point that the early Church saw pouring water on the head for baptism as a last resort, implying that immersion should be done unless absolutely impossible. Along with fasting which would suggest someone old enough to comprehend its meaning and nessecity.
No there is no formula for when to get baptized. A friend’s son recently was baptized at 6 years old, my daughter at 9 and myself at 11. On the other hand a friend was baptized at 78. If you’re suggesting that John was saved while still in the womb, I think your own church would have a problem with that.
In closing, wine or grape juice, who cares?

 

[NotWorthy]

Ah, jc and NotWorthy, we meet again. How were your summers? I hope they were great. I think we have dsebated this enough for you to know that I would never tell anyone they weren’t a Christian because they were baptised as an infant, however, I’m pretty sure thee are a lot of Catholics who would say that my baptism wasn’t valid because I wasn’t baptised by a priest with blessed water under the auspices of the Catholic Church.

Yes, Steve, I absolutely DO believe that you would never TELL anyone that they weren’t Christian. And yes, I’m picking with you. I also believe that you wouldn’t think someone wasn’t Christian simply because they were baptized as an infant. However, there are many faiths that TEACH this. A relative of mine who was baptized as an infant was recently baptized into the Baptist faith. What does that tell you about the teaching of the Baptists?

Also, a Catholic could tell you that your baptism wasn’t valid since it wasn’t by a priest… but they would be wrong. The official teaching of the Church is that any Baptism done with the Trinitarian formula and with water is as valid if done by a lay person, or Protestant preacher, as if done by a priest. There is no extra benefit to have a priest do it.

There are a couple of Catholics who attend out Christian Church and take communion every week (by the way, I like the kneeling before entering the pew). But the church would say their worship is invalid because there is no priest there to initiate the real presence. Two Catholics who have attended our church for a while were baptized by immersion because they felt it was the right thing to do. Would the church condemn them as heretics? The op asked about Protestants reasoning for their beliefs about baptism, I gave them. They are based on Scriptural study. You say whole households would include infants, how do we know the ages of the household members? Corneleus was a high official, probably not a young man, Lydia was a merchant, unusual for a woman unless widowed or unmarried, the Roman jailer was preparing to kill himself after the earthquake opened the jail doors, not really the act of a man with young children.

Then why was the word “household” used? The jailor knew his life was over once the authorities found out he lost his prisoners. He was going to be killed, probably in a public and painful manner, as a lesson to other jailors. Simply read an historical account of Roman justice and you will see that I’m right on that.

But, then again, “households” did NOT include just one’s immediate family. Any slaves, which a Roman centurion would most likely have, would be included as well as their families. Any servants, which a wealthy merchant like Lydia would most certainly need in her endeavors, would be included in her household as well as their families.

And, last but certainly not least, the Early Church immediately adopted the custom. They understood firsthand what “households meant”.

Regarding your communion service. Your preacher probably doesn’t say there is a Sacrifice going on, and that the bread changes into Jesus’ Body. He’s probably just calling it a “memorial service” or something like that. I say, “that’s your business”. Does the priest call it a “Sacrificial meal”? I don’t think so. Who offers up a sacrifice other than a priest?

It’s not the Eucharist, which has been celebrated by Christians for 2000 years.

jc, did you refer to the instructions of the Didache as a dance routine? Aren’t those part of the traditions your church reveres? I was merely making the point that the early Church saw pouring water on the head for baptism as a last resort, implying that immersion should be done unless absolutely impossible. Along with fasting which would suggest someone old enough to comprehend its meaning and nessecity.

I’ll let jc answer most of this, but the early Church wanted “running water”. We don’t center our civilizations around “running water” like the early Church was forced to do.

With that said, Steve, I’d like to reiterate… you have been most ecumenical (translate as “thoughtful and respectful”) in your responses. I admire that greatly, my brother!

 

[Jack_Bauer]

Not to bust your chops, Steve, but you know that I’m correct when I say what I’m about to say. Your faith teaches that that there is only one way to baptize, full submersion and a believer. Infant baptism is not accepted in your faith. So that means you are in dissent of your own faith. Having several preachers, deacons and elder in my family is how I know this. I too was planning on becoming a preacher…i.e. until I started reading the real history of the Church that those from your faith rarely read even just a little bit of it. When you read “The Eternal Kingdom,” a Church of Christ book, you can clearly see that even Clement of Rome is considered the first of the beginning of apostates. None of it makes a lick of sense in light of historical history… That means truth in history, not the made up kind taught by many fundamentalists.

I’m glad that you don’t reject others that consider themselves Christian as being Christian. However, I just want to point out the fact that you would be considered apostate in the Churches of Christ. Is that not true? Answer carefully.

 

[stevekehl]

Not to bust your chops, Steve, but you know that I’m correct when I say what I’m about to say. Your faith teaches that that there is only one way to baptize, full submersion and a believer. Infant baptism is not accepted in your faith. So that means you are in dissent of your own faith. Having several preachers, deacons and elder in my family is how I know this. I too was planning on becoming a preacher…i.e. until I started reading the real history of the Church that those from your faith rarely read even just a little bit of it. When you read “The Eternal Kingdom,” a Church of Christ book, you can clearly see that even Clement of Rome is considered the first of the beginning of apostates. None of it makes a lick of sense in light of historical history… That means truth in history, not the made up kind taught by many fundamentalists.

I’m glad that you don’t reject others that consider themselves Christian as being Christian. However, I just want to point out the fact that you would be considered apostate in the Churches of Christ. Is that not true? Answer carefully.

I’m a dissenter from legalism that has crept into the COC over time. There are COC churches that preach unless you are a member of the COC you aren’t saved. There are COC churches that teach you will go to hell if the congregation sings to music, there are COC churches that teach if you are non-instrumental you are lost. There are these things and more in COC congregations and in other denominations as well.
Now, to get to the meat of your inquiry. If someone asked for their infant to be baptized at our church we wouldn’t do that. We would explain gently and point to Scriptural backing of what we believe. If an unbeliever started attending our church and asked about how to become a Christian we would explain the five step process toward salvation, hearing, believing (having faiith), repenting, confessing Christ as Savior, and being baptized, again refering to Scripture to back up our doctrine.
If someone comes to our church and says they are a Christian we accept that. There’s no quiz or application process. If someone wants to become a member of our church we require baptism by immersion, however, that’s not a requirement to worship with us, take communion, participate in church functions, etc… I’ve been attending Howard Christian Church for 15 years and we’ve had Weslyans, Calvinists, Catholics, Presbyterians and a Jehovah’s Witness join our church. We didn’t attract these people by insisting they weren’t saved when they started attending and demanding they be baptized by immersion. Protestans love to quote Paul, so here is a guiding principle I try to follow.
Romans 14:17 God’s kingdom isn’t about eating and drinking. It is about pleasing God, about living in peace, and about true happiness. All this comes from the Holy Spirit.18 If you serve Christ in this way, you will please God and be respected by people. 19 We should try to live at peace and help each other have a strong faith.
When debating someone with a strong faith on matters of doctrine and Scripture I will be gracious but firm in my beliefs’s. If something I do damages someone’s growing faith I have harmed God’s kingdom, that is too high a price to “prove I’m right.”

 

[jcrichton]

… however, I’m pretty sure thee are a lot of Catholics who would say that my baptism wasn’t valid because I wasn’t baptised by a priest with blessed water under the auspices of the Catholic Church.

…they could be wrong since the Catholic Church Teaches as St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles that there is but One Baptism!

The question lies in the manner in which you were Baptized… if your Baptism was that of “show” or Sacrament… consider too that many non-Catholic cultures are self-proclaimed and there has not been a direct connection with the original Church as they lack Succession of the Apostles and their origins may well have been out of the ashes of a rivalry with other members of yet other self-proclaimed culture/s.

There are a couple of Catholics who attend out Christian Church and take communion every week (by the way, I like the kneeling before entering the pew). But the church would say their worship is invalid because there is no priest there to initiate the real presence. Two Catholics who have attended our church for a while were baptized by immersion because they felt it was the right thing to do. Would the church condemn them as heretics?

You are correct–a mere symbolic gesture does not comply with the Sacrament of the Eucharist; braking bread with buds and drinking some juice to remember that the Word Became Incarnate is a mere shadow of the Presence of Christ as He instituted the Eucharist and the Apostles Commemorated in Worship!

…as for “Catholics” who follow the culture/s of non-Catholic Christians I liken them to those who determine on their own what facets of Worship they follow (supposedly according to their conscience) and what precepts they reject as members of the Mythical Body of Christ (the Church)… they are quick to acquiesce to cultural norms (abortion, the pill, divorce, symbolic values…) while just as quick to reject any Catholic Teaching that demands obedience to Christ and His Church.

The op asked about Protestants reasoning for their beliefs about baptism, I gave them. They are based on Scriptural study. You say whole households would include infants, how do we know the ages of the household members? Corneleus was a high official, probably not a young man, Lydia was a merchant, unusual for a woman unless widowed or unmarried, the Roman jailer was preparing to kill himself after the earthquake opened the jail doors, not really the act of a man with young children.

…Scriptural studies do not factor in the Church’s nearly 2000 years of history (unless is on selective material that seem to agree with the cultural/person personal belief) and is mostly based on denominational/cultural biases, which, I suspect, are based on that ole credo: “nothing Catholic or resemblimg Catholic…”

(i.e.: Yahweh vs. Jehovah)

…I was merely making the point that the early Church saw pouring water on the head for baptism as a last resort, implying that immersion should be done unless absolutely impossible. Along with fasting which would suggest someone old enough to comprehend its meaning and nessecity.

…but that has not been the practice of the Church since antiquity! The Church is organic: it evolves; the Doctrine has evolved to fight the herecies throught the Church’s two millenium… yet, Doctrine did not evolved only to fight heresies but also to provide better understanding and uniformity: One Gospel, One Spirit, One Baptism, One Faith, One Lord, One God…

Those who seek “Scriptural only” fail to observe Scriptures when they do not conform to the individual/sectarian pronouncements/beliefs.

In closing, wine or grape juice, who cares?

Who cares? If you can render Scriptures void because your personal/sectarian belief is that consumption of coffee/alcohol is sin, why can’t another person/sect not define that the Word is not God but a god subordinate to a head-God or a person/sect that determines that the Old Testament only applies to Jews or one that prescribes to an evil Old Testament God (YHWH) Who is distinct and contrary to the New Testament God Yeshua?

…that “who cares” position allows “Scriptural only” to be twisted and abused according to the personal/sectarian indoctrination received or being taught!

 

[stevekehl]

…they could be wrong since the Catholic Church Teaches as St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles that there is but One Baptism!
The question lies in the manner in which you were Baptized… if your Baptism was that of “show” or Sacrament… consider too that many non-Catholic cultures are self-proclaimed and there has not been a direct connection with the original Church as they lack Succession of the Apostles and their origins may well have been out of the ashes of a rivalry with other members of yet other self-proclaimed culture/s.

Now you’ve said there is only one baptism and you’ve said there are different baptisms.
You consider a proper baptism to be conducted by a church with apostalic succession, which would be the Catholic or Orthodox churches, so I was correct in my assertion that
Cathoilics view my baptism is invalid because it was not conducted by a priest under the authority of the CC. Didn’t you mention a few posts ago that no one should judge to whom or when the Holy Spirit should come? Just to make things clear, the COC first takes someones confession of faith: I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and I accept him as my personal Savior." Some churches add “that He died for my sins and rose on the third day” after “…Living God.” The person is then baptized by an immersed believer who pronounces “Upon your confession of faith, I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit for the remission of sins and the receiving of the Holy Spirit.”

You are correct–a mere symbolic gesture does not comply with the Sacrament of the Eucharist; braking bread with buds and drinking some juice to remember that the Word Became Incarnate is a mere shadow of the Presence of Christ as He instituted the Eucharist and the Apostles Commemorated in Worship!

I just read the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper. Jesus never said there had to be an apostle present or a seccessor to an apostle. However, I do find Scripture that tells me that Jesus is present not only during communion time, but whenever Christians gather to worship Him.
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

…as for “Catholics” who follow the culture/s of non-Catholic Christians I liken them to those who determine on their own what facets of Worship they follow (supposedly according to their conscience) and what precepts they reject as members of the Mythical Body of Christ (the Church)… they are quick to acquiesce to cultural norms (abortion, the pill, divorce, symbolic values…) while just as quick to reject any Catholic Teaching that demands obedience to Christ and His Church.

So you assert there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. This leads me back to a question I have asked repeatedly in the forum but never received and answer for, If an atheist is shipwrecked and alone on an island with a Bible, can they come to Christ and salvation by reading it?

…Scriptural studies do not factor in the Church’s nearly 2000 years of history (unless is on selective material that seem to agree with the cultural/person personal belief) and is mostly based on denominational/cultural biases, which, I suspect, are based on that ole credo: “nothing Catholic or resemblimg Catholic…”
(i.e.: Yahweh vs. Jehovah)

First of all, only a fool would reject something only because it was taught by a denomination they disagree with. If that was true no Protestant would believe in Jesus, his ministry, His death and resurrection, or the ministry and writings of the apostles.

…but that (Didactic instruction on baptism) has not been the practice of the Church since antiquity!

Still part of church history, a tradition which you so adamantly insist has equal authority as Scripture. Are you saying traditions can vary from early Church practices?

The Church is organic: it evolves; the Doctrine has evolved to fight the herecies throught the Church’s two millenium… yet, Doctrine did not evolved only to fight heresies but also to provide better understanding and uniformity: One Gospel, One Spirit, One Baptism, One Faith, One Lord, One God…Those who seek “Scriptural only” fail to observe Scriptures when they do not conform to the individual/sectarian pronouncements/beliefs.

How can doctrine evolve? Evolve means change, how can the message of Christ and meanings of the New Testament letters change? The message is not organic, it applies today as it did in the first century. People who say the Bible is outdated haven’t studied history, or Scripture.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

…that “who cares” position allows “Scriptural only” to be twisted and abused according to the personal/sectarian indoctrination received or being taught!

Ok, that part was poor communication on my part. What I meant was why try to redefine wine as grape juice? I agree that trying to explain away Scripture when it doesn’t fit your theology is wrong, like this verse:
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Nice hearing from you again. I hope your summer was sunny and not too hot (not likely). I look forward to your next post.

 

[Nicea325]

There are many more passage of Scripture that lead me to believe that conversion and baptism must be made by informed, older children. I’ve posted them many times on CAF so if you would like to hear my rationale feel free to pm me

I beg to differ. If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If a person is baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit and the baptism is done with water then the baptism is valid.

The Catholic Church teaches in the creed that we believed in one baptism for the remission of sin.

Baptism saves.

Infants are born again through baptism and must be baptized because they are born under original sin.

All Catholics are born again.

People who are not Catholics and are baptized have a connection to the Catholic Church through their baptism.

 

[pablope]

Now you’ve said there is only one baptism and you’ve said there are different baptisms.

How can doctrine evolve? Evolve means change, how can the message of Christ and meanings of the New Testament letters change? The message is not organic, it applies today as it did in the first century. People who say the Bible is outdated haven’t studied history, or Scripture.

 

[NotWorthy]

Now you’ve said there is only one baptism and you’ve said there are different baptisms.
You consider a proper baptism to be conducted by a church with apostalic succession, which would be the Catholic or Orthodox churches, so I was correct in my assertion that

This is incorrect. I’m not sure where the misperception originated, but a proper baptism needs to be done with water and the proper words, “I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…”. This is valid, whether done by a priest, or anyone else, Catholic or not.

Cathoilics view my baptism is invalid because it was not conducted by a priest under the authority of the CC.

Catholics with this view are wrong. Period.

 

[amber_lux]

I need help with this.

He doesn’t buy that you can raise someone in the faith (like in OT when baby circumcized and raised as a Jew) because of Heb 8:11. Here’s what he wrote

With eleven pages in this thread, maybe somebody has mentioned that in his early works, Alexander Campbell advocated infant baptism.

Amber

 

[amber_lux]

Given that, wouldn’t the only way to share communion would be with ONE bread and ONE cup?

Church of Christ (One Cup) shares one cup amongst the entire congregation.

Scripture states that women are to remain silent in the church.

Church of Christ (Second wave non-institutional) practices that.

Should there be Sunday School at all?

Church of Christ (First wave non-institutional) rejects Sunday School, summer camp, and similar things.

where in scripture does it say to build a church building and worship there instead of the homes of believers?

Church of Christ (Mutual Edification) tends towards home church.

Amber

 

[amber_lux]

Here is something for you to research: Look at the literacy rates in the middle ages, before the printing press. Then extrapolate of transpose this rate to the time of the Apostles. Would it be greater or less than the middle ages?

You have to look at the specific geographic region.

Literacy levels in first century Italy were higher than literacy levels in the southern states of the United States in the 1950s. It was only after the Roman Empire collapsed, that literacy levels throughout Europe plunged.

Amber