[dangus]

>> Now, if that isn’t credobaptism then I don’t know what is. <<

Awww, come on. You gonna tell me you expected Catholics would oppose the notion that converts are those who choose choose to be born again and repented of their sins? You might wanna brush up though on how the early church handled pennance. The penitents had to wear sack cloths and mark their heads with ashes, waiting until the big Easter (or was it Pentecost?) ceremony to be readmitted to the church by the priest.

[raynearhood]

You gonna tell me you expected Catholics would oppose the notion that converts are those who choose to be born again and repented of their sins?

Nope. Here's the thing, though, what I was addressing when originally replying was the historicity of the Creeds in the church. I was tying that into the historical Baptist doctrine of credobaptism by making reference to Justin Martyr and (admittedly wrongly) Irenaeus.

My overall point was to address the claim that Baptists have never held to creeds or confessions, as if all Baptists just popped up in 18th century America or are the result of the Anabaptists. Truthfully, most Baptists are a result of the Reformation, similar to Presbyterians. As in the catholic church prior to the Reformation, there was (and is) disagreement over paedo v. credobaptism.

We - who are tied to the church historic - all claim the Church Fathers. We all accept some of what they wrote and reject other pieces. My intent on this thread wasn't to "get into it" with any Catholics over doctrine. My intent was to engage on Baptist history.

Although, I do thank you for pointing out my "Irenaeus error." Whether we agree or disagree on how to interpret a Church Father's work, it is rare that I completely misattribute a doctrine like that (if I ever have, man that was bad). I tossed a lateral to the shortstop on that one.