Replies

Oh I agree with you. I'm just discussing levels of theological disagreement. If they refer to infant baptism then this is one more piece of evidence from the early church for infant baptism. Some of my favorite defenses for the doctrine are the early heretics. Some were debunked by saying "if what you say is true, then you wouldn't baptize babies (which we all know to be correct), therefore you are in error". I thought this might be another example.

If the priest who baptized you was in some way unfaithfull (examples abound today)... I can at least see why human logic would cause someone to question the validity of the sacrament. This fails to recognize Who it is who takes the oath, but is at least understandable. Neither theology is correct, but one is more interesting than the other. I can see mis-informed cafeteria Catholics having the same problem.