Crossed The Tiber

An Evangelical Converts to Catholicism

My Photo
Name:
Location: Pennsylvania, United States

I was born into the Catholic faith. At 14, I was "born again" and found Jesus personally but lost His Church. After thirty years as an evangelical protestant, I have come full circle to find that He has been there all the time, in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I wish others to find the beauty and truth of the Catholic faith as I have found.

Sunday, June 03, 2007

Cathochic Tract





29 Comments:

Blogger MMajor Fan said...

Totally brill!! Ha ha. How true. Happy endings all around, unless of course, the sour couple actually cost someone their faith...

June 03, 2007 8:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WHY DO CATHOLICS BAPTIZE INFANTS? -- --ONLY-- SCRIPTURE REFERENCES CITED FOR AN ANSWER!!!!!

June 03, 2007 9:44 PM  
Blogger Tiber Jumper said...

DEAR ANON:

THE CHRISTIANS WERE BAPTIZING INFANTS LONG BEFORE THE BIBLE WAS EVER CANONIZED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE LATE FOURTH CENTURY. THEREFORE, I CAN'T GIVE YOU CHAPTER AND VERSE EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THE JEWS CIRCUMCISED INFANTS TO BECOME PART OF THE COVENANTAL PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. THE CHURCH IS THE NEW ISRAEL.

SCRIPTURE SAITH THAT THE WATERS OF BAPTISM DOTH SAVE YOU NOW (i peter). THE EARLY CHRISTIANS DID NOT WANT TO DEPRIVE THEIR LOVED ONE'S OF GOD'S BLESSING OF SALVATION THROUGH CHRIST, APPLIED VIA BAPTISM. WHEN PAUL BAPTIZED THE JAILER AND HIS ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD, THERE IS A VERY GOOD CHANCE THAT HE HAD BABIES. CAN YOU PLEASE GIVE ME REFERENCES----ONLY SCRIPTURE-----THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T BAPTIZE INFANTS? REMEMBERING OF COURSE THAT THE AGE OF REASON IS AN EXTRA-BIBLICAL TRADITION NOT FOUND IN HOLY SCRIPTURE. THANKS FOR COMMENTING.

June 03, 2007 10:15 PM  
Blogger Tiber Jumper said...

BTW, MANY OTHER DENOMINATIONS BAPTIZE INFANTS, TAKING THEIR CUE FROM EARLY CHRISTIAN TRADITION.

June 03, 2007 10:16 PM  
Blogger Tiber Jumper said...

Thanks MM. I was hoping not to step on too many toes here.(Though I suspect I was not too successful) This comic strip was partly inspired from Chesterton's comment about his surprise at finding who was in heaven and who was not, and the biggest surprise, that he himself was!

June 03, 2007 10:25 PM  
Anonymous Runningmom said...

I'm beginning to think you need to start a new blog...."The Many Talents of TJ". You're quite the jack-of-all-trades! Great comic. ;)

June 03, 2007 10:48 PM  
Blogger Amber said...

Great little comic here... :)

June 03, 2007 11:52 PM  
Blogger Pilgrimsarbour said...

Anonymous,

Regarding infant baptism, I can only speak for Presbyterianism in that there are good, solid reasons, by Biblical implication, for the practice. Even then, it is not universally held among Reformed people, and completely disavowed by fundamentalists and others. It carries different meaning than Catholic infant baptism, of course, but still bears a stigma of sorts among the non-Reformed. Without going into it here, you may want to check out the reasoning for the practice as expressed in Chapter 28 of The Westminster Confession of Faith. Just scroll down the page until you come to Chapter 28. But to be honest, if you're not somewhat familiar with covenant theology, it will probably not make much sense to you.

Best,

Pilgrimsarbour

June 04, 2007 12:14 AM  
Blogger Pilgrimsarbour said...

Oh yeah, and TJ--

Interesting.

Yours,

Pilgrimsarbour

June 04, 2007 12:16 AM  
Blogger Ma Beck said...

That is flippin' hilarious.
Good job!

ANON,
Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).

Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).

In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.

Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.

I hope this clears things up for you. It was an honest question, and I'm glad you asked it.
Whenever the subject of infant baptism comes up and a fundamentalist asks the question, my response is always, "Why do fundamentalists go against clear Scriptural reference and refuse to baptize their children?"
God bless you.

June 04, 2007 12:57 AM  
Blogger Tiber Jumper said...

One of my friends, PA, reminded me that in college one of our friends used to read Chick Tracts and say "My man has no face" referring to the drawings of Jesus on the throne. That conversation inspired the name, "Face-Off" for this Cathochic tract!

June 04, 2007 7:33 AM  
Blogger Ma Beck said...

The art in those tracts is seriously disturbing - it gives me nightmares.
The whole thing is just bizarre.
Jack Chick is one insane cookie, and he must be getting up in years.
He needs prayers, stat.

June 04, 2007 10:02 AM  
Anonymous Theo said...

ma beck wrote in part:
"In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included."

Yes, we can *infer* that children were baptized as well. Additionally, were any of these "households" in the Hellenistic sense, one could extend it to all who held the same "paterfamilias," including, possibly, servants. But in all fairness to those who do not see these scriptures as supporting infant baptism, we should in all honesty point out that even with so broad a definition of "household" (and I personally think so broad a definition is unwarranted), none of these passages specifically say that *any* member of the household was an infant or unable to comprehend the Gospel.

We Catholics believe that infant baptism is supported by these passages in conjunction with others (such as you mention), and by traditions, teachings, and non-scriptural chronicles of Christian practice dating back to the early church; however, I (personally) think it might be a bit overboard to say that in and of themselves, the scriptures *clearly and unambiguously* do so. Our brothers and sisters who rely upon Scripture alone as their authority are (as Pilgrim pointed out) divided on this interpretation. This is easily understood precisely because the scriptures are, as St. Peter tells us, "sometimes difficult to understand."

Please understand that all of the above are my personal opinions. Your mileage may vary.

You brother in Christ,
--Theo

June 04, 2007 11:12 AM  
Blogger Pilgrimsarbour said...

I wondered if that was from where you derived the title!

June 04, 2007 12:05 PM  
Anonymous Theo said...

"My allergies are really bad up here"? Aha! The couple was right--this *can't* be Heaven: everyone knows that Heaven is hypo-allergenic.

Is there a St. Sudafed?

--Theo

June 04, 2007 12:49 PM  
Blogger St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse said...

Excellent job, TJ. I've been itching to do a Chick re-write, so I'll have to do one after the family vacation is over.

June 04, 2007 3:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where does it say in the Bible: "Accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior." Only Biblical quotes in the orginal aramaic can be used!

June 04, 2007 3:58 PM  
Blogger MMajor Fan said...

Hi TJ!

About:
Thanks MM. I was hoping not to step on too many toes here.(Though I suspect I was not too successful)

Have you ever noticed that Catholics seem to be the only ones remaining who even care about stepping on toes? Even the most "holier than thou art" has become unbearably rude toward Catholics. Makes me think that Doc Martens should be standard issue for kicking in the shins in reply, replacing sandals with them would be totally understandable lol.

June 04, 2007 9:12 PM  
Blogger Pilgrimsarbour said...

I agree with MMajor Fan. Catholics are never rude to Protestants. Why, that would be like saying it's possible for people of colour to be racist! Ludicrous! LOL! :)

June 05, 2007 8:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL!! Love your tract!! Is there anything you CAN'T do? Blog writing, theological discussions, guitar playing, music composing, podcasts,
DO YOU HAVE A REAL JOB?

You and Prodigal Daughter are very talented people and we are lucky to have you on the Catholic WWW.

Keep up the great work! You are one of my "must reads".

Potamiaena

June 05, 2007 9:25 AM  
Blogger Tiber Jumper said...

Thanks for the very kind comments!
I am just thankful to have discovered the Church so late in my life (45 when I reverted).

God bless and thanks for reading.

June 05, 2007 9:50 AM  
Blogger Tiber Jumper said...

theo said:
"Is there a St. Sudafed?"
Yes, he was martyred in the Pollen Wars along with Sister Claritin of the Benadryllian Order.

June 05, 2007 9:54 AM  
Anonymous Theo said...

I don't know about anyone else, but I've tromped more than my share of toes in my day. Now P.A., I can't imagine that even if you ever *did* step on toes it caused any pain: you tend to step lightly. :-)

--Theo

June 05, 2007 11:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was directed to this blog by someone who said you rewrote a JCT tract into a tract attacking Protestants. Regarding JTC-style tracts themselves, I'm not a very big fan. Most views "put in a nutshell" belong in a nutshell.

I admit I got a chuckle out of your re-working of one of his "Catholics, leave the whore or be damned" tracts, especially in that you did not do a 180-degree flip-flop. I appreciate that if you had to speculate on the Protestants ultimate destination, you showed them ushered into Heaven rather than into the lake of fire, where Jack and those of his ilk have no problem consigning all Catholics who leave this life.

Something else I like about it is that I've known a handful of Catholics who have had the same mindset of the ficticious Protestant couple in your version. The way you've written it, we could easily switch the roles back and still observe a cartoon depicting some real-world mindset. And you know that millions of Protestants do not believe that to be Catholic is to hold a ticket to Hell.

I guess I'm saying that I don't agree that the tract is so "anti-Protestant" as it is a bit one-sided.

June 05, 2007 12:19 PM  
Anonymous Theo said...

Tiber Jumper said...
"...he (St. Sudafed) was martyred in the Pollen Wars along with Sister Claritin..."

Oh! I thought "The Claritin Sisters" was a vocal quartet from the 1940's. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

You learn somethin' new every day.
--Theo

June 05, 2007 12:26 PM  
Blogger Tiber Jumper said...

Dear Anon:
Thanks for your comments. I am relieved that you were able to see that it was not anti-Protestant. Yes, I admit it's one-sided and that's what the blogosphere is about! Getting our own ideas out there.

Your comment about any views that can fit into a nutshell, should probably stay there was a great one. Thanks

June 05, 2007 2:42 PM  
Blogger Pilgrimsarbour said...

Theo,

Are you stalking me? :)

PA

June 05, 2007 3:44 PM  
Anonymous Theo said...

Pilgrim:

No; and please move a little to the left. The drapes are blocking my view.

June 06, 2007 9:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How can anyone believe that Jesus is lord and deny that He is lord of His Church? People who do that are called protestants because they oppose the rule of His Church. I doubt very many protestants will be in heaven as they deny Him, His Lordship and don't really believe He is Lord of all. Since one of the conditions for salvation is to orally agree the Jesus is Lord, I fail to see how "real" protestants will actually make it.

BTW: the reference by Peter in Acts to every one includes babies. Further, Jesus rebuked the apostles for refusing to bring the babies to Him in the Gospel.

July 11, 2010 8:36 PM  

Post a Comment

Home

Universalis