# Joseph Lathrop's book on infant baptism



## Constantlyreforming (Apr 9, 2012)

Have any of you read this? It's quite a thought provoking read, and I just love reading Lathrop's stuff as he was so practical and down to earth...

---------- Post added at 03:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:23 PM ----------

Here's the title. im too lazy to type it.







---------- Post added at 03:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:27 PM ----------

I believe that he makes a great argument, in that we don't have any record of any of the early apostles or disciples children (as adults) being baptized ever in scripture. Of all those at Pentecost, and all those who were sent out, there is not an instance in the book of Acts of any children of the followers of Christ being baptized in their adulthood. See below for the argument:


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 9, 2012)

Nice book.

I haven't heard that argument before.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Apr 9, 2012)

I am beginning to think you are a book thief because of all these old books you seem to possess. On a slightly more serious note, do you know if there are any newer additions of that book that are not scans of the book.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Apr 9, 2012)

Just an aside: Is that book printed on linen?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 9, 2012)

Mark, almost certainly cotton (linen)--high rag content paper. This stuff is great. Book paper did not become wood pulp (cellulose) until later in the nineteenth century. Those books, because of the high acidity, are crumbling, literally. So thankful for digitization. Now we can make them acid free.

On the other hand, books with paper made of rags (the ragman would buy the rags, put them in a brine mixture, then "beat them to a pulp", using screens and pressing to form the paper) are wonderful. These books are in great shape: we have books in our rare book room from the 16th-18th centuries in far better shape than late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century books that have been in circulation. 

Next thing you know Br. Ethan's going to show us incunabula (books published, generally, before 1500).

Peace,
Alan


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Apr 9, 2012)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Mark, almost certainly cotton (linen)--high rag content paper. This stuff is great. Book paper did not become wood pulp (cellulose) until later in the nineteenth century. Those books, because of the high acidity, are crumbling, literally. So thankful for digitization. Now we can make them acid free.
> 
> On the other hand, books with paper made of rags (the ragman would buy the rags, put them in a brine mixture, then "beat them to a pulp", using screens and pressing to form the paper) are wonderful. These books are in great shape: we have books in our rare book room from the 16th-18th centuries in far better shape than late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century books that have been in circulation.
> 
> ...



Rev. Strange: Thanks so much for that history lesson! I knew the page looked like what my Grandfather called "linen parchment," but I did not realize books were made from it.


----------



## Constantlyreforming (Apr 9, 2012)

Nothing prior to 1500. Earliest is from the 1570s...my Geneva Bible.


----------



## Constantlyreforming (Apr 10, 2012)

Unoriginalname said:


> I am beginning to think you are a book thief because of all these old books you seem to possess. On a slightly more serious note, do you know if there are any newer additions of that book that are not scans of the book.



There were copies on Abe books, but they are likely scans.


----------



## J. Dean (Apr 10, 2012)

Interesting read. 

However, it can be a very unwise thing to draw a conclusion based upon an argument from silence, either for or against a matter.


----------



## Constantlyreforming (Apr 10, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> Interesting read.
> 
> However, it can be a very unwise thing to draw a conclusion based upon an argument from silence, either for or against a matter.




There definitely is an argument that he discusses before he comes to the conclusion, but I do see your point. His focus on the continuation of the covenant of Abraham through the New Testament times is part of that argument.


----------

