Didache

[Skeptic92]

Matthew 1:25 brings into question your given.​

Infants aren’t mention one time being baptized in the NT. Good luck proving your statement.

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 16:33[/BIBLEDRB]

This mentions a whole household, not just the adults as does this verse

[BIBLEDRB] 1 Corinthians 1:16 [/BIBLEDRB]

atleast one of these households would of had children under the age of reason, or infants, yet the whole household was baptised, so is it not likely the whole household being baptized included infants?

Also St Peter seemed to believe in infant baptism

[BIBLEDRB] Acts 2:38-39 [/BIBLEDRB]

Since the promise was for Children aswell, does it not seem to show that he was baptizing infants aswell as adults?

 

[Dokimas]

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 16:33[/BIBLEDRB]

This mentions a whole household, not just the adults as does this verse

[BIBLEDRB] 1 Corinthians 1:16 [/BIBLEDRB]

atleast one of these households would of had children under the age of reason, or infants, yet the whole household was baptised, so is it not likely the whole household being baptized included infants?

Also St Peter seemed to believe in infant baptism

[BIBLEDRB] Acts 2:38-39 [/BIBLEDRB]

Since the promise was for Children aswell, does it not seem to show that he was baptizing infants aswell as adults?

I have ‘argued’ before that not every household as infants all the time. Only 5 households are mentioned in Scripture (that’s what I’ve been told by catholics on CAF). Of the thousands and thousands of adults baptized in the NT, only 5 households were mentioned. Logic and odds along with the context of all other baptisms tells me those households did NOT have infants or young children.

 

[Abba]

Hello Skepti92 and everyone else reading this thread.

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 16:33[/BIBLEDRB]

This mentions a whole household, not just the adults as does this verse

[BIBLEDRB] 1 Corinthians 1:16 [/BIBLEDRB]

atleast one of these households would of had children under the age of reason, or infants, yet the whole household was baptised, so is it not likely the whole household being baptized included infants?

Why should people assume that there were children in the household and even if and when in the five times when households were baptized, why should someone who does not recognize the validity of infant baptism accept the claim that when and if there were children the children were also baptized?

Also St Peter seemed to believe in infant baptism

[BIBLEDRB] Acts 2:38-39 [/BIBLEDRB]

Since the promise was for Children aswell, does it not seem to show that he was baptizing infants aswell as adults?

Not necessarily. As a matter of fact, I always read this verse as referring to Salvation and the Promise. Not, ’ be baptize and baptize your children and baptize all that are far off, and baptize whomsoever the Lord our God shall call’

39 For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.

---

I see this as a group of people in a high mountain top shouting to a lost comrade how to get up to the mountain. Go to your left and you will see an oak tree, tree, tree!!! There is a path in front of the tree, tree, tree!!! The path will take you to the river which you must cross to find the only path to the mountain, mountain, mountain!!! I don’t see the river!!! I don’t see anything!!! Do you see the tree!!!

I think we need to come down from the mountain and meet the comrade where he is at and show him the way. The woods and mountains can be tricky. In other words, we need to put ourselves in his shoes and take it from there.

 

[Skeptic92]

Hello Skepti92 and everyone else reading this thread.

Why should people assume that there were children in the household and even if and when in the five times when households were baptized, why should someone who does not recognize the validity of infant baptism accept the claim that when and if there were children the children were also baptized?

You do rise a good point, I’m sorry to admit im not well versed in the Bible, and how to interpret it, as during my conversion i would spend a week (atleast) analysing parts of the Bible that were used to support doctrines i was not quite sure if i agreed with, the most major one was Our Lady’s perpetual innocence from Sin, I could argue about the annunciation and the visitation untill the cow’s come home, however on Doctrines i already accepted (infant baptism being one of them) i never truly studied them, but I shall take my time in studying parts of scripture used to support it, and the Early Church Fathers (I actually have a book which is a collection of the most major Early Church Father writings on it’s way, if you wish ask i can i shall place a link to where you can get it) to see if it was a practice by the Apostolic era of the Church, I hope to return with more information at a later date.

ABBA:

Not necessarily. As a matter of fact, I always read this verse as referring to Salvation and the Promise. Not, ’ be baptize and baptize your children and baptize all that are far off, and baptize whomsoever the Lord our God shall call’

39 For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.

hmm, i’ve never actually split it up like that, it does seem to be able to go both ways I will re-read that part of Acts, and see what exactly the subject of V39 is, just to check i havn’t took the verse out of context

 

[KathleenGee]

Baptizing whole households makes sense. I wanted my babies free of original sin…infant mortality…I never believed the Lord would condemn them either if they died without baptism…the baptism of desire…

But it is not practical or a work of grace – in my personal opinion – to bypass my young children…I want them incorporated into the sacraments as soon as possible.

Mom

 

[JohnAlexander]

I have ‘argued’ before that not every household as infants all the time. Only 5 households are mentioned in Scripture (that’s what I’ve been told by catholics on CAF). Of the thousands and thousands of adults baptized in the NT, only 5 households were mentioned. Logic and odds along with the context of all other baptisms tells me those households did NOT have infants or young children.

Just what would a household be if there were no children? A man and his wife? Who would refer to them as a household? A household was not only a man and his wife and children but his servants and the children of his servants as well.

In biblical times there were many, many more children than there are today. The infant and child mortality rates were extremely high (thus the high birthrate). Do you really think that parents would not baptize their babies knowing that it was very likely they would die before reaching adulthood?

One final thing, although infant baptism is not explicitly stated in the New Testament or the Didache it is mentioned in other very early church documents. St. Polycarp was almost certainly baptized as an infant. He said “Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ” He was born around the year 69. There is no doubt that during the 2nd century babies were being baptized. And there is no indication that this was an innovation.

 

[brb3]

Baptizing whole households makes sense. I wanted my babies free of original sin…infant mortality…I never believed the Lord would condemn them either if they died without baptism…the baptism of desire…

But it is not practical or a work of grace – in my personal opinion – to bypass my young children…I want them incorporated into the sacraments as soon as possible.

It certainly is Biblical to baptize infants, yes even whole households.

As Peter teaches, baptism doesn’t wash away the dirt [sin] … but, rather is an appeal to God of our desire to be cleansed of all sins. Parents make the appeal to God on behalf of the infants/children … by having them baptized. Christ in turn honors all TRUE appeals of faith to be cleansed — and Christ baptizes with Holy Spirit, cleansing the original & personal sins of ALL washed in baptismal waters.

Some make a big issue of whether it is submersion, pouring, or sprinkling. Whatever way H20 is received – it still is an APPEAL to God for cleansing of sins … and is efficacious. The Catholic Church teaches that even an atheist can perform the Trinitarian Baptism, yet if the recipient [or parents thereof], believe it will remove their & children’s sins, and appeal to God for such cleansing, … it is indeed efficacious. Man makes the appeal & conducts the Sacrament … but it is Christ that heals all who are washed in faith.

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes to Catholic baptisms…

I think of people in ancient times, and how much enlightenment and new life came to them…any parent would want all their loved ones washed with Christ and given new life…the earlier in life, the more years one is incorporated with the Lord!!