Are you reading from Understanding Scriptures,A complete coarse on Bible Study,The Didache series?
Didache 7:6 - “before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able; 7:7 and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.” Notice the part about those “who are able” being required to fast. The Didache wasn’t here talking about baptism in the case of infants but in the case of converts to the faith; the authors would be the first to admit that in the case of infants, they are not able to fast, and so that restriction would not apply to them.
It was speaking about adult baptism.
Since the Didache was a catechism, its whole focus was on those who enter the Church as a result of hearing and learning the faith, i.e. adults.
I didn’t say it wasn’t. I just said that, in this instance, the Didache was talking about adult baptism. It was an ancient Catechism, hence it was directed to adults, not to infants, who cannot grasp a catechism. It merely says that those who are able should fast before a baptism; but this fasting requirement would obviously not apply to infants, who cannot fast. They would still be baptized though.
While it’s true that entire households were baptized, it is equally true that we do not know how old the youngest members of these households were. Furthermore, this was not always the practice of the early Church (Peter didn’t make anyone fast before baptizing them on the day of Pentecost, Paul didn’t require the Philippian jailor and his family to fast before they were baptized, likewise with Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch). However, there is one thing these baptisms have in common - first they believed, then they were baptized. Even in these instructions (and in the practice of the Church today with adult converts), we see that it is believers that are baptized (unless someone can be a convert without believing). Apparently, the only exception to this is in the case of infant baptism. Strange that the early church would baptize entire households, and not mention infant baptism in an early catechism, don’t you think? Notice, it says that “thou shalt order him that is to be baptized to fast a day or two” (BTW – I’ve noticed similar instructions for baptism among some of the ECF’s). The “others who are able” would be family, friends, or just general witnesses (anyone who was interested, maybe?).
In some cases the Scripture refers to “whole families” being baptized (e.g. Acts 16:33). If all the members of the family were all grown up, then it would be very unlikely that all of them would all happen to be gathered together just when Paul arrived home with the jailer. Q.E.D. it is very likely that here we have a case of a large family made up of varying ages – hence the adjective “whole” which in this usage implies joy at a great number of new Christians from a single family – and they were all baptized, not just the adults. Other Scriptures in Acts say that whole cities were baptized (“all the people, both great and small, …were baptized.” Acts 8:10-12) And Peter promised that baptism was a promise “for you and for your children.” (Acts 2:38) So there are in fact Scriptures that seem to indicate the ages of the newly-baptized with varying degrees of specification, and some of these Scriptures include children.
That is because all of the events you are discussing were events in which someone converted and then was baptized. Since babies cannot convert, none of your examples apply to them. It’s as if you presented ten Bible passages showing that accepting Jesus as your savior is necessary for salvation, and then concluding that none of the Jews in the Old Testament could be saved because they couldn’t accept Jesus. It’s silly because the Biblical mandate to know Jesus Christ doesn’t apply to people who are unable to do that because of the time when they were born; similarly, the Biblical examples of adults who believe before they are baptized does not exclude infants from baptism, for the mere fact that in the first place we have adults who are able to make an act of faith but in the second place we have infants who are not, and therefore the requirement of faith would not apply to them.
2 Tim 3:15 reads, “And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (DR). Where does this say Timothy was baptized as an infant? I see where he was taught the scriptures from his infancy, but that would be true of most Jewish children (it is a requirement of the Law). It was by the scriptures that Timothy came to salvation. How can an infant come to salvation by the scriptures? More to the topic, how come there is no mention of baptism in relation to his infancy or his coming to Christ? I would say that you are misusing 2 Tim 3:15 to prove infant baptism.
Ah, I hadn’t thought of that. Actually, I like your interpretation better than the one I just suggested
Do you have a hard time sticking to the topic? Why bring up the sola Scriptura in a discussion about baptism?
I hear this a lot, but I haven’t seen any solid evidence for the practice (other than the mention of baptizing entire households). While this would seem to indicate that infants within these households were baptized, I can’t help but think back to when Jesus fed the multitudes, and only the men were counted. Also, when Israel was preparing to enter the promised land and God had them number the people, I don’t believe they counted infants. This causes me to wonder if perhaps they viewed household members differently than we do (though, I confess, I’ve never looked into this in any great detail).
I apologize for that. I am so used to going to the scriptures, it’s just natural for me. I would point out, however, that I was not the first one to bring in the scriptures.
That is an interesting point. At Scripturecatholic.com there is a page about baptism, and it shows various Scriptures that use the word “household” to see whether children were included. In John 4:53 and 1 Tim. 3:12 they are; also this is the way the word “household” is used in the Greek Old Testament, as in Genesis 36:6. See that page for other examples, but Scripture is clear that “household” usually includes men, women, and children. “whole household” certainly does; as in, “he and his whole household were baptized” (Acts 16:30-33) definitely means the children were baptized too.
We support adult baptism too. We just support infant baptism too. The two aren’t incompatible.
Good, that’s very open-minded of you. In A.D. 190, Irenaeus of Lyons wrote: “Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ … For He came to save all through means of Himself–all, I say, who through Him are born again to God–infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.”
Well God bless you for looking! I find it interesting that apart from the Biblical examples, we do not find any mention in the early Church of baptizing whole households. If we did, then perhaps some of them would mention more explicitly whether infants were included, and we could glean a better understanding of whether early Christians used the word “household” to include infants in the context of baptism.
Ha! That is only because I am the master of all citations. If you wish to learn my art, NO!