"Whole Households Were Baptized" ......... *Except for Infants?

[Porknpie]

It doesn’t, though that isn’t the point. The real issue is what does Baptism do? And who is doing to doing? The fact is that God is baptizing, and offers His grace and the Holy Spirit, and there are no scriptural grounds to deny a child or infant this gift of Grace.

That said, the bolded closes the dialogue, since it impunes those who do not believe in infant, regenerative Baptism in a way that questions, not their belief on the matter, but their faith in God. So, the question doesn’t “remain”, when the question is prefaced by an accusation, that being, the dialogue partner must think Jesus was “a poor teacher”.

My suggestion is to provide evidence from scripture and the Tradition of the historic undivided Church, then ask the question. The fact is, Pork, that you don’t need the bolded to prove this point.
Jon

Thanks Jon. Well taken. That’s how I felt this morning…my construct could have been improved. There’s only so many ways that one can look at this. Not understanding the word “whole” is remarkable. The apostles would be shocked …

 

[Lochias]

really Jon? you haven’y noticed how the passages tie belief to baptism? it is belief, baptism, teach

So you also don’t believe that infants should have been circumcised, then, even under God’s orders? Do you think God lacks the power to mark babies as belonging to Him?

Edit: And also, because it’s relevant here, please show me where in the Bible we are use only the Bible as our final authority, and where in the Bible it says that your interpretation is correct.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

As an ex-evangelical christian. We were tought that since the scrtiptures say that we are to believe and be baptized then we need to reach the age of understanding in order to believe. This is also a strict Baptist practice. I think most evangelical churches believe along these lines.

I suppose that one could say that even if “whole household” refers to all the members of that household, it could still be possible that all those households contain no one who is below the age of reason. Are infants ever explicitly mentioned as belonging to any of these households? If not, someone could still interpret it to mean, however improbable, that these passages refer only to the baptism of those over the age of reason.

So it is necessary to attack the preconceptions that give rise to this interpretation, namely, that baptism, being a sign of faith, differentiates itself from circumcision in respect to when it can be given. Therefore, argue that circumcision is no different from baptism in that respect, which could be supported from Romans 4 for example.

 

[Porknpie]

have you read those passages recently?

well let’s look at Acts 16 first (NIV):

31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. 34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.

Great example of how infants are baptized through the belief of their parents. No asterisk’s on delayed baptism. It’s not in the text.

Please note that how it starts off with a call to believe and how it ends with an indication that the whole household came to believe (after hearing the word of the Lord preached to all in that household). One doesn’t preach to infants and infants don’t come to believe so, in that case, either there were no infants in that household, or Luke expected his readers to employ common sense and understand that he was only talking about those members of the house who could listen and come to believe. What passage supports your blustering?

Exactly. Follow common sense and to listen to the Church which Christ sent the Holy Spirit to …to guide in all Truth. This Church baptized infants soon after birth as it circumcised infants at day 8. This made common sense to the early church. 1,600 years later, some followed the guide of man and started something differently.

the early church in some places had a tradition to delay baptism for as long as possible…to wait until just before death if possible…it wasn’t as if the Traditions of the early church always matched scripture

Just so we’re clear, who are you citing from the early church? The practice of infant baptism is clear in the early church…would you like citations? Again, you are believing Christ was a poor teacher to have his Church be so wrong.

belief typically accompanies baptism…were does it say to baptize w/o belief being present in the one being baptized? Where?

Infants are baptized through the belief of their parents. Similarly…in the bible…one can be healed through the faith of another (see Matthew Chapter 8…the servant is healed through the centurion’s faith) and one can be made “Holy” through another (1 Corinthians 7). In similar context, the words “Whole Households” is your answer. The Church has understood this for 2000 years…Orthodox and Lutherans included…

 

[cajunhillbilly]

Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists all baptize infants. I find it interesting that the ealry church clearly baptized infants and there is NOT ONE voice against it.

 

[TexanKnight]

have you read those passages recently?

well let’s look at Acts 16 first (NIV):

31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. 34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.

Please note that how it starts off with a call to believe and how it ends with an indication that the whole household came to believe (after hearing the word of the Lord preached to all in that household). One doesn’t preach to infants and infants don’t come to believe so, in that case, either there were no infants in that household, or Luke expected his readers to employ common sense and understand that he was only talking about those members of the house who could listen and come to believe. What passage supports your blustering?

So…I would hate to be your children. They will never be included in your household. How very sad.

 

[dskysmine]

Why compare Baptism with circumcision if circumcision was only done to males?
We don’t just baptise males…
Just my 2 cents.

 

[Lochias]

Why compare Baptism with circumcision if circumcision was only done to males?
We don’t just baptise males…
Just my 2 cents.

The point is that circumcision was something that God required as an sign that those who were circumcised belonged to Him. Baptism is much the same, and neither discriminate over age in terms of who belongs to God or not.

 

[JonNC]

really Jon? you haven’y noticed how the passages tie belief to baptism? it is belief, baptism, teach

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

It says baptize, and teach. Now, there’s no reason to set scripture against itself. Of course one can be taught prior to Baptism, so it returns to the issue I pointed out in my first post.

The fact is that God is baptizing, and offers His grace and the Holy Spirit, and there are no scriptural grounds to deny a child or infant this gift of Grace.

Grace is a free gift, one given to every person, even to infants, for the remission of sin. If one doesn’t see Baptism in this way, then I can understand a variance of views, but I continue to thank God that I was baptized into His grace when I was a month and a day old.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Thanks Jon. Well taken. That’s how I felt this morning…my construct could have been improved. There’s only so many ways that one can look at this. Not understanding the word “whole” is remarkable. The apostles would be shocked …

Ah, not a problem.

And I agree.

Jon

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yet, curiously, Matthew 28 says: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Baptize first, then teach.

Jon

This post is full of win

 

[Radical]

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

It says baptize, and teach.

please read it again…it says make them disciples, (can you be a disciple w/o belief?)…baptize and teach.

Now, there’s no reason to set scripture against itself.

nor is there reason to ignore “make disciples”

Of course one can be taught prior to Baptism, so it returns to the issue I pointed out in my first post.

I do believe that you have correctly identified the issue…after that it gets to be less than correct

Grace is a free gift, one given to every person, even to infants, for the remission of sin. If one doesn’t see Baptism in this way, then I can understand a variance of views, but I continue to thank God that I was baptized into His grace when I was a month and a day old.

Jon

don’t stop thanking on my account…not that I am losing any sleep on the possibly that you might stop

 

[Radical]

Great example of how infants are baptized through the belief of their parents. No asterisk’s on delayed baptism. It’s not in the text.

aren’t you the fellow who is blustering that some Protestants ignore the word “whole”? The verse said that the whole household came to believe…nothing about the belief of parents attributed to infants…it is you who is ignoring the word “whole” whilst (ironically) claiming that your opponents are guilty of that sin…

Exactly. Follow common sense and to listen to the Church which Christ sent the Holy Spirit to …to guide in all Truth.

I do…I just don’t rely on you for identification of that Church…after all, you seem to be still struggling with the word “whole”

This Church baptized infants soon after birth as it circumcised infants at day 8. This made common sense to the early church. 1,600 years later, some followed the guide of man and started something differently.

so then, if infant baptism was common from the start then we should be able to identify some early church members who were baptized in infancy (as a matter of ordinary course, as opposed to emergency) I’ll give you the primary sources which we have that list all of the names of Christians who were baptized as infants (apart from emergency situations) before the fourth century:

drum roll…and ta da! Done.

Now that would be quite the thing if infant baptism was something initiated by the apostles. As to a primary source opposing infant baptism, you could look at the work(s) of Tertullian Hmmm…the first father to mention the thing opposes it. Again, that would be an odd thing if infant baptism was something initiated by the apostles…

Just so we’re clear, who are you citing from the early church?

I’ll track it down…I thought it was rather common knowledge.

The practice of infant baptism is clear in the early church…would you like citations?

yes please…start with the primary sources which we have that list all of the names of Christians who were baptized as infants (apart from emergency situations) before the fourth century if you think that my list of zero missed one.

Again, you are believing Christ was a poor teacher to have his Church be so wrong.

so you mess up and your first reaction would be to blame Christ’s teaching ability?..nice

Infants are baptized through the belief of their parents.

please, the primary source where this idea is first mentioned

In similar context, the words “Whole Households” is your answer.

you sure seem to be struggling with that word “whole”

 

[Radical]

So…I would hate to be your children.

I guess I should put a hold on my adoption plans as they relate to you? How very sad

They will never be included in your household.

I don’t pretend that “household” is used to include the same people in all circumstances…do you?

 

[ConstantineTG]

please read it again…it says make them disciples, (can you be a disciple w/o belief?)…baptize and teach.

Yes. The Apostles were called to be Disciples without knowing who Christ is. Discipleship is the process of teaching. A disciple is one who follows and is taught by a teacher.

nor is there reason to ignore “make disciples”

As noted above, disciples aren’t necessarily those who are believers already, but those committed to learn and be taught. But becoming a believer is not necessary, one may leave the teacher and reject the teaching even after a long period of discipleship.

 

[choliks]

IMHO, As long as baptism is seen only as an initiation and a manifestation of belief, not as a necessity for salvation and a grace from God, infant baptism will not make sense.

 

[Radical]

Yes. The Apostles were called to be Disciples without knowing who Christ is. Discipleship is the process of teaching. A disciple is one who follows and is taught by a teacher.

As noted above, disciples aren’t necessarily those who are believers already, but those committed to learn and be taught. But becoming a believer is not necessary, one may leave the teacher and reject the teaching even after a long period of discipleship.

I just want to be clear regarding your position…you want to use Matt 28:19-20 to support the Catholic practice of infant baptism…so, am I to understand that the Catholics take the baby at the moment of birth, use a week or so to make a disciple out of that infant and then baptize the infant?..so when does the teaching start? at two weeks? a month? perhaps a year?

 

[MartinJordan]

It’s all about Love when it comes to Baptizing infants imho. If you love your family and you are a believer (of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for our Salvation) . As we (as in myself for example have children) bring up our loved ones in the Faith. We are the first teachers. Parents are the first teachers.

As Jesus said “Love one another…”



MJ

 

[Georgia]

IMHO, As long as baptism is seen only as an initiation and a manifestation of belief, not as a necessity for salvation and a grace from God, infant baptism will not make sense.

That’s exactly the way it was taught in the Fundamentalist church in which I was raised and was baptized when I was about twelve years of age. Baptism was not seen as conferring any grace. Members argued about the necessity of baptism, but it was believed to be nothing outside a statement of belief and following Our Lord’s directive.

My old church did not recognize baptisms other than full immersion. It also did not recognize baptisms from any other denomination. If a person were to ask to join our church, but that person had been baptized in another denomination, he, like anyone coming forward for the first time, would have to be admitted by a church vote that was always in the affirmative and would have to be baptized. Infants were only allowed to be dedicated, a moment where parents would hold the child while prayers were said.

 

[Porknpie]

aren’t you the fellow who is blustering that some Protestants ignore the word “whole”? The verse said that the whole household came to believe…nothing about the belief of parents attributed to infants…it is you who is ignoring the word “whole” whilst (ironically) claiming that your opponents are guilty of that sin…

Whole = everyone = all males, all females, infants, small children, those under 6’ tall, those over 6’ tall (if which I am one). You haven’t answered how the word “whole” means something less.

I do…I just don’t rely on you for identification of that Church…after all, you seem to be still struggling with the word “whole”

What dictionary are you using?

so then, if infant baptism was common from the start then we should be able to identify some early church members who were baptized in infancy (as a matter of ordinary course, as opposed to emergency) I’ll give you the primary sources which we have that list all of the names of Christians who were baptized as infants (apart from emergency situations) before the fourth century:

drum roll…and ta da! Done.

Made me laugh. I hope you find this funny & cute as well. It’s short…“dum de dum”

youtube.com/watch?v=FQza179OvpQ

Polycarp was 86 when he was martyred having been baptized as an infant which is why he served the Lord for 86 years.

“Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?” Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9 (A.D. 156).

The early church was clear on infant baptism…all the quotes below are before the bible was written. This is Tradition from which the written Word Of God is to be understood. If you don’t trust this Church on infant baptism, then you can’t trust it to have selected the books in your bible.

“For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too.” Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

“Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.” Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

“But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day…And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism…we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…” Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).

“It shows no crease when infants put it on [the baptismal garment], it is not too scanty for young men, it fits women without alteration.” Optatus of Mileve, Against Parmenium, 5:10(A.D. 365).

“Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature?” Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:17 (A.D. 381).

“Be it so, some will say, in the case of those who ask for Baptism; what have you to say about those who are still children, and conscious neither of the loss nor of the grace? Are we to baptize them too? Certainly, if any danger presses. For it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated.” Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:28 (A.D. 381).

“‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is expected: not the infant, not the one prevented by necessity.” Ambrose, Abraham, 2,11:79 (A.D. 387).

“We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins.” John Chrysostom, Ad Neophytos (A.D. 388).

Now that would be quite the thing if infant baptism was something initiated by the apostles. As to a primary source opposing infant baptism, you could look at the work(s) of Tertullian Hmmm…the first father to mention the thing opposes it. Again, that would be an odd thing if infant baptism was something initiated by the apostles…

Initiated by the apostles? Then if you believe this, then you believe that Jesus was a poor teacher, or worse. I’ll read up on Tertullian this weekend as I’m traveling today…or someone else can respond.

I’ll track it down…I thought it was rather common knowledge.

OK.

My words below which you had not responded to. One can be healed through the faith of another and made holy through another. Similarly, infants are baptized through their parents.

Infants are baptized through the belief of their parents. Similarly…in the bible…one can be healed through the faith of another (see Matthew Chapter 8…the servant is healed through the centurion’s faith) and one can be made “Holy” through another (1 Corinthians 7). In similar context, the words “Whole Households” is your answer. The Church has understood this for 2000 years…Orthodox and Lutherans included…