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

[Radical]

Why would one even consider the (im?)possibility that none of the households had infants or very young children? If even one had an infant, then the understanding of “household” remains.

On 5 occasions in the NT “household” is mentioned in relation to baptism. By Paul once and by Luke 4 times.

First Paul’s:
1 Cor 1: 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)
Later in that epistle Paul mentions the household of Stephanus again:
1 Cor 16: 15 You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the Lord’s people. I urge you, brothers and sisters, 16 to submit to such people and to everyone who joins in the work and labors at it.
As such for Paul “household” = a body of persons who can a) convert, and b) devote themselves to service. Newborns can’t do either and as such, Paul’s use of “household” in 1 Cor 16:15 would not include newborns…and if Paul was consistent, then his use of “household” in 1 Cor 1:16 would also not include newborns.

Now Luke’s:

Crispus’ Household (Acts 18:8)
Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. 8 Crispus, the synagogue leader, and ** his entire household believed **in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.
Since newborns can’t believe, either Crispus’ “household” did not include any newborn(s) or Luke was expecting that his readers would employ common sense and understand that for him, in that context, household only included those capable of belief.

Philippian Jailer’s Household (Acts 16:31-34)
They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. 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.**
For Luke here “household” = a body of persons who could believe. Newborns are incapable of forming belief and as such,** Luke’s use of “household” in Acts 16 would not include newborns. **

Lydia’s Household (Acts 16:15)
Acts 16: 14-15 One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us
As pointed out above, Paul’s use of “household” later in this chapter meant a body of persons who were capable of belief. As such, why would we assume that earlier in chapter 16, Paul used household in a different fashion?

Cornelius’ household (Acts 10/11)
Acts 11:He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’ 15 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”
Acts 10: 44-47 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
Then Peter said, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”
I have reversed the order of the passages b/c chapter 11 is a report on how Peter was called to Cornelius’ house and chapter 10 records what happened after he got there and preached. The passage doesn’t say that a household was baptized, but rather that all the household would be saved. The progression is: heard the message => received the Holy Spirit => were baptized. Hearing the message is not something that newborns are capable of doing.

The clear sense of the text is all members of households, including the very young, were baptized.

which text are you thinking of? I listed the 5 of them…in the first three it is clear that the usage of “household” is restricted to those capable of belief. In the fifth the household is not said to be baptized and the salvation described in the passage involves hearing the message. The best you have left is Lydia’s household and that is very weak. When we see that Luke’s use of “household” elsewhere in Acts is restricted to those capable of belief, why would conclude that the “Lydia usage” is any different…ironically, when one looks at the “household” passages and notes the emphasis on belief and believers, they undermine (rather than support) the practice of baptizing newborns.

Does it give examples of “only adults and children who understand” should be Baptized?

the NT gives plenty of examples of people being baptized, but never specifies that a person who didn’t/couldn’t believe was baptized…

 

[Radical]

They are made disciples through word and sacrament. There is a comma, which means that we are being instructed as to how to make them disciples - Baptize and teach.

Jon

so, “make them disciples, baptize them and teach them” really means “make them disciples by baptizing them and teaching them”?..the comma does all that?..or is it that the comma (that Matthew used) did all that?

 

[Radical]

Porknpie, I’m not really understanding your argument:

hello LW7, thanks for trying…

 

[Radical]

Seriously, his words clearly imply or propose a theory that infant baptism was initiated in error by the apostles.

LW7 knows what he/she is talking about…you simply do not understand what I have said…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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

For example?

 

[JonNC]

=Radical;10110626]On 5 occasions in the NT “household” is mentioned in relation to baptism. By Paul once and by Luke 4 times.

First Paul’s:
1 Cor 1: 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)
Later in that epistle Paul mentions the household of Stephanus again:
1 Cor 16: 15 You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the Lord’s people. I urge you, brothers and sisters, 16 to submit to such people and to everyone who joins in the work and labors at it.
As such for Paul “household” = a body of persons who can a) convert, and b) devote themselves to service. Newborns can’t do either and as such, Paul’s use of “household” in 1 Cor 16:15 would not include newborns…and if Paul was consistent, then his use of “household” in 1 Cor 1:16 would also not include newborns.

Why would you narrow Paul’s understanding in such a way, time-wise? Would the infants there baptized not grow up and devote themselves to service? Would the adults not bring them up in the faith?

Now Luke’s:

Crispus’ Household (Acts 18:8)
Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. 8 Crispus, the synagogue leader, and ** his entire household believed **in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.
Since newborns can’t believe, either Crispus’ “household” did not include any newborn(s) or Luke was expecting that his readers would employ common sense and understand that for him, in that context, household only included those capable of belief.

Where does scripture say that infants cannot believe? Baptism, which brings us the Holy Spirit, would be the beginning of faith.

Philippian Jailer’s Household (Acts 16:31-34)
They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. 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.**
For Luke here “household” = a body of persons who could believe. Newborns are incapable of forming belief and as such,** Luke’s use of “household” in Acts 16 would not include newborns. **

Of course they can, over time. They would be brought up in the faith, as above.

continued

 

[JonNC]

Lydia’s Household (Acts 16:15)
Acts 16: 14-15 One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us
As pointed out above, Paul’s use of “household” later in this chapter meant a body of persons who were capable of belief. As such, why would we assume that earlier in chapter 16, Paul used household in a different fashion?

This one’s a stretch, as she says, “If you consider me…”

Cornelius’ household (Acts 10/11)
Acts 11:He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’ 15 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”
Acts 10: 44-47 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
Then Peter said, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”
I have reversed the order of the passages b/c chapter 11 is a report on how Peter was called to Cornelius’ house and chapter 10 records what happened after he got there and preached. The passage doesn’t say that a household was baptized, but rather that all the household would be saved. The progression is: heard the message => received the Holy Spirit => were baptized. Hearing the message is not something that newborns are capable of doing.

Really? I’ve heard the word from the moment my parents took me to Church, from the moment I was Baptized.

which text are you thinking of? I listed the 5 of them…in the first three it is clear that the usage of “household” is restricted to those capable of belief. In the fifth the household is not said to be baptized and the salvation described in the passage involves hearing the message. The best you have left is Lydia’s household and that is very weak. When we see that Luke’s use of “household” elsewhere in Acts is restricted to those capable of belief, why would conclude that the “Lydia usage” is any different…ironically, when one looks at the “household” passages and notes the emphasis on belief and believers, they undermine (rather than support) the practice of baptizing newborns.

None of the ones you listed exclude infant Baptism. None of them. I’m not trying to convince you, and I expect we come from different positions on the mportance of the practice of the early Church, the practice of both east and west, that being infant Baptism. What I will say is this, Mark 10:

*When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 16And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them. * I see no reason whatever, scripturally, or in the historic Church, to withhold children from Baptism. As the Augsburg Confession says,
**Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary 2] to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace. **

the NT gives plenty of examples of people being baptized, but never specifies that a person who didn’t/couldn’t believe was baptized…

Exactly. Infants are received into God’s grace in Baptism, and can believe.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 16And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them. I see no reason whatever, scripturally, or in the historic Church, to withhold children from Baptism. As the Augsburg Confession says,
**Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary 2] to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace. **

Exactly. Infants are received into God’s grace in Baptism, and can believe.

Jon

Great post Jon! I was about to include it. Who is to say that the Spirit is not moving the parents to bring the children into the New Covenant? How can we tell if an infant believes or not? Or Who are we to question how God can work in them?

The Bible does not specifically say that baptism is prohibited to children. It does say that we should not hinder their access to Him!

God Bless,

Jose

 

[JonNC]

I might add, Radical, that in the sacrament of Baptism, at least in the Lutheran tradition, there is a dependency on the faith of the parents, the godparents, and the congregation, to bring the infant up in the faith. This is important, and I was negligent in leaving it out.
*Acts 2:38-39 ~ "And Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. **For the promise is for you and for your children *and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.’"

The fact is that infant baptism dates back to the early Church (Origen was baptized as an infant in about 180AD). Augustine writes of it. I’m not even sure there is a writing that indicates that it “began” at some certain point.

Jon

 

[Radical]

Why would you narrow Paul’s understanding in such a way, time-wise? Would the infants there baptized not grow up and devote themselves to service? Would the adults not bring them up in the faith?

why would you narrow the baptisms in such a way, time-wise? Could members of the household not be baptized at different times as they became believers? The fact remains that Paul’s description of the household is of a set of persons all capable of belief.

Where does scripture say that infants cannot believe?

where does scripture say that the gestation time for polar bears is about 8 months?..but if you think that newborns believe, then I guess our difference is not in restricting baptism to believers only, but in you thinking that newborns can believe and me thinking (based a lot on science and not so much of my memory of the first few months of my life) that newborns do not possess the intellectual capacity for belief.

Baptism, which brings us the Holy Spirit, would be the beginning of faith.

for some it never begins

Of course they can, over time. They would be brought up in the faith, as above.

they rejoiced at a present condition where the whole household believed….it is not a case where they came to believe over time

This one’s a stretch, as she says, “If you consider me…”

please explain to me how you think Lydia’s use of “me” implies that her household included newborns. BTW if she had a husband, why isn’t he mentioned….was he a non- believer?..was he, being part of her household, baptized as a non-believer? Perhaps she didn’t have a husband…maybe that is why she used “me”….w/o a husband the likelihood of a newborn drops quite a bit, wouldn’t you say?

Really? I’ve heard the word from the moment my parents took me to Church, from the moment I was Baptized.

for the first while your ears would have only received sound waves…you would have heard noise…to hear a message requires higher cognitive abilities

None of the ones you listed exclude infant Baptism. None of them.

why exclude what wasn’t even contemplated…

I’m not trying to convince you, and I expect we come from different positions on the mportance of the practice of the early Church, the practice of both east and west, that being infant Baptism.

positions as different as night and day perhaps

What I will say is this, Mark 10:

When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 16And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them. I see no reason whatever, scripturally, or in the historic Church, to withhold children from Baptism.

I trust that you realize that:
a) The kiddies weren’t being brought to Jesus to be baptized…the passage has nothing to do with baptism
b) The kiddies already possessed the kingdom of God w/o having received any baptism whatsoever

Exactly. Infants are received into God’s grace in Baptism, and can believe.

Jon

so, it is your position that infant/newborn baptism is really a believer’s baptism?

I might add, Radical, that in the sacrament of Baptism, at least in the Lutheran tradition, there is a dependency on the faith of the parents, the godparents, and the congregation, to bring the infant up in the faith. This is important, and I was negligent in leaving it out.

understood…I am familiar with some things Lutheran

The fact is that infant baptism dates back to the early Church (Origen was baptized as an infant in about 180AD). Augustine writes of it.

you sure about this?

I’m not even sure there is a writing that indicates that it “began” at some certain point.

Jon

best resource on baptism

 

[Porknpie]

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…

I promised you a response on Tertullian…well here’s a few things…

• Was he an ecclesiastical writer? Yes. Father of the Church? No.

newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm

• Did he oppose baptism? Yes. Did he reject it? No. Interesting article that suggests why… debate format below.

philvaz.com/apologetics/a110.htm

• Article makes it clear that the Church in Africa was practicing infant baptism at the time of Tertullian.
• Both the Church in Africa and Tertullian believed in baptismal regeneration.

Is there anyone else in the early Church, that believed in a delayed baptism to the age of reason?

 

[JonNC]

=Radical;10110991]why would you narrow the baptisms in such a way, time-wise? Could members of the household not be baptized at different times as they became believers?

Of course they could, but why wait to make available God’s grace through Baptism.?

The fact remains that Paul’s description of the household is of a set of persons all capable of belief.

Capable of belief. All, well virtually all, persons are capable of belief. And even for those who can’t, Baptism now saves you.

where does scripture say that the gestation time for polar bears is about 8 months?..but if you think that newborns believe, then I guess our difference is not in restricting baptism to believers only, but in you thinking that newborns can believe and me thinking (based a lot on science and not so much of my memory of the first few months of my life) that newborns do not possess the intellectual capacity for belief.

Hmm. I guess I was thinking more of the power of the Holy Spirit, and not scientists.

for some it never begins
they rejoiced at a present condition where the whole household believed….it is not a case where they came to believe over time
please explain to me how you think Lydia’s use of “me” implies that her household included newborns. BTW if she had a husband, why isn’t he mentioned….was he a non- believer?..was he, being part of her household, baptized as a non-believer? Perhaps she didn’t have a husband…maybe that is why she used “me”….w/o a husband the likelihood of a newborn drops quite a bit, wouldn’t you say?

I don’t always speak in terms of my wife and me. That’s not necessarily an exclusion.

for the first while your ears would have only received sound waves…you would have heard noise…to hear a message requires higher cognitive abilities

Again, I’m thinking of the power of the Holy Spirit.

I trust that you realize that:
a) The kiddies weren’t being brought to Jesus to be baptized…the passage has nothing to do with baptism
b) The kiddies already possessed the kingdom of God w/o having received any baptism whatsoever so, it is your position that infant/newborn baptism is really a believer’s baptism?

I think the passage can be seen in light of baptism, certainly. When I brought my children to be baptized, I was bringing them to receive the Holy Spirit, which they did.
No, I believe the newborn infant is baptized into the grace of God. God does the baptizing, by water and the Spirit. But I certainly believe that Baptism, receiving the holy Spirit, is for the infant the beginning of faith.

you sure about this?

Other than Tertullian, who spoke out against infant Baptism?

Jon

 

[Radical]

…it wasn’t as if the Traditions of the early church always matched scripture

For example?

Well, since you asked for 4 instances, why don’t I do this: I’ll give two examples of baptismal practice differing from anything described in the NT and then point out two things from the passages that I quoted above that weren’t followed. First, the ancient practice:

Here is a bit from the Church Order known as “The Testament of the Lord”:
But when they are about to receive the oil for anointing, let the bishop pray over it and give thanks, and let him exorcise another [oil] with an exorcism, the same as in the case of catechumens. And let the deacon bear that which is exorcised, and let the presbyter stand by him. Let him then who standeth by that [oil] on which a giving of thanks over the oil [is said] be on the right hand ; …Then after these things let him give him over to the presbyter who baptizeth. And let them stand in the water naked. But let the deacon descend with him similarly.
The NT knows nothing of this sort of regimented ceremony for baptism….complete with exorcizing the oil.
Here is a bit from the 70/69 epistle of Cyprian:
It is required, then, that the water should first be cleansed and sanctified by the priest, that it may wash away by its baptism the sins of the man who is baptized;…
The NT doesn’t mention that the water to be used for baptism needs to first be exorcised by prayer

Now for the (not followed) scripture:The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the believers from Joppa went along. 24 The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25 As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26 But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”
Note how Peter refused this show of reverence….as opposed to many in the Church hierarchy who actually sought it.
15 You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the Lord’s people. I urge you, brothers and sisters, 16 to submit to such people and to everyone who joins in the work and labors at it. 17 I was glad when Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus arrived, because they have supplied what was lacking from you.
Note how we are to submit to those who devote themselves to the service of the Lord regardless of the absence of an office….with the establishment of a monarchical bishopric, the church (to a large degree) lost sight of submission to the righteous worker and focused on submission to those appointed to an office w/i the church. If only righteous people were appointed to office it wouldn’t have been nearly as bad.

 

[Radical]

Other than Tertullian, who spoke out against infant Baptism?

Jon

I don’t know…I do know that records indicate that the practice wasn’t universal.

The routine baptism of babies belongs to the 5th century…after Augustine it was the normal practice in the West. Pope Siricius (384-399) felt the need to decree that if a child was consecrated to Christ from infancy, then that child must be baptized before puberty. Marcarius, 10th century bishop of Memphis still acknowledged that the 1st generation did not baptize infants

 

[Porknpie]

I don’t know…I do know that records indicate that the practice wasn’t universal.

The routine baptism of babies belongs to the 5th century…after Augustine it was the normal practice in the West. Pope Siricius (384-399) felt the need to decree that if a child was consecrated to Christ from infancy, then that child must be baptized before puberty. Marcarius, 10th century bishop of Memphis still acknowledged that the 1st generation did not baptize infants

Radical - do you have a different decree as a reference to Pope Siricius? Here’s what I found on-line. The decree has Baptism being performed on Pentecost and Easter. He makes only a comparison to infant baptism … a practice already in place (noted outside of the bible in post 40)…

II. Baptism may only be bestowed on Pentecost and Easter

Then follows objectionable confusion (MS), in need of correction, about those who are about to be baptized just as it pleases each and every one of them. Our fellow priests–we speak in indignation–not by reason of any authority but by temerity alone presume this, so that throngs of people, as you report, attain the mystery of baptism randomly and freely at Christmas, or Epiphany, and also on the feasts of the apostles or martyrs, although both with us and in all churches the Lord’s Resurrection and Pentecost claim this privilege specially for themselves. On these days alone through the year is it proper for the complete rites of baptism to be bestowed on those coming to the faith, but only on those select people who applied forty or more days earlier, and were cleansed by exorcisms, daily prayers, and fasts, so that the precept of the Apostle is fulfilled that with old leaven having been driven out, new dough comes into being. But just as we say that sacred Paschal reverence in no way ought to be diminished, so we wish for the waters of sacred baptism to be of assistance with all speed to infants, who because of age are not yet able to speak, and to those for whom in any emergency it is needed, lest the destruction of our souls be at stake if, the salutary font being denied to those seeking it, someone departing from the world loses both the kingdom and life. Whoever, indeed, suffers the peril of shipwreck, the assault of an enemy, the uncertainty of a siege, or the despair of any bodily illness and demands to be supported by the singular help of belief, at the very same moment when they demand, the advantages of the sought for regeneration should follow. Enough error on this matter (Latin)! All priests who do not wish to be torn from the solidity of the apostolic rock, upon which Christ built the universal Church, should now hold the aforementioned rule.

How about a source for the below?

Marcarius, 10th century bishop of Memphis still acknowledged that the 1st generation did not baptize infants

 

[Radical]

Radical - do you have a different decree as a reference to Pope Siricius?

see Letters 1.9.13

How about a source for the below?

see La lettre de Macaire a translation by Loius Villecourt or Everett Ferguson’s english translation of Villecourt’s french at p. 632 of the work that I linked earlier…

 

[tabycat]

How do we know there were infants in these households? Does every single household have an infant? An explanation I have heard is that there simply were no infants in those households and that everyone there happened to be old enough. If there were infants, then the scriptures might have said, “he and all the members of his household who understood were baptized”

Up until the past 150-200 years most households had, at least, one or more children under five years old. this includes whole households in the First Century AD. At what should a person be beptized?

 

[Porknpie]

=Radical;10114984]see Letters 1.9.13

see La lettre de Macaire a translation by Loius Villecourt or Everett Ferguson’s english translation of Villecourt’s french at p. 632 of the work that I linked earlier…

Radical, if you have the documents or quotes from them, can you provide some quotes? Searching the web hasn’t been successful.

 

[Radical]

Radical, if you have the documents or quotes from them, can you provide some quotes? Searching the web hasn’t been successful.

the book that I linked earlier can be accessed/previewed at google books…it has 2 chapters that deal with infant baptism: 23 & 39

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If only righteous people were appointed to office it wouldn’t have been nearly as bad.

Working on your responses but in the mean time, I just couldn’t help myself.

What shall we conclude then? Are we any betterb? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;

You know better man!