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

[Porknpie]

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

I’ve had a chance a chance to look at his summary on page 379 (I’m not saying it’s not there, but I still can’t find a quote from a 10th century coptic bishop…), saying

“…in the fourth century, infant baptism was not yet the norm.”

This is in contradiction to the bible and a couple of people writing in the third century

Note below… Jesus taught the apostles … the apostles taught their successors.

"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).

The author on page 378 states:

“John 3:5 left a strong impression on the second century church as requiring the necessity of baptism for entrance to heaven.”

John created a “strong impression”. Wonder why? Who taught John? Still, the author does not believe John’s words:

Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit"

And that is the fundamental issue. The apostles believed Jesus literally. They passed on this belief to their decendents … the Church. We’re back to where we started. Either Jesus was a bad teacher, or the apostles … as they spread out geographically apart from one another, started their own tradition. The author believes they started their own tradition, the beginnings of which are rooted in “baptism by necessity”. Unfortunately, this is theory … speculation, not rooted in the bible and not rooted in the history of the Church.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Porknpie,

Great post and well said!

Anything else is inconsequential at this point.

 

[Radical]

I’ve had a chance a chance to look at his summary on page 379 (I’m not saying it’s not there, but I still can’t find a quote from a 10th century coptic bishop…), …

for the Memphis bishop see page 632…that section starts at page 627

This is in contradiction to the bible…

no…your proof texts from the NT have proven to be empty of your claims

…and a couple of people writing in the third century

you need to understand that Ferguson distinguishes between emergency baptism of infants and the idea that all infants should be baptized within days after birth.

Note below… Jesus taught the apostles … the apostles taught their successors.

and the successors weren’t satisfied with what they received and kept adding and adding to the original message

The author on page 378 states:

John created a “strong impression”. Wonder why? Who taught John? Still, the author does not believe John’s words:

he doesn’t?..page # please.

We’re back to where we started. Either Jesus was a bad teacher, or the apostles … as they spread out geographically apart from one another, started their own tradition.

nice try, but you have missed the obvious…and that is that the ones who followed the apostles decided that additions were necessary…Catholic theologians can’t help but acknowledge the many, many additions…they just try to salvage the situation by labelling it a “development”

The author believes they started their own tradition, the beginnings of which are rooted in “baptism by necessity”. Unfortunately, this is theory … speculation, not rooted in the bible and not rooted in the history of the Church.

even Catholic scholars can’t help but acknowledge that Ferguson’s work is about the best reference there is for the history of baptism in the Church…

 

[Radical]

What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? 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;

when reading Romans, you shouldn’t neglect other verses from the NT:

The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to ask you to come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say.”

…and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

And, “If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”

…otherwise you might conclude that you must appoint corrupt officers for the church

 

[Isaiah45_9]

when reading Romans, you shouldn’t neglect other verses from the NT:

The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to ask you to come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say.”

…and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

And, “If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”

…otherwise you might conclude that you must appoint corrupt officers for the church

My question would then be:

Is the Bible contradicting itself?

As for the officers,

Must? No. Inevitable? Yes. It is the sad condition we are all in. However, instead of branching off into more sects and denominations it is better to stay and work from within, not from without. Pork’s posts in favor of the practice and the lack of refutations and/or letters against it clearly shows this practice as accepted by the OHCAC. Perhaps you should ask yourself when did the practice of hindering the children’s access to our Lord started and by whom.

 

[LivingWaters7]

hello LW7, thanks for trying…

No problem.

Porknpie, let me see if I can simplify the point we were making, and that you haven’t directly engaged:

-Porknpie says that “whole” means everyone, so includes infants.

-Porknpie says that because the “whole household” was baptized, and “whole” means everyone, that means that everyone, including infants, was baptized.

-Radical says that scripture also says that the “whole household” believed. “Whole” means everyone, so that means that everyone, including infants, believed.

-Porknpie in response says that the faith/belief of the parents substituted for that of the infants.

-Radical correctly identifies this as inconsistent logic. First Porknpie wants to say that because whole means everyone, and the whole household was baptized, that meant the infants were baptized too. But at the same time, Porknpie wants to say that even though the scripture says that the whole household also believed, that doesn’t mean that the infants believed too (since, as we know, they do not have the cognitive and neurological structures to express such rational thought), since the faith of the parents substitutes for the infants (which is never stated as occurring in relation to baptism in the Bible).

-So, Porknpie wants us to say whole means everyone when it comes to baptism, but whole doesn’t mean everyone when it comes to believing (since he clearly gives an exception in that case).

I think the OP has been answered by Porknpie himself.

 

[Lochias]

No problem.

Porknpie, let me see if I can simplify the point we were making, and that you haven’t directly engaged:

-Porknpie says that “whole” means everyone, so includes infants.

-Porknpie says that because the “whole household” was baptized, and “whole” means everyone, that means that everyone, including infants, was baptized.

-Radical says that scripture also says that the “whole household” believed. “Whole” means everyone, so that means that everyone, including infants, believed.

-Porknpie in response says that the faith/belief of the parents substituted for that of the infants.

-Radical correctly identifies this as inconsistent logic. First Porknpie wants to say that because whole means everyone, and the whole household was baptized, that meant the infants were baptized too. But at the same time, Porknpie wants to say that even though the scripture says that the whole household also believed, that doesn’t mean that the infants believed too (since, as we know, they do not have the cognitive and neurological structures to express such rational thought), since the faith of the parents substitutes for the infants (which is never stated as occurring in relation to baptism in the Bible).

-So, Porknpie wants us to say whole means everyone when it comes to baptism, but whole doesn’t mean everyone when it comes to believing (since he clearly gives an exception in that case).

I think the OP has been answered by Porknpie himself.

Wrong. If infants could be circumcised by consent of their parents, they can also be baptized the same way.

 

[Porknpie]

Wrong. If infants could be circumcised by consent of their parents, they can also be baptized the same way.

Thank you Lochias. From my Post #40…through the faith of another, one can be both healed and made Holy…I should have added circumcision. …they can also be baptized the same way.

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…

 

[LivingWaters7]

Thank you Lochias. From my Post #40…through the faith of another, one can be both healed and made Holy…I should have added circumcision. …they can also be baptized the same way.

Can you please directly respond to the issue of your use of whole to mean everyone when it talks about whole households being baptized, in contrast to your use of whole to not mean everyone when it talks about whole households believing (since you say that the belief/faith of the parents substitutes for the infants)? This is an issue that has not been addressed yet by you, and shows why your OP fails since “whole” does not mean “everyone”, as evidenced by your own statement on the belief of infants.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Wrong. If infants could be circumcised by consent of their parents, they can also be baptized the same way.

Again, the point that I made is that the Bible does not make that claim.

 

[Kristin234]

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

No, faith in Jesus Christ is what brings us the Holy Spirit.

Scripture shows us that just because you are baptized by water does not mean you have the Holy Spirit, and that you actually receive it when you hear and believe. I was baptized as an infant. I did not receive the Holy Spirit as an infant. I didn’t know anything about God as an infant, so how can I believe? I actually didn’t really come to know Him until after high school. Yet, I had the Holy Spirit?

When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.

“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said:** ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.**’ 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?”

 

[LivingWaters7]

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

Perhaps the more appropriate question would be where does scripture say that infants can believe?

 

[DebChris]

For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy [Luke 1:44]
Why did John leap? Because he recognized the Messiah when “his mother was filled with the Holy Spirit.” He believed.

If you were baptized “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” then you did receive the Holy Spirit when you received the Sacrament of Baptism. With this Sacrament, you received the indelible mark of the Holy Spirit. God became your God, and you became part of God’s people. Becoming a part of God’s people does not depend on age any more than age determines a person’s citizenship. As we grow, we learn what that citizenship entails.

I understand that Anabaptists, like Mennonites and the Amish, do not accept infant Baptism. For them, water Baptism serves as an outward expression of the Baptism of Desire (belief) that they have already received. The Baptism of Blood is the life long letting go of self, daily martyrdom.

When we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, we have several choices. We can open the gift and begin using it, or we can pack it away and place it on the back of the closet shelf, as it were. Out of sight, and out of mind, we do not know what we have. When we open the gift, we become empowered by the Spirit. We may even display the charisms. After opening the gift, we still need to learn how to use what we have received. As an analogy, a person who receives a bicycle still needs to learn how to ride it. The first converts to the Faith submitted themselves to the teaching of the Apostles (Acts 2:42). As Catholics, we do likewise when we submit to the magisterium.

With the Great Commissioning, Jesus told the Apostles to “make disciples of all nations” and to teach “them to observe all that I have commanded you.” [Matt. 28:18-20].

 

[Lochias]

Again, the point that I made is that the Bible does not make that claim.

It doesn’t say infants can’t be baptized either, and the overwhelming inference is that it is just fine and even necessary to do so. Use your mind.

 

[Lochias]

Perhaps the more appropriate question would be where does scripture say that infants can believe?

Where does Scripture say they can’t? Also also, where does Scripture say that Scripture is the final authority and higher than any other?

 

[Porknpie]

Again, the point that I made is that the Bible does not make that claim.

LW -

You’ve heard this before…the Catholic church does not say that the bible teaches everything. The bible doesn’t say that there should even be a bible…doesn’t say that there should be 73 books (or 66 in your case) and doesn’t say the bible alone is the compendium of Truth. Scripture does say…Paul says that we should hold on to what has been taught both spoken and written. You are focused on the written part… and ignoring Paul’s words on the spoken part. Of course Christ also gave us a Church, one that he sent the Holy Spirit to…to guide in all Truth…this church being the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth.

On post #40…I gave cited a listing, partial, of Church writings, all before the bible was canonized that support & recognize infant baptism. These writers had no bible in front of them. They were going by the teachings handed down from Christ to the Apostles and then to their successors. Here’s the listing again with my inserting (who were taught by Christ):

"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles (who were taught by Christ) 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).

 

[LivingWaters7]

It doesn’t say infants can’t be baptized either, and the overwhelming inference is that it is just fine and even necessary to do so. Use your mind.

Right, that is your inference. My inference from the Bible is that there is no evidence for infant baptism within the Bible. We do see Jesus Christ blessing the little children, which is what my Church does, following Christ’s example. The “whole households” argument is not convincing for me, since it relies on a number of assumptions, namely, that infants are to be baptized in the first place (which is not stated in the Bible (since we’re talking about what the Bible says)), and that there were infants in the household to begin with. Also, the argument in the OP on the use of the word “whole” to mean “everyone” fails, since 1) in common English discourse, “whole” does not have to mean everyone/everything when the context does not demand it to, and 2) Porknpie himself has given an exception to the use of “whole” meaning “everyone” in relation to the belief/faith of the “whole household”, and that the belief/faith of the parents substitutes for that of the infant, which defeats his own argument (and which he has not directly engaged).

 

[LivingWaters7]

Where does Scripture say they can’t?

That’s like asking “Where does Scripture say that you can’t ordain an infant to the priesthood?” I assume that you cannot provide a scripture that states that infants can believe? Also, I’d be interested in the psychological and neurological studies demonstrating that infants have brains developed enough to do so (I’m a pharmacy student so I have access to the databases to read the full articles that you provide). It is logical to state that infants cannot express the rational thought process needed to believe, so if scripture actually states that they can, then I would be interested in the chapter(s) and verse(s).

Also also, where does Scripture say that Scripture is the final authority and higher than any other?

Where did I say that Scripture says that Scripture is the final authority and higher than any other? Perhaps it would be best to not put words in my mouth. I don’t believe that. What we have been discussing, however, is what Scripture says about this issue.

 

[LivingWaters7]

LW -

You’ve heard this before…the Catholic church does not say that the bible teaches everything. The bible doesn’t say that there should even be a bible…doesn’t say that there should be 73 books (or 66 in your case) and doesn’t say the bible alone is the compendium of Truth. Scripture does say…Paul says that we should hold on to what has been taught both spoken and written. You are focused on the written part… and ignoring Paul’s words on the spoken part. Of course Christ also gave us a Church, one that he sent the Holy Spirit to…to guide in all Truth…this church being the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth.

Of course.

Porknpie, can you please directly respond to this post of mine? I will paste it below for your convenience. You haven’t engaged this argument by myself and Radical, and I would like your thoughts. To me, your own words demonstrate the fallacy of the OP, in that “whole” does not always mean “everyone”, by your own usage in relation to belief/faith.

**Porknpie, let me see if I can simplify the point we were making, and that you haven’t directly engaged:

-Porknpie says that “whole” means everyone, so includes infants.

-Porknpie says that because the “whole household” was baptized, and “whole” means everyone, that means that everyone, including infants, was baptized.

-Radical says that scripture also says that the “whole household” believed. “Whole” means everyone, so that means that everyone, including infants, believed.

-Porknpie in response says that the faith/belief of the parents substituted for that of the infants.

-Radical correctly identifies this as inconsistent logic. First Porknpie wants to say that because whole means everyone, and the whole household was baptized, that meant the infants were baptized too. But at the same time, Porknpie wants to say that even though the scripture says that the whole household also believed, that doesn’t mean that the infants believed too (since, as we know, they do not have the cognitive and neurological structures to express such rational thought), since the faith of the parents substitutes for the infants (which is never stated as occurring in relation to baptism in the Bible).

-So, Porknpie wants us to say whole means everyone when it comes to baptism, but whole doesn’t mean everyone when it comes to believing (since he clearly gives an exception in that case).

I think the OP has been answered by Porknpie himself**.

 

[DebChris]

In the OT, we can find examples of individuals such as Samson and Samuel being “dedicated to the Lord” from birth.
Ordaination is a vocation to which individuals are called. The priest, as successor to the Apostles, has a special leadership role within the Church.
Baptism, on the other hand, is a Sacrament of initiation. Through Baptism we become a part of the Body of Christ, that is the Church. Not everybody is called to the priesthood. Not all are Apostles. All are called to be part of God’s people.

Scripture nowhere commands or forbids the baptizing of children.
Why would Christians baptize little children who have no clue what the sacrament is all about? Because Baptism, as with all sacraments,accomplishes real, objective spiritual work. The effects of the sacrament are not dependent on the faith or understanding of the child being baptized…
…Consider this parellel: Infants have no idea about what is accomplished by a bath. Should parents wait to bathe their children until they understand? Of course not. Nor should they wait to have their children’s souls washed clean in Baptism. [Source: Catholic Answer Bible]