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

[Porknpie]

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:

 

[MarisaJean]

“Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God” (Lk. 18:16).

All other arguments must be stopped when you read this. It is simply stated right here regarding the baptism of infants. So how does one defend “the bible doesn’t say that” when clearly it does!!! I’ve heard Children doesn’t mean Infants…really??? When my daughter was an infant she was still my child. I believe people are taught that catholics are wrong from such a young age that they will say anything to defend their faith even when pointed out to them they go so far as to make the word children not include infants. Blows my mind away…but what can ya do?

 

[Lochias]

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).

Your premise presumes that it is only what in the Bible that matters. Your premise is fatally flawed.

Please answer: Where in the Bible does it say that infant children CANNOT be baptised? Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the final authority on what is and is not allowed?

Please answer.

 

[Traverse]

I’ve tried to read through this whole thread to catch up. I imagine it’s possible I missed it, but has anyone considered the following verse?

Acts 8:36-38
As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?”
And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.

This seems to concretely contradict the idea of infant baptism because an infant cannot believe. It’s been established already that a household doesn’t necessarily contain an infant, though it can. So knowing that belief is required for baptism it doesn’t seem a stretch to therefore assume that the households mentioned that were baptized did not contain any individuals incapable of belief.

What is the catholic stance on this? Is it that the parents can vouch for the infant’s belief? Philip describes baptism in a very serious way.

For the record, it’s popular opinion (at least on this board) for catholics to assume that non-catholics think of baptism as an outward display of their faith and nothing more, but I know very well that is inaccurate as baptism is essential for salvation and for the remission of sins.

 

[LivingWaters7]

LW…what does the word “directly” mean? Perhaps this could be a new post? Again, I do apologize if I haven’t been clear. Sometimes I am not. Ask my wife. I’ve said, I’ve given examples where one can be saved AND be made Holy through the faith of another. The word “whole” in context of whole households believing is being used with this in mind. The meaning of the “whole” can change in the proper context.

If I say: “I ate the whole grape” I assume you understand that I ate the grape, seeds and all.

If I say: “I ate the whole apple” I assume you understand that I ate the apple but not the core. But I may have ate the core. You’d have to ask me for clarification. “Whole” could be “whole” or could be less.

If I say: “I ate the whole banana” I assume you understand I ate the flesh of the banana and not the skin. Notice I did not eat the 'whole" banana literally. So “whole” is not “whole”.

If I say: “I ate the whole hard boiled egg…” I assume you understand that I did not eat the shell. So “whole” is not “whole”

Exactly. Thank you for making the entire point, and why the OP is a fallacy. The use of “whole” in regards to “whole household” and baptism does not necessitate that infants (if there were infants in the first place) were baptized, because “whole” does not mean “everyone” or “everything” always, as you demonstrate. So relying on one definition of “whole”, to prove infant baptism, does not work, and is why I see the whole household argument to be weak (amongst other reasons, mostly because it is an argument based on assumptions).

You said-“Response: the bible says, multiple times, that “whole households” were baptized. What part of the word “whole” is not clear? Whole excludes infants? The bible doesn’t say that. Does “whole” exclude all females, all first born, anyone under 5’ tall, people born with blue eyes or four toes? No, of course not. None if this is in the text either. “Whole” means “everyone” is included.”. Thankfully, we now see why this argument (merely relying on the definition of “whole” to mean “everyone”) is flawed.

 

[LivingWaters7]

“Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God” (Lk. 18:16).

All other arguments must be stopped when you read this. It is simply stated right here regarding the baptism of infants. So how does one defend “the bible doesn’t say that” when clearly it does!!! I’ve heard Children doesn’t mean Infants…really??? When my daughter was an infant she was still my child. I believe people are taught that catholics are wrong from such a young age that they will say anything to defend their faith even when pointed out to them they go so far as to make the word children not include infants. Blows my mind away…but what can ya do?

No, it is not simply stated there regarding the baptism of infants. That is what you are reading into the text. Let us look at what Christ did after He said that:
**
Matthew 19:14-15

14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.**

Jesus Christ did not baptize the little children. He laid his hands on them and blessed them. Following Christ’s example, my Church does this as well with little children. Also, we do not forbid the infants from coming unto Christ. We believe that they are covered by Christ’s atoning sacrifice, and that, if they are to die, they return to His presence (there is no danger or worry of not returning to Him. We don’t have to hope that they will be saved, since we know that they are).

 

[LivingWaters7]

Your premise presumes that it is only what in the Bible that matters. Your premise is fatally flawed.

Obviously it doesn’t, since, I certainly don’t believe that only what is in the Bible is what matters. However, what we are discussing in this thread is what the Bible says on the matter (which is a completely different premise). That is why the premise does not fail.

Please answer: Where in the Bible does it say that infant children CANNOT be baptised?

Already answered. The Bible does not explicitly state that infants should be baptized, nor does it explicitly state that infants should not be baptized. These are inferences based on the text. If not, then please provide the chapter(s) and verse(s) that say that infants can be baptized.

Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the final authority on what is and is not allowed?

Please answer.

I already responded to this. I certainly don’t believe that the Bible is the final authority on what is and is not allowed. This is a straw man. What we are discussing is what the Bible states on the issue.

 

[SteveVH]

Obviously it doesn’t, since, I certainly don’t believe that only what is in the Bible is what matters. However, what we are discussing in this thread is what the Bible says on the matter (which is a completely different premise). That is why the premise does not fail.

Already answered. The Bible does not explicitly state that infants should be baptized, nor does it explicitly state that infants should not be baptized. These are inferences based on the text. If not, then please provide the chapter(s) and verse(s) that say that infants can be baptized.

I already responded to this. I certainly don’t believe that the Bible is the final authority on what is and is not allowed. This is a straw man. What we are discussing is what the Bible states on the issue.

We can go right back to the title of this thread: “Whole Households Were Baptized…” This is just silly. If Children were not to be baptized, the statement that “whole households were baptized” should have been modified with some statement making an exception for children if the writer was being at all responsible. Instead we find verification that this was the practice of the early Church in the writings of the ECF’s and no evidence against this practice. I realize that the LDS have an aversion to actual Church history but it remains, nevertheless.

 

[JerryZ]

What a wasted thread, any one denying the baptism to the infants simply deny what flies in the face of what has been a practice since Abraham was “Commanded” by God to circumcize every male within his “household” I just had to trow that word as it has been so hotly debated.

So if the Israelites have been practicing the circumcision at the age of 8 days and since that is rite that welcomes a newborn into the family of the Jewish faith with precise indications that he/she had to be brought within the Laws why would the Apostles trow all that out if they knew the New Covenant “Perfected” the Old one?

It makes NO sense!

The apostles knew that infants HAVE to be brought up in the covenant old men and women YES had to be “converted” “taught” but once the head of the family is into the fold of the “new” family of Christ why would the change the true and tried custom of also baptizing the infants?

Also a major point is the fact that so many traditions have trown out the real meaning of Baptism and all the other sacraments are mere remembrances, symbols bla bla bla.
What are they telling us?
I would not be surprised if one of these days someone declares that Jesus did not really resucitate!
It’s a worthless faith watered down and stripped of any meaning. Why bother?

 

[DebChris]

I’ve tried to read through this whole thread to catch up. I imagine it’s possible I missed it, but has anyone considered the following verse?

Acts 8:36-38
As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?”
And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him.

This seems to concretely contradict the idea of infant baptism because an infant cannot believe. It’s been established already that a household doesn’t necessarily contain an infant, though it can. So knowing that belief is required for baptism it doesn’t seem a stretch to therefore assume that the households mentioned that were baptized did not contain any individuals incapable of belief.

What is the catholic stance on this? Is it that the parents can vouch for the infant’s belief? Philip describes baptism in a very serious way.

For the record, it’s popular opinion (at least on this board) for catholics to assume that non-catholics think of baptism as an outward display of their faith and nothing more, but I know very well that is inaccurate as baptism is essential for salvation and for the remission of sins.

The expectation of the times, mentioned earlier, is that every member of a household worship the same gods as the head of the household. The households of the time would have included more than simply family members. It would have included slaves, as well as family heirs. A family, using the US census bureau definition, is comprised of 2 or more people related by birth, marriage, or adoption living in the same household.

When Abraham accepted the covenant of circumcision, every male member of his household was circumcised. That included his slaves as well as his offspring.
Joshua declared, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” He spoke for every member of his household.

The eunuch was reading scripture when he was joined by Phillip who helped answer his questions. His disability did not keep him from being included in God’s people through Baptism.

For Catholics, Baptism is indeed a big deal. It is more than an “outward expression of an inner disposition.” The Catholic Church teaches that Baptism washes away both original and actual sins from our souls. It also takes away punishment for those sins, and infuses us with a number of divine graces. Before the infant has a chance to sin, he/she is incorporated into the Body of Christ, into God’s people and marked with His grace.
And yes, it is the godparents who speak on the child’s behalf. The parents and godparents further accept the responsibility for teaching the Faith to their children. They are responsible for handing on the Faith as they received it.

 

[Lochias]

Obviously it doesn’t, since, I certainly don’t believe that only what is in the Bible is what matters. However, what we are discussing in this thread is what the Bible says on the matter (which is a completely different premise). That is why the premise does not fail.

And the conclusion has been reached that the Bible infers that infant baptism is legitimate, and even necessary.

Already answered. The Bible does not explicitly state that infants should be baptized, nor does it explicitly state that infants should not be baptized. These are inferences based on the text. If not, then please provide the chapter(s) and verse(s) that say that infants can be baptized.

And your inferences are based on groundless assumptions that do not hold water when scrutinized with any degree of closeness. As the Bible does not state explicitly one way or another, and inference and Church Tradition DO point to / explicitly state the need for infant baptism, your continued returning to this particular subject is just beating a dead horse into the ground.

I already responded to this. I certainly don’t believe that the Bible is the final authority on what is and is not allowed. This is a straw man. What we are discussing is what the Bible states on the issue.

It is not a straw man. The level of authority the Bible possesses is relevant to the larger question at issue. Please stop dancing around the questions asked you, and give a straight answer, just once.

 

[Porknpie]

Exactly. Thank you for making the entire point, and why the OP is a fallacy. The use of “whole” in regards to “whole household” and baptism does not necessitate that infants (if there were infants in the first place) were baptized, because “whole” does not mean “everyone” or “everything” always, as you demonstrate. So relying on one definition of “whole”, to prove infant baptism, does not work, and is why I see the whole household argument to be weak (amongst other reasons, mostly because it is an argument based on assumptions).

LW -

Agreement is good.

We agree that the word “whole” can have different meanings depending on the context. Wonderful.

Meaning #1 - Eat The Whole Grape Analogy - Whole households were baptized including infants.
Flesh of the grape = adults
Seeds of the grape = infants

Church history - well before the bible - documents infant baptism. “The apostles passed down the practice of infant baptism to the Church.” (Origen) And of course Jesus taught the apostles.

Meaning #2 - Ate The Whole Banana Analogy - Whole households came to believe.
Flesh of the banana = Adults
Skin of the banana (not eaten) = Infants

For those that are interested…the mp3 file link below is to a Journey Home roundtable on the subject of baptism. Marcus Grodi’s panel included a Lutheran, a Baptist and a non-denominational Christian (all ex’s). They spoke for nearly an hour on their previous view of baptism in their old church and their conversion to the Catholic / Orthodox understanding. Common among all three of them was reading the early church fathers … The ex-Lutheran made the point that Luther believed in infant baptism but did not state how it happened or tried to explain how (Jon perhaps can clarify…).

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/dload1.asp?audiofile=jh_02182008.mp3&source=frmselectseries.asp&seriesID=&T1=baptism

LW, when you eat a banana, do you eat the skin?

 

[Porknpie]

What we are discussing is what the Bible states on the issue.

LW, I would never limit a discussion to the bible alone…unless you can show where in the bible the bible states that Truth is limited to the bible. St. Paul says to hold on to what we have been taught both spoken and written.

 

[LivingWaters7]

LW, I would never limit a discussion to the bible alone…unless you can show where in the bible the bible states that Truth is limited to the bible. St. Paul says to hold on to what we have been taught both spoken and written.

Thankfully, as I said multiple times, I don’t believe that the Bible is the final, or only, authority (as you are well aware). However, we were discussing what you asked originally-"So the question remains… “Where in the bible does it say infants should not be baptized?”, as well as the use of “whole” in “whole household”. So obviously I would be talking about the Bible.

 

[LivingWaters7]

LW -

Agreement is good.

We agree that the word “whole” can have different meanings depending on the context. Wonderful.

…

LW, when you eat a banana, do you eat the skin?

Porknpie, it was Radical, then myself, that pointed out the varied meaning of the word “whole”, in light of your argument of using “whole” to mean “everyone”. We pointed out why that was fallacious.

 

[LivingWaters7]

And the conclusion has been reached that the Bible infers that infant baptism is legitimate, and even necessary.

By some. The conclusion has also been reached that the Bible does not imply (not “infer”) that infant baptism is legitimate, and that the “whole household” argument, which is what we have been discussing, is not airtight, especially if we rely on the use of the word “whole”, which was a major portion of the argument being given.

And your inferences are based on groundless assumptions that do not hold water when scrutinized with any degree of closeness. As the Bible does not state explicitly one way or another, and inference and Church Tradition DO point to / explicitly state the need for infant baptism, your continued returning to this particular subject is just beating a dead horse into the ground.

No, my inferences are based in sound logic, and we have been discussing what the Bible states on the issue, specifically the “whole household” issue (i.e. the name of the thread).

It is not a straw man. The level of authority the Bible possesses is relevant to the larger question at issue. Please stop dancing around the questions asked you, and give a straight answer, just once.

I am not sure if you read my previous posts. I quite clearly answered all questions, so please demonstrate where I did not. I already stated that I don’t believe that the Bible is the final authority, as you seemed to be implying that I did. It does not logically follow that because I am discussing what the Bible itself says on an issue that I believe that it is the final authority on everything. Therefore, it is a straw man.

 

[LivingWaters7]

We can go right back to the title of this thread: “Whole Households Were Baptized…” This is just silly. If Children were not to be baptized, the statement that “whole households were baptized” should have been modified with some statement making an exception for children if the writer was being at all responsible. Instead we find verification that this was the practice of the early Church in the writings of the ECF’s and no evidence against this practice. I realize that the LDS have an aversion to actual Church history but it remains, nevertheless.

Why should the statement have to be modified making an exception? This is standard English, as demonstrated by Porknpie himself. Porknpie also shows that when the Bible says that the whole household believed, this also means that the faith/belief of the parents substituted for that of the infants. Using your logic, if the writer was being at all responsible, he should have said “the whole household believed, except for the infants, since it is not cognitively possible, so the faith and belief of the parents substituted for them”. If I say, “wow, dad, the whole household next door voted”, do I need to actually say “wow, the whole household next door voted, except for the infant, of course”? Do I need to say “he ate the whole banana”, or “he ate the whole banana, except for the peel”? Of course not. Further, this argument is made more specious because it is based on the assumption that there were infants in the household to begin with, which is not known either way.

Also, what we have been discussing is this question in the OP-"So the question remains… "Where in the bible does it say infants should not be baptized? ". The Bible, not the ECFs (writing those statements 100+ years later). Also, your final sentence is poisoning the well, and certainly is not true (judging by the many LDS scholars with advanced degrees in relevant disciplines that publish and speak in these areas, for one). Anyway, being LDS has nothing to do with the actual issue that we are discussing.

 

[Lochias]

By some. The conclusion has also been reached that the Bible does not imply (not “infer”) that infant baptism is legitimate, and that the “whole household” argument, which is what we have been discussing, is not airtight, especially if we rely on the use of the word “whole”, which was a major portion of the argument being given.

Your conclusion is wrong. Putting your fingers in your ears and shouting “LA LA LA!” doesn’t erase fact or history.

No, my inferences are based in sound logic,

No, they are not.

and we have been discussing what the Bible states on the issue, specifically the “whole household” issue (i.e. the name of the thread).

No, there has been much more to the discussion that just that. You’re simply ignoring it, which is common of the majority of LDS folks who show up here. You’re not making your religion look any more credible, you know.

I am not sure if you read my previous posts. I quite clearly answered all questions, so please demonstrate where I did not. I already stated that I don’t believe that the Bible is the final authority, as you seemed to be implying that I did. It does not logically follow that because I am discussing what the Bible itself says on an issue that I believe that it is the final authority on everything. Therefore, it is a straw man.

You’re the only one who’s insisting on discussing the Bible and only the Bible. You’re not having a discussion, you’re talking to the wall. When you want to join the rest of the kids on the playground, you know where to find us.

 

[Randy_Carson]

By some. The conclusion has also been reached that the Bible does not imply (not “infer”) that infant baptism is legitimate, and that the “whole household” argument, which is what we have been discussing, is not airtight, especially if we rely on the use of the word “whole”, which was a major portion of the argument being given.

Nor does the Bible imply that infant baptism is illegitimate. This question hightlight the problems encountered by Bible only Christians on matters that are not discussed in scripture. However, the Church relies on her own authority and Tradition to establish the legitimacy of infant baptism.

I already stated that I don’t believe that the Bible is the final authority, as you seemed to be implying that I did.

And in this regard, you are closer to the Catholic position than many. The real question, of course, is where the True Apostolic Succession may be found.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Your conclusion is wrong. Putting your fingers in your ears and shouting “LA LA LA!” doesn’t erase fact or history.

No one is talking about erasing fact or history. What we are talking about is what “whole households” refers to. Please reread the OP if you need to.

No, they are not.

Actually, they are. In contrast to the argument that “whole households” necessitates infant baptism, my argument does not include multiple assumptions, as has already been detailed in this thread.

No, there has been much more to the discussion that just that. You’re simply ignoring it, which is common of the majority of LDS folks who show up here. You’re not making your religion look any more credible, you know.

I am not interested in “making [my] religion look any more credible”, since my religion is not the topic, despite repeated attempts to make it so. Also this is poisoning the well. Please refrain from doing so.

Also, I am interested in discussing the OP, i.e., what the Bible says on the issue.

You’re the only one who’s insisting on discussing the Bible and only the Bible. You’re not having a discussion, you’re talking to the wall. When you want to join the rest of the kids on the playground, you know where to find us.

Yes, I am interested in discussing the Bible (which is completely different from implying or saying that I believe that the Bible is the only or final authority, as you insisted on repeatedly bringing up despite my claims otherwise), because that was the question I was responding to in the OP.