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

[LivingWaters7]

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.

Of course. Thankfully, I am not a Bible-only Christian.

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.

Indeed.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Indeed.

It’s a good thing that you accept the importance of Apostolic Authority and Apostolic succession.

The matter to be determined is whether a Great Apostacy occurred or was even possible given the promises of Jesus and the intent of the Father.

A total apostasy, as it is commonly understood, is impossible, and there are three reasons for this:

First, the Old Testament prophecies concerning the New Covenant describe it as perpetual and indefectible. For example, Daniel 7:13-14:

‘I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man [Jesus], and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.’ (See also Isaiah 9:6-7 and Daniel 2:44.)

Second, the New Testament also describes the Church as indefectible. Yes, there will be apostasies. That is what St. Paul is referring to in 2 Thessalonians. In fact, there will be a major apostasy before the Second Coming according to 2 Thessalonians 2, but never does it say a total apostasy. According to the New Testament, this is impossible! Matt. 28:19-20 says, “'And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.’” A similar thought can be found in Luke 1:33, where the Angel Gabriel says of Jesus, “And of his kingdom there will be no end.”

Third, Matthew 28:20 says the Lord will be with us, pasas tas hemaras, or “all the days”! So there’s no room for total apostasy. Christ will be teaching via his apostles and their successors all days even until the end of time!

In Ephesians, St. Paul explicitly tells us the Church will be with us until the end of time. Ephesians 1:22 describes the Church as “[Christ’s] body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.” This Church is ‘built upon the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone’ (2:20). She is described as being so awesome, St. Paul can say “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places” (3:10). The Church teaches angels!

As we saw before, this true Church must have apostles, prophets, pastors, evangelists and teachers (cf. 4:11). And why, you ask? ‘For the equipment of the saints. . . for building up the body of Christ. . . so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine. . .’ (4:12,14).

So, God gave us the Church that we may know with certainty the truths of the Faith. That’s not the only reason, but it is a central reason. But maybe the most important passage for us in Ephesians is 3:20-21:

“Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, to him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen.”

This Church that St. Paul is describing in Ephesians will be here to all generations (pasas tas geneas, “all the generations”) forever and ever. This eliminates the possibility of a total apostasy for even one generation!

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Lochias]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Like I said…when you’d actually like to discuss the issue, I’ll be right here. Until such time as a actual, productive discussion can be started, there are other things I need to be doing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Try this line of reasoning:

Acts 2:38-39
38 Peter replied, “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. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Peter did not say, “Every one of you adults”; he said, “Every one of you” without qualification and added “the promise (of the Holy Spirit) is for you and your children”. Baptism and the Holy Spirit are frequently connected throughout the Bible (cf. Ez. 36:25-27, Mt. 3:16, Jn. 3:5).

Because the indwelling of the Holy Spirit would normatively require prior baptism (because the Holy Spirit would not dwell where sin existed in the soul), it can be seen from this passage that the “promise of the Holy Spirit” made to children implies their baptism into the body of Christ.

 

[Porknpie]

Of course. Thankfully, I am not a Bible-only Christian.

Indeed.

LW -

It’s all about Apples and agreeing.

I say to you **“I ate a WHOLE apple”. **

**We can agree: ** You don’t know if I ate the apple including the core or excluding the core.

We can agree: That you have to ask me to find out (assuming no one else knows either)

We can agree: that the authors of the books in the bible are no longer around.

We can agree: that there were writings in the early Church, prior to there being a canonized bible.

We can agree: early Church writings directly state that Infant Baptism was being practiced in the Church (I provided these references)

We can agree: that there were no writings in the early Church that stated baptism was to be delayed until adulthood or age of reason. If you disagree with this…please provide the references.

We can agree: for emphasis…that the early Church had no bible until year ~400 AD.

We can agree: that Origen states that the Apostles passed down the teaching of Infant baptism to the Church

We can agree: that Jesus Christ taught the Apostles

We can agree: that the Catholic Church canonized the bible by 405 AD.

Given that all the writings in the Church prior to the bible being canonized recognized and validated infant baptism, we can hold as true that the meaning of the text…the word “Whole” means everyone, including infants.

That’s knowing the authors ate the apple, including the core.

 

[SteveVH]

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.

As far as the faith that one follows, in that culture the entire household adopted the faith of the Patriarch, or in the case of servants, their Master. Even so, this example includes the entire household, just as the entire household, without apparent exception, was baptised. To assume that no children were in the “household” assumes too much.

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”.

Again, one need not make an exception when that exception is an obvious known fact. That infants were not baptized is not an obvious know fact.

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”?

No because infants can’t vote. Again, that is a known fact. It is not a known fact, however that infants can’t be baptised. Your analogy throughout is flawed.

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).

You have been given example after example. And concerning the ECF’s, they are simply stating what had been handed down to them. The didn’t just invent infant Baptism after the New Testament had been written. The only controversy concerning infant baptism was whether or not one had to wait 8 days before baptizing (as Baptism had replaced circumcision and infants were circumcised on the 8th day). There is nothing in Church history that speaks against infant baptism. If it were ever an issue, why is there such silence on the matter?

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.

As you might imagine, my statement is based upon claims of the purported “Great Apostasy” for which there is zero historic evidence regardless of one’s advanced degrees. This foundational LDS belief ignores history completely and so my statement is not as unreasonable as you would make it. It is the same in this case. While we have much evidence pointing to infant Baptism as the norm, we have no evidence suggesting otherwise.

 

[TexanKnight]

Of course. Thankfully, I am not a Bible-only Christian.

true. You follow the guy who was convicted of fraud and who had so many failed prophesies it is hard to keep count

Indeed.

 

[TexanKnight]

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.

And you would be wrong. When used with another word, as in “households”, it means all.

To make your argument work, you MUST assume that those households did not have any children. That is a fallacious assumption.

 

[twopekinguys]

Originally Posted by LivingWaters7
Of course. Thankfully, I am not a Bible-only Christian.

true. You follow the guy who was convicted of fraud and who had so many failed prophesies it is hard to keep count

Indeed.

Cha ching

 

[Traverse]

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.

Just to clarify, you are saying then that it is not essential to believe in order to be baptized?

 

[DebChris]

Just to clarify, you are saying then that it is not essential to believe in order to be baptized?

The belief may come before or after Baptism. The godmother and godfather, who speak for the child, must be firm believers, ready and able to help the newly baptized–child or adult–on the road of Christian life.

CCC1228…Baptism is a bath of water in which the “imperishable seed” of the Word of God produces its life-giving effect.

By its very nature, infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumate for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. (CCC1231)
CCC1250…The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.
CCC1254…Preparation for Baptism leads only to the theshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.

While Baptism is a Sacrament of faith, that faith needs a community of believers . It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop.(CCC1253)

Confirmation completes the Baptismal annointing (CCC1242)

CCC1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:
–enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;
–giving them the power to live and act under the promptings of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;
–allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.

Baptism constitues the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn. (CCC1271)

 

[jerry_joseph]

Bible does not prohibits infant baptism. There is no verse which mentions that giving baptism to infants are wrong. All ancient churches gives baptism to infants. There are also lot of verses which shows baptism to children.

: “Each of you must repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins may be forgiven. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise of God was made to you and your children, and to all those from afar whom our God may call.” Acts 2: 38-39.

“Even before I formed you in the womb I have known you; even before you were born I had set you apart, and appointed you a prophet to the nations!” (Jeremiah:1:5)

If God can purify a person before he born then what is wrong with giving sacrament of Baptism to born children .

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Randy Carson, for all your answers here…

In regards to the last poster, a Middle Eastern Catholic, their roots go back to ancient times.

Jerry Joseph, how old is your church? How far back does it go?

There is a tradition of thought and sentiment that accompanies historical truths of apostolic works in the Church.

I am also impressed with the Palestinian Christians who are descendents of the ancient Christian Jews and Arabs, who have held on to their faith for 2000 years.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks, Randy Carson, for all your answers here…

:tiphat:

 

[jerry_joseph]

Thanks, Randy Carson, for all your answers here…

In regards to the last poster, a Middle Eastern Catholic, their roots go back to ancient times.

Jerry Joseph, how old is your church? How far back does it go?

There is a tradition of thought and sentiment that accompanies historical truths of apostolic works in the Church.

I am also impressed with the Palestinian Christians who are descendents of the ancient Christian Jews and Arabs, who have held on to their faith for 2000 years.

Our church is 2000 years Old.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LivingWaters7
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”?

False. Would you apply the same argument when Joseph and Mary had Jesus circumcised? Did they decide to wait until Jesus’ could decide for himself? Second, there is not a single shred of evidence in the NT where a child has reached the age of reason deciding baptism.

 

[EdmundPaul]

Have read this thread through and pondered how I was brought up and how I have tried to bring up my children. Though formal and delibate age appropriate Christian formation has been mentioned and perhaps informal as well it stuck me, that as Christian parents our beliefs should and often do permeate and inform every part of the formal, informal and even subconscious things we do as we inculcate our values to our children, the way we interact with them, with our husbands and wives, extended family, our work, even the way drive our cars all form part of our our Christian teaching and possibly the most important part as we are giving them them the ‘do as we do’.
Even the smallest infant is learning from its Christian family in day to day life.

 

[Porknpie]

Have read this thread through and pondered how I was brought up and how I have tried to bring up my children. Though formal and delibate age appropriate Christian formation has been mentioned and perhaps informal as well it stuck me, that as Christian parents our beliefs should and often do permeate and inform every part of the formal, informal and even subconscious things we do as we inculcate our values to our children, the way we interact with them, with our husbands and wives, extended family, our work, even the way drive our cars all form part of our our Christian teaching and possibly the most important part as we are giving them them the ‘do as we do’.
Even the smallest infant is learning from its Christian family in day to day life.

My youngest daughter said “mom” at 2+ months old. The word just got clearer and clearer every month after that. Science says it can’t be done but my experience, first hand, shows science is wrong.

 

[JonNC]

My youngest daughter said “mom” at 2+ months old. The word just got clearer and clearer every month after that. Science says it can’t be done but my experience, first hand, shows science is wrong.

That’s because science doesn’t control the Holy Spirit.

Jon

 

[DWash]

On a separate thread, a poster has asked where in the “bible does it say to baptize infants”?

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. The word “Whole” defined from Webster:

2: having all its proper parts or components : complete, unmodified
3 a **: constituting the total sum or undiminished entirety : entire
b : each or all of the
4 a : constituting an undivided unit **: unbroken, uncut

Interesting though that the early church baptized infants without having a bible in hand. How did they know to baptize infants? They did so because Christ taught the apostles to do so himself. Tradition. The church writings are clear that infants were baptized. Scripture is consistent with Tradition and visa versa.

To believe in a delayed baptism is to both believe that Christ was a very poor teacher and to mis-interpret a Catholic book, canonized by the Catholic church. It’s a man-made theology of recent times.

So the question remains… "Where in the bible does it say infants should not be baptized?

I’m new here to this discussion. I haven’t read anthing but this post. I’d like to share why I believe the NT does not teach infant baptism.

First, you mentioned that Jesus did not teach directly against infant baptism. That’s true. He didn’t teach directly that marriage was only between one man and one woman.

Second, you mentioned whole households: my household right now does not have any infants. Seems 5 times the NT mentions whole households. Of the thousands of baptisms mentioned in the NT, only 5 whole households were mentioned. The odds are great that at the moment of baptism of these households, there were no infants.

Third, I’ve never come accross any baptism in the NT that did not come as a result of a decision by the one being baptized. Infants don’t decide.

Fourth, Jesus willing accepts all children. He puts no conditions on them being able to come to Him. It is adults that have conditions: believe and obey.