Yes, children were present in household baptisms. Biblical evidence.

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
740
382
Oregon
✟103,723.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There is much debate about whether the “households” in the Book of Acts had children within them. Credobaptists are most insistence when whole households were baptized, children were not present to be baptized.

Here are some statements I have gather from the internet and CF concerning Credobaptists statements on household baptism:
  • Luke, in writing these narratives, does not have in view infant members of the families.
  • Second, this argument rests on the premise that there were small children within the households. There is simply no evidence for such an assumption.
  • Not unless it can be shown that there are no households without infants.
  • “It is improbable that one can extract a theology of ‘household’ baptisms from a text like Acts 10, if by household one means including infants and very small children…it is an argument from silence, since infants and small children are not specifically mentioned…” (Ben Witherington The Acts of the Apostles, p. 155, n. 94).
  • The argument from household baptism is not only an argument from silence, it is improbable, too, because chances are there wouldn’t have been infants and small children in those households.
  • What are the chances the household baptisms mentioned in Acts included infants? Small.
We solve whether or not children were included in the term “household” by using the standard hermeneutical rule “Scripture interprets Scripture.” Are there a parallel passages of Scripture that clarifies whether or not children where included or apart of households?

Our methodology: Go to Bible Gateway and search for "household."
  • I Tim 3:12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his CHILDREN (τέκνων) and his HOUSEHOLD (οἴκων) well.
  • I Tim 3:4 [A shepard] must be one who manages his own HOUSEHOLD (οἴκου) well, keeping his CHILDREN (τέκνα) under control with all dignity.
Paul links “children” and “household” in one unified concept. This is the NT usage of the term.

Paul’s statement here at least allows the possibility of children living within a household and at the same time shows the improbability children were absent from households.
 
Last edited:

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
740
382
Oregon
✟103,723.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
An Anecdote: I remember reading a comment about John MacArthur statement concerning baptizing the household of the Philippian jailor. He said the household in Acts 16, were adults and his servants.

At which point, the commentor stated "Servants? Oh really? Do you mean to say the jailor was so wealthy and rich to have servants, that he took a job as a jailor working the graveyard shift in which one mistake would end his life?"

Why do so many credobaptists believe "households" refer to servants? This presupposes the early christians were all wealthy....something the prosperity preachers here in America teach all day long.
 
Upvote 0

Jesse Dornfeld

Slave to Christ
Supporter
Oct 11, 2020
3,348
1,112
37
Twin Cities
Visit site
✟176,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I'm afraid your argument works against you in the verses you have stated as in Acts it doe NOT mention children, which, it would be expected if it was the case that children were present. If you want to associate the words children and household, then only when both children and household are present would it mean children are present.
 
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
740
382
Oregon
✟103,723.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Acts it doe NOT mention children

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO!

I have offered evidence using "scripture interprets scripture" interpreting rule, meaning the ORDINARY usage οἴκων (household) in NT term can be inclusive of children. This is Paul's understanding of the word.

To say children can't be present within the confines of οἴκων is eisogesis. The interpretation of a text by reading into it one's own ideas into Acts.

The NT usage of οἴκων as understood by Paul has a wider meaning that you will permit.
 
Upvote 0

Jesse Dornfeld

Slave to Christ
Supporter
Oct 11, 2020
3,348
1,112
37
Twin Cities
Visit site
✟176,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO!

I have offered evidence using "scripture interprets scripture" interpreting rule, meaning the ORDINARY usage οἴκων (household) in NT term can be inclusive of children. This is Paul's understanding of the word.

You never explained how that works.

To say children can't be present within the confines of οἴκων is eisogesis. The interpretation of a text by reading into it one's own ideas into Acts.

I'm not saying children can't be present, I am saying there is no evidence for your view. Simply stating that it is Paul's usage of the word doesn't really do much for the book of Acts anyways.

The NT usage of οἴκων as understood by Paul has a wider meaning that you will permit.

Okay, explain that then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheShire
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
740
382
Oregon
✟103,723.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Simply stating that it is Paul's usage of the word doesn't really do much for the book of Acts anyways.

Are you divorcing Paul's ordinary usage of the word οἴκων from Luke's ordinary usage?

Please explain.
 
Upvote 0

Jesse Dornfeld

Slave to Christ
Supporter
Oct 11, 2020
3,348
1,112
37
Twin Cities
Visit site
✟176,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Are you divorcing Paul's ordinary usage of the word οἴκων from Luke's ordinary usage?

Please explain.

Similar usages of this Greek word are found in Luke 1:40; 7:36; 8:41, Acts 11:12. It means dwelling place, not people.
 
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
740
382
Oregon
✟103,723.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Similar usages of this Greek word are found in Luke 1:40; 7:36; 8:41, Acts 11:12. It means dwelling place, not people.

So are you saying the Apostles baptized "dwelling places" and not people in the book of Acts?
 
Upvote 0

Jesse Dornfeld

Slave to Christ
Supporter
Oct 11, 2020
3,348
1,112
37
Twin Cities
Visit site
✟176,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
So are you saying the Apostles baptized "dwelling places" and not people in the book of Acts?

I just opened my BDAG lexicon and that is what it said.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,573
7,772
63
Martinez
✟893,850.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There is much debate about whether the “households” in the Book of Acts had children within them. Credobaptists are most insistence when whole households were baptized, children were not present to be baptized.

Here are some statements I have gather from the internet and CF concerning Credobaptists statements on household baptism:
  • Luke, in writing these narratives, does not have in view infant members of the families.
  • Second, this argument rests on the premise that there were small children within the households. There is simply no evidence for such an assumption.
  • Not unless it can be shown that there are no households without infants.
  • “It is improbable that one can extract a theology of ‘household’ baptisms from a text like Acts 10, if by household one means including infants and very small children…it is an argument from silence, since infants and small children are not specifically mentioned…” (Ben Witherington The Acts of the Apostles, p. 155, n. 94).
  • The argument from household baptism is not only an argument from silence, it is improbable, too, because chances are there wouldn’t have been infants and small children in those households.
  • What are the chances the household baptisms mentioned in Acts included infants? Small.
We solve whether or not children were included in the term “household” by using the standard hermeneutical rule “Scripture interprets Scripture.” Are there a parallel passages of Scripture that clarifies whether or not children where included or apart of households?

Our methodology: Go to Bible Gateway and search for "household."
  • I Tim 3:12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his CHILDREN (τέκνων) and his HOUSEHOLD (οἴκων) well.
  • I Tim 3:4 [A shepard] must be one who manages his own HOUSEHOLD (οἴκου) well, keeping his CHILDREN (τέκνα) under control with all dignity.
Paul links “children” and “household” in one unified concept. This is the NT usage of the term.

Paul’s statement here at least allows the possibility of children living within a household and at the same time shows the improbability children were absent from households.
Children did not have to be immersed in water as they were pure. The idea of baptism is from the Jewish practice. It represents a change in status in regards to purification, restoration, and qualification for full religious participation in the life of the community. Its meaning for Christians was a public acknowledgment similar to the Jewish custom but now holding a more meaningful one time commitment to Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Children, especially babies, can not acknowledge until they get older.
Blessings
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
There is much debate about whether the “households” in the Book of Acts had children within them. Credobaptists are most insistence when whole households were baptized, children were not present to be baptized.

Well that is not the case with those who believe in "believer's Baptism" - like Baptists do and Adventists do.

We claim children as young as 10 or 11 can accept the Gospel and be baptized.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
“It is improbable that one can extract a theology of ‘household’ baptisms from a text like Acts 10, if by household one means including infants and very small children…it is an argument from silence, since infants and small children are not specifically mentioned…” (Ben Witherington The Acts of the Apostles, p. 155, n. 94).

Good point -- but there is much more to it in Acts 10 because the text specifically says
"
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the Jewish believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had also been poured out on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter responded, 47 “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” 48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

In every case it is only those who intelligently are "listening to the message" that receive the Holy Spirit and are then baptized.

Your post ignores this and focuses only on "does the household include children of every age -- even though not mentioned in the text ?"
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO!
I have offered evidence using "scripture interprets scripture" interpreting rule, meaning the ORDINARY usage οἴκων (household) in NT term can be inclusive of children. .

It "can be" but context determines scope and meaning. The actual text further qualified this case as being those who intelligently hear/listen to the message being the qualifier for who was baptized.

Impossible for the objective unbiased readers to ignore that detail.

Here we see the case of children being "managed" as opposed to "Being instructed in the gospel" .. and all parents know that managing children occurs long before they are capable of abstract thoughts about salvation and the gospel. So the subject is not about "Baptism" in 1 Tim 3 .. but rather managing.

  • I Tim 3:12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his CHILDREN (τέκνων) and his HOUSEHOLD (οἴκων) well.
  • I Tim 3:4 [A shepard] must be one who manages his own HOUSEHOLD (οἴκου) well, keeping his CHILDREN (τέκνα) under control with all dignit
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
concerning baptizing the household of the Philippian jailor. He said the household in Acts 16, were adults and his servants.

Acts 16 has "more details" that qualify what is going on - than you are posting.

29 And the jailer asked for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear, he fell down before Paul and Silas; 30 and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of God to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and was overjoyed, since he had become a believer in God together with his whole household.

Infants don't "become believers in abstract concepts" and they have no way to "hear the Word of God with understanding"
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jesse Dornfeld

Slave to Christ
Supporter
Oct 11, 2020
3,348
1,112
37
Twin Cities
Visit site
✟176,263.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I have had enough of this conversation. I find your comments censorious. Please let others comment.

I do apologize. I was looking up a different iteration of the word household in Act. In Acts 16:31 it means "household, family".

[Edit] Same goes for Acts 10:2
 
Upvote 0

ServantJohn

Not quite a newbie...
Nov 9, 2010
565
102
✟12,108.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
There is much debate about whether the “households” in the Book of Acts had children within them. Credobaptists are most insistence when whole households were baptized, children were not present to be baptized.

Here are some statements I have gather from the internet and CF concerning Credobaptists statements on household baptism:
  • Luke, in writing these narratives, does not have in view infant members of the families.
  • Second, this argument rests on the premise that there were small children within the households. There is simply no evidence for such an assumption.
  • Not unless it can be shown that there are no households without infants.
  • “It is improbable that one can extract a theology of ‘household’ baptisms from a text like Acts 10, if by household one means including infants and very small children…it is an argument from silence, since infants and small children are not specifically mentioned…” (Ben Witherington The Acts of the Apostles, p. 155, n. 94).
  • The argument from household baptism is not only an argument from silence, it is improbable, too, because chances are there wouldn’t have been infants and small children in those households.
  • What are the chances the household baptisms mentioned in Acts included infants? Small.
We solve whether or not children were included in the term “household” by using the standard hermeneutical rule “Scripture interprets Scripture.” Are there a parallel passages of Scripture that clarifies whether or not children where included or apart of households?

Our methodology: Go to Bible Gateway and search for "household."
  • I Tim 3:12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his CHILDREN (τέκνων) and his HOUSEHOLD (οἴκων) well.
  • I Tim 3:4 [A shepard] must be one who manages his own HOUSEHOLD (οἴκου) well, keeping his CHILDREN (τέκνα) under control with all dignity.
Paul links “children” and “household” in one unified concept. This is the NT usage of the term.

Paul’s statement here at least allows the possibility of children living within a household and at the same time shows the improbability children were absent from households.
All of my "children" are adults.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
An Anecdote: I remember reading a comment about John MacArthur statement concerning baptizing the household of the Philippian jailor. He said the household in Acts 16, were adults and his servants.

At which point, the commentor stated "Servants? Oh really? Do you mean to say the jailor was so wealthy and rich to have servants, that he took a job as a jailor working the graveyard shift in which one mistake would end his life?"

Why do so many credobaptists believe "households" refer to servants? This presupposes the early christians were all wealthy....something the prosperity preachers here in America teach all day long.

Incorrect my friend. YOU are forceing the Scriptures to say what YOu want them to say.

The truth is however that there are NO Scriptures to support INFANT Baptisms. NONE!
 
Upvote 0

Ain't Zwinglian

Well-Known Member
Feb 23, 2020
740
382
Oregon
✟103,723.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
YOU are forceing the Scriptures to say what YOu want them to say.

How am I forcing the Scripture to say what I want them to say?

Paul clarifies in the OP children CAN be present in household. We use the interpretative principle “Scripture interprets Scripture” and deduce children COULD be present in Acts 16:31.

Based upon the I Tim 3 and Acts 16 passage specifically….how I am forcing the text?

Do you believe children were apart of households in I Timothly 3?

Do you disagree with the hermeneutical rule “Scripture interprets Scripture?"

Could you please exegetically show me the error of my way?

A narrow detailed answer concerning the Scriptures in the OP would be helpful.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
How am I forcing the Scripture to say what I want them to say?

Paul clarifies in the OP children CAN be present in household. We use the interpretative principle “Scripture interprets Scripture” and deduce children COULD be present in Acts 16:31.

Based upon the I Tim 3 and Acts 16 passage specifically….how I am forcing the text?

Do you believe children were apart of households in I Timothly 3?

Do you disagree with the hermeneutical rule “Scripture interprets Scripture?"

Could you please exegetically show me the error of my way?

A narrow detailed answer concerning the Scriptures in the OP would be helpful.

It all depends on what YOU call a CHILD. An infant is a child but an infant has not idea of what SIN is or a conciouse choice.

The fact is........The Bible does not mention infant baptism. There is not a single verse that commands it. Nowhere does the Bible tell us that Christ or the apostles ever baptized a baby.

The Bible is abundantly clear of what baptism is, who it is for, and what it accomplishes. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him.

An INFANT can not do that!!!!

An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ. An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ. An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes. The Bible does not record any infants being baptized. Infant baptism is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism - as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water. Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible. How does pouring or sprinkling illustrate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: TheShire
Upvote 0