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

[All Becomes New]

Yeah I already know the history around that stuff. That doesn't convince me because there is a lot of other stuff mudding the waters like people being unsure how sin was dealt with post baptism and tended to put their baptism off as long as possible often being just before they died if they were gravely ill etc.


The original Sin thing too might be true of Christians in the Latin West but does not really represent my view which is the earlier notion of Ancestral Sin.


This still doesn't refute what I said concerning Judaism being less about individual faith and more about the family and community, and the nature of the households in scripture etc.


"We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins."
Chrysostom John,Ad Neophytos,(A.D. 388)

"And when a child has been born to one of them[ie Christians], they give thanks to God[ie baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins."

Aristides,Apology,15(A.D. 140)

"Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?"
Polycarp,Martyrdom of Polycarp,9(A.D. 156)

"And many,both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixtey or seventy years..."

Justin Martyr,First Apology,15:6(A.D. 110-165),

"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men."

Irenaeus, Against Heresies,2,22:4 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:391

"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixy-five years in the Lord."
Polycrates,Fragment in Eusebius' Church History, V:24:7(A.D. 190)

Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/baptism/church-fathers-on-infant-baptism/

There are arguments against infant baptism in the church fathers as well. Gavin talks about them. Here's one I like that Gavin doesn't mention:

Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh
"For it is not the soul which is sanctified by the baptismal bath: its sanctification comes from the “answer.”"

 

[Pavel Mosko]

The sacrificial system, which was continual, has been fulfilled by the one-time sacrifice of Jesus Christ as a propitiation for human sin for all time. Not only is Jesus Christ the sacrifice, He is the high priest of the Christian faith, holding that office eternally. Hence, He is able to intercede for His people perpetually.

Sure, but I would argue that the there is more relevance on OT stuff than what is often credited for. I would give an example of this reading Rick Warren's 1st big "The Purpose Driven Church" back in 1996 or so, actually I will post in something I blogged years ago and posted years ago here on that.


Independent Contractors for Christ

The Church is more than an Institution setup to fulfill the Great Commission

(This was an old Blog type post, that I released on Christian Forums and a friend liked it and thought I should release it again)

I was going to write a bit more. Nice to have my PC keyboard to do it. Anyway I have some writing in mind about Ecclesiology. The OP I think gets at a fundamental difference in the Ecclesiology of most Protestants (non-sacramental ones especially) and those Apostolic Tradition folks. The Church quite often is seen in Utilitarian terms. Books like the Purpose Driven Church and other ones quite often depict the Church almost as "Independent Contractors for Christ". The Church basically is just an institution setup by Christ to do his work, but more or less there is nothing really divine or supernatural about it. The Church basically is setup just to do "his work", as defined by various statements from "The Great Commission", "sermon on the Mount" and other important red letter statements. Those things essentially exist like a Corporate "Purpose Statement" for any for profit or nonprofit organization.

This understanding or model however is deficient. Because God himself most of the time is not a Utilitarian. He does things all the time that are not efficient or purely task orientated. The issue of the sacred is one area where this model is deficient, so many of models based on this format really have little appreciation for it, even dismissing it sometimes as "superstition" or "religion", "religious bondage" but the sacred exists as an important part of Judeo-Christian Spirituality.

Besides that, this model misses out on God's teaching us "the deeper lessons". God acts more like a Postmodernist than a modernist, in the classic saying "It's not about the End, it’s about the Journey". Much of what God does in the Bible is to teach us "About His ways" and his nature (“Economy” is the theological term for this). Things often are not really about the task at hand. So a Utilitarian only sees something like God's prohibition against eating pork in the OT as about "protecting them from eating something that could make them sick before the days of refrigeration". But someone with a more (true) Apostolic background would realize that God gave them that command, because he realized they would recognize the allegory in the old sense of "You are what you eat", and the pig of course in ancient and contemporary times is the incarnation of greed and gluttony and selfishness. Another example is the trip from Egypt to the Promised land. That should have only been two weeks but God went out of his way to make it last 40 years because the journey was more about unspoken objectives like establishing faith in God and teaching the people of Israel his ways than moving to the destination.

PS - After the fact, I realize that the saying "It's not about the End, it’s about the Journey". Does not apply to our Faith and the nature of the afterlife!

 

[Major1]

He stated that he reads a number of different protestant homilists, but doesn't care for Spurgeon. You on the other hand, have gone on record as not caring for any homilist you consider to be Catholic. Ergo, you are anti-Catholic whereas The Liturgist is decidedly not anti-Protestant, simply anti-Spurgeon.

Is that clear enough for you?

My God, Sherlock! I wonder how I would have figured that one by myself.

 

[Major1]

I have no idea who these people are. If I knew who they were I wouldn't have asked you.

Then why did you ask?

I do not know why you want to be the way you are simply because I do not agree with YOU, but Are you real sure that you want to continue the sarcastic comments back and forth????

I mean I do not mind and I am willing to do that with you but to what end? It is really interesting to see how you can make everyone so.....disinterested but I do not think anyone else cares even a little bit.

 

[Major1]

Nope. The New Testament is different by virtue of being a newer and a better Covenant (Hebrews 8:6).
Christianity however is the fulfillment of Judaism (Romans 9:24-33), and yes it is multiethnic but saint Paul mentions how The Ecclesia are a Chosen people, but ones of the spirit rather than of the flesh. I think your problem is being too literal when you should be more allegorical.


By the way this is a big problem with many Protestants, I don't think many really understand the Jewish under pinnings of the Faith. Probably the best example to illustrate that is the ministry of the Deacon in the book of Acts. When I was in seminary the Biblical commentary of that likens it to being a practical delegation of authority that kind of came out of the blue, based on common sense, very similar to how Moses was advised to delegate judges in Israel by Jethro. This however is not the origin of the Deacon! The Deacon was lifted from the ministry of synagogue, while the synagogue worship itself lifted it from the ministry of the Levite in the temple and the tabernacle!


Anyway, I think the problem on issues is many folks compartmentalize everything, and don't really study how things tie in from Judaism.

NOT SO my friend. If Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, why then is there still a Jewish religion????

 

[prodromos]

My God, Sherlock! I wonder how I would have figured that one by myself.

Why did you ask me to explain then?

 

[Major1]

I am not a Roman Catholic. I am a Congregationalist minister whose faith is based on Wesleyan and Orthodox precepts.




He was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian heretic.

By the way, it was extremely common in the first few centuries of Christianity for people to wait until they were on their deathbed before being baptized. This was due to the destructive influence of rigorist heretics like Tertullian who held that sins committed post-Baptism could not be forgiven (Tertullian also joined the heretical Montanist cult, which followed a man named Montanus, who claimed to be the Paraclete, and held other bizarre doctrines).

If he was heretic.....what is the point?

 

[Major1]

Why did you ask me to explain then?

It seems you wanted to know.

 

[The Liturgist]

He stated that he reads a number of different protestant homilists, but doesn't care for Spurgeon. You on the other hand, have gone on record as not caring for any homilist you consider to be Catholic. Ergo, you are anti-Catholic whereas The Liturgist is decidedly not anti-Protestant, simply anti-Spurgeon.

Is that clear enough for you?

To clarify, I am not even anti-Spurgeon. I recognize him as a great preacher. However, he is a Baptist, and since I don’t agree with Baptist sacramental theology, I am not interested in what he has to say on that particular topic.

Also, I have said this before on the forums, but it bears repeating, I think, and that is, in my opinion, the world’s foremost moral theologian is at present none other than Professor Albert Mohler, of the Southern Baptist Convention. I read his blog and briefing several times a week!

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

This is very good.

The Church basically is just an institution setup by Christ to do his work, but more or less there is nothing really divine or supernatural about it.

Wow! Ain't that the truth.

You know Rick Warren is suspect when all of his theology is narrowed down to one verse. Proverbs 28:19 "Where there is no vision the people perish." And he violates one of the basic rules of hermenuetics: The NT interprets the OT. He does it vice versa. This verse has nothing to do with church growth.

But he is an independent Baptist preacher with no accountability to the SBC, so he can get away with it!

The other thing that irks me about him is he is always talking about finding your purpose. He can brag about this because only a "called" minister is objective. The "call" on a piece from a particular church is by the very nature objective from God. He as a pastor has an objective call or purpose from God, and then he can place guilt trips on people for not finding their purpose. Whereas, we lay people are unfortunate to fumble through life with no objective call.

 

[prodromos]

Then why did you ask?

Seeking confirmation of whether your claims are true or not. If you can't give some names then It is an empty claim. I can just as easily claim "Historical Scholars allege blah, blah, blah" and if there are two out of one hundred that do, then I have made a true statement of absolutely no value as the vast majority don't allege blah, blah, blah.
Without any sources to back you up, your claim is void, and the fact that you are taking issue with me asking instead of giving some names makes it seem more and more likely you don't actually have anything.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul clarifies in the OP children CAN be present in household. .

And some children can listen to the Gospel - accept what it teaches - accept Christ as Savior and can then be baptized.

 

[Major1]

Major1: Remember the goading rule. You said, you were not going to continue this conversation. You have all the free will NOT TO COMMENT ON THIS THREAD. PLEASE DON'T GOAD OTHERS. If you want to cryptically "goad" me or other others on CF...START YOU OWN THREAD.

See & read post #81!

 

[Major1]

Seeking confirmation of whether your claims are true or not. If you can't give some names then It is an empty claim. I can just as easily claim "Historical Scholars allege blah, blah, blah" and if there are two out of one hundred that do, then I have made a true statement of absolutely no value as the vast majority don't allege blah, blah, blah.
Without any sources to back you up, your claim is void, and the fact that you are taking issue with me asking instead of giving some names makes it seem more and more likely you don't actually have anything.

The Source was posted at the time of the comment.

 

[Major1]

If you have some documents from the era of Constantine supporting your claims I would be quite interested in taking a look at those documents.

Go to the original post and the Source is right there.

 

[Major1]

Seeking confirmation of whether your claims are true or not. If you can't give some names then It is an empty claim. I can just as easily claim "Historical Scholars allege blah, blah, blah" and if there are two out of one hundred that do, then I have made a true statement of absolutely no value as the vast majority don't allege blah, blah, blah.
Without any sources to back you up, your claim is void, and the fact that you are taking issue with me asking instead of giving some names makes it seem more and more likely you don't actually have anything.

My suggestion is.........why don't you focus on the Thread?

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

Now then.......there is NO Bible evidence that "INFANTS" were included in the family unit being baptized.

I am sure that there were INFANTS in those family units but the Bible does NOT specifically say that!

Now when you read the posts in this thread, what you are seeing IS WHAT PEOPLE WANT THE BIBLE TO SAY!

We can all see that there is much confusion about baptism in the various Christian denominations. However, this is not a result of the Bible presenting a confusing message on baptism. 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!

With this in view, infant baptism is not a Biblical practice. 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.

Now then..........Just so that we are clear-----Baptism does not save a person. It does not matter if you were baptized by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling - if you have not first trusted in Christ for salvation, baptism (no matter the method) is meaningless and useless.

Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to be done after salvation as a public profession of faith in Christ and identification with Him. Infant baptism does not fit the Biblical definition of baptism or the Biblical method of baptism. If Christian parents wish to dedicate their child to Christ, then a baby dedication service is entirely appropriate. However, even if infants are dedicated to the Lord, when they grow up they will still have to make a personal decision to believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved.

And that is the rest of the story!

 

[Valletta]

My suggestion is.........why don't you focus on the Thread?

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

Now then.......there is NO Bible evidence that "INFANTS" were included in the family unit being baptized.
. . .
With this in view, infant baptism is not a Biblical practice. 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.

In fact the Bible records that whole households were baptized and does not mention any exclusion of infants. Also the Bible makes it clear that Jesus wanted the children to come to him--not just the adults. Finally, the Bible says we are saved through Baptism.

 

[Major1]

In fact the Bible records that whole households were baptized and does not mention any exclusion of infants. Also the Bible makes it clear that Jesus wanted the children to come to him--not just the adults. Finally, the Bible says we are saved through Baptism.

You are correct. The Bible does not specifically EXCLUDE INFANTS.

Now, are you comfortable in changing, or adding to the Word of God, because that is exactly what you are doing. If you want to do that --please go right ahead, but I will not because Deuteronomy 4:2-3 commands us....

Some people add to the Word of God through exaggeration. Some add to the Word of God to make it support what they want it to say. My advice is to Be careful! Differentiate between your opinions or views and what God says in His Word.

INFANTS ARE NOT found as being baptized and it is dangerous to stake out a theological position on ....."I think so"!

 

[Valletta]

You are correct. The Bible does not specifically EXCLUDE INFANTS.

Now, are you comfortable in changing, or adding to the Word of God, because that is exactly what you are doing. If you want to do that --please go right ahead, but I will not because Deuteronomy 4:2-3 commands us....

Some people add to the Word of God through exaggeration. Some add to the Word of God to make it support what they want it to say. My advice is to Be careful! Differentiate between your opinions or views and what God says in His Word.

INFANTS ARE NOT found as being baptized and it is dangerous to stake out a theological position on ....."I think so"!

No, I would never add the words "excluding infants." The Word of God is not to be changed. Infants were baptized before the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible in the late 300s. Practices did not change because the Bible came into existence.

 

[prodromos]

The Source was posted at the time of the comment.

There is nothing in your link about Constantine, nor names of historians writing about him. Still zero evidence.