The Baptists have already won this argument a long time ago by one simple trick: THEY REDEFINE THE HISTORICAL DEFINITION OF "HOUSEHOLD" from all those living under the same roof regardless of age to
only adults unless the Biblical text says there are children present. Do not believe this.
So how do we interpret Scripture here? We ask the diagnostic question(s): 1) Do the words and grammar of Scripture determine theological content and belief? 2) Or does your theological belief determine what words
should mean in Scripture?
Clearly and plainly, Baptists use interpretative principle #2 when defining the word "household" due to their anti-paedo beliefs. By
fiat, Baptists just declare a household can not have children living in them UNLESS THE TEXT SAYS CHILDREN ARE PRESENT! Pure eisegesis but this interpretation emotionally satisfies the Baptist belief in credobaptism. This is interpretive cheating.
Household baptisms scripturally are born from Peter's words....
this promise is to you and your children (Acts 2:39). Baptists seem to ignore this passage of Scripture. A household is basically everyone leaving under the same roof regardless of age. A Baptist interpret a household as everyone leaving under the same roof except those under the Age of Accountability. How bogus!
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of a household 1) those who dwell under the same roof and compose a family 2)a social unit composed of those living together in the same dwelling. And certainly the legal definition of a household: A household is composed of one or more people who occupy a housing unit. Tax filer + spouse + tax dependents = household. But of course the credo's discount this also.
The Scriptural definition of a household includes both children and servants .
- 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 shepherd] must be one who manages his own household (οἴκου) well, keeping his children (τέκνα) under control with all dignity.
One passage of Scripture which gives the credos harsh criticism is I Tim. 5:8.
- "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
- Paul is clearly talking to believers here because only a believer can become worse than an unbeliever.
- Is Paul saying here because children are not specifically mentioned in this passage, Christian parents are exempt from providing for their smallest and youngest children?
- Nonsense. As is the same with credo's redefining words of Scripture to match their theological bias and a futile attempt to EXPLAIN AWAY paedobaptism altogether from Scripture.
Thank you for this beautiful post, my dear friend! I have been praying for you fervently.
Re Lydia's household, it doesn't say that anybody who didn't believe was baptised.
I believe Paul's words to the jailer meant that if the jailer believed on the Lord Jesus Christ,, he would be saved, and if the other members of his household believed, they would be saved too. That ties in with what Jesus Himself said:
““For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (Joh 3:16 NKJV)
The issue of course comes down to an ironic Baptist inclination for non-literal interpretations of many of those portions of the New Testament that were historically interpreted literally, even as Baptists to their credit continue to literally interpret other pericopes (for example, St. Paul’s views on the sinful nature of homosexuality).
Taken on face value, a literal interpretation of the pericope mentioned by my pious co-religionist
@prodromos , who is much more pious than I am, would indicate the baptism of all in the household, children and servants and children of servants included (and we do know from the synaxaria of the early church, the ancient martyrologies, that such relationships of martyred Christians did exist).
Likewise, a literal interpretation of the Institution Narratives in the Synoptic Gospels and 1 Corinthians ch. 11, and of John ch. 6, supports a non-memorialist embrace of some form of the real presence doctrine, at a bare minimum, a real spiritual presence, but really, most comfortably supports the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Confessional Lutheran, Roman Catholic (including the sui juris Eastern Catholic churches such as the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, Maronite Catholics etc) and High Church Anglican view of the Eucharist, also shared by some Methodists, some Congregationalists and Presbyterians of the Reformed Catholic / Scoto-Catholic / Mercersburg Theology movement, some Moravians, the more traditional Old Catholics (probably most Old Catholics) and the Assyrian Church of the East and Ancient Church of the East.
The other main issue we’ve seen in this thread is inconsistent exegesis of the New Testament. If we interpret all of it in a literal manner, and interpret it in a non-contradictory manner, something very much in line with the beliefs of all the traditional liturgical churches is supported. For example, John 3:16 does connect salvation to faith, but it does not contradict Matthew 28:19, or Galatians 3:27, or John ch. 6 inclusive, which connect salvation with Baptism and reception of the Eucharist respectively.
Now, I do give Baptists such as yourself credit where credit is due: you have not made the mistake of a legalistic interpretation of the New Testament wherein the Law of the Old Testament is used as the lens for interpreting the New Testament, in the case of some Restorationist churches through a further lens of interpretation provided by various 19th century and early 20th century figures associated with exegesis.
What I would encourage in the case of Baptists, in the interests of an ecumenical friendship that I think is desirable, that without conceding that we are right, you at least walk through the beliefs of the traditional churches concerning Baptism, the Eucharist and the role of tradition itself, and also concerning the liturgy (which has a scriptural basis in the system of daily prayer instituted by St. Ezra the Priest and St. Nehemiah, in the instructions of Christ our True God, for example, what He said at the institution narrative, in the words of St. Paul that all things be done decently and in order, and also regarding music, we adhere to St. Paul’s exhortation for the singing of Psalms, Canticles and Spiritual Songs, although we interpret this literally as inclusive of the canticles (for example, the Magnfiicat and various Old Testament canticles such as the Songs of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah, Benedicte Omni Opera and so on), and of hymns or spiritual songs such as Te Deum Laudamus, a favorite of my friend
@MarkRohfrietsch , the Paschal Troparion “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death) and other ancient hymns and some of more recent provenance, those by Charles Wesley being particularly popular among Western Christians, whereas settings of the traditional hymns by Bortnianski and Chesnokov being particularly popular among Eastern Orthodox Christians, particularly those in Slavonic chant; we do not interpret this as a requirement for exclusive Psalmody or a capella exclusive psalmody, although conversely, a cappella is the preferred form among most Orthodox churches, but the Greeks and Armenians make good use of the organ, and of course Lutheran, Anglican and Roman Catholic worship, not to mention much Reformed worship, makes splendid use thereof, along with other orchestral instruments on various occasions (Park Street Church in Boston, which is the last traditional Congregationalist church in Boston, has amazing services on Easter Sunday that remind me of the musical program at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church under the late Rev. James Kennedy, memory eternal).
I think if you were to read a book like
Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, you would be surprised by the degree to which our theology is based on that of Scripture. And of course it goes without saying that Lutherans and high church Anglicans have constructed their theological models on Scripture; the Orthodox did so likewise, and so did the Roman church in antiquity; interestingly the Roman church in antiquity had a very different character prior to the collapse of the Western Empire and the reign of Pope St. Gregory the Great - no Gregorian chant, extremely perfunctory, minimal services, most services chanted in monotone, and extreme conservatism, so that it took until the mid 2nd century for the Bible and the liturgy to be translated into Latin, and numerous feasts commemorated in the East were not commemorated in Rome or were only added to the Roman calendar in recent centuries. This aspect of the Roman church has largely been forgotten, and indeed the Roman Church now has few who view it through this lens after the Scholastic period saw much change, with some less traditional Catholics regarding the Orthodox as being stuck in the past.
