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

[ServantJohn]

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.

Most households do not have infants in them.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Interesting. If I surveyed thirty known agnostics and asked them if the word "household" were inclusive of infants, what would their answer be? Of course they would say yes. If infants were present they would be included in the term. I get mail all the time that says "The XXXXXX household" which would mean all who live under the same roof.

A reasonable person would assume infants living under the same roof as adults would be included in the term household.

Your credobaptistic belief prohibit you from making this SIMPLE AND EASY deduction.

 

[Major1]

Interesting. If I surveyed thirty known agnostics and asked them if the word "household" were inclusive of infants, what would their answer be? Of course they would say yes. If infants were present they would be included in the term. I get mail all the time that says "The XXXXXX household" which would mean all who live under the same roof.

A reasonable person would assume infants living under the same roof as adults would be included in the term household.

Your credobaptistic belief prohibit you from making this SIMPLE AND EASY deduction.

Your premise is classic.

I know what I want the Bible to say, and if it does not say that, I will make it say it.

What you are proposing is pure speculation. The Biblical texts do not say there were infants in the household.

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. They grow up so fast, after all.

The argument for infant baptism from household baptisms doesn’t hold water

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

because chances are there wouldn’t have been infants and small children in those households.

Thirty agnostics will always say chances are there would be infants and small children in households. Ten thousand credos affirm the opposite. This is one of the best examples of confirmation bias I have ever come across.

Credos also have contempt of Paul for even mentioning children and households together in I Tim. 3

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

because chances are there wouldn’t have been infants and small children in those households.

Bible Gateway lists 34 (NASB) instances of "households" in the NT. Are you saying all but 32 (I Tim 3 passages exempted) of these, children can't be present in households?

Eph. 2:19-20 states "you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone."

Are you stating children CAN'T BE APART OF GOD'S HOUSEHOLD?

Bible Gateway also lists 245 instances of households in the OT.

Are you stating in all 245 of these passages, children can't be present in households?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

What you are proposing is pure speculation. The Biblical texts do not say there were infants in the household.

Why do credobaptists believe all 289 times household is mentioned in the Scriptures, they are all childless?

A preposterous claim. Hubris galore.

 

[Major1]

Bible Gateway lists 34 (NASB) instances of "households" in the NT. Are you saying all but 32 (I Tim 3 passages exempted) of these, children can't be present in households?

Eph. 2:19-20 states "you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone."

Are you stating children CAN'T BE APART OF GOD'S HOUSEHOLD?

Bible Gateway also lists 245 instances of households in the OT.

Are you stating in all 245 of these passages, children can't be present in households?

Your comment was about INFANTS!

I am stating that INFANTS are not included in the Bible passage you used.

INFANTS do not have the ability to understands SIN and salvation from judgment.

Now......are YOU saying that there is more power in water baptism than there is in the shed BLOOD of Jesus through faith???

 

[Major1]

Why do credobaptists believe all 289 times household is mentioned in the Scriptures, they are all childless?

A preposterous claim. Hubris galore.

Every Baptist I know accepts the Scriptures as they are written.

Why do you suppose that so many liberals accept what they want the Bible to say instead of what it does say????

 

[Major1]

Thirty agnostics will always say chances are there would be infants and small children in households. Ten thousand credos affirm the opposite. This is one of the best examples of confirmation bias I have ever come across.

Credos also have contempt of Paul for even mentioning children and households together in I Tim. 3

The foundational requirement cannot be achieved by infants. Therefore, the consistent picture of the NT is that “household” baptism does not include infants, but, based on the words of Jesus, baptism is an important dimension of Christian discipleship. Infants are incapable of becoming disciples of Christ.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Your comment was about INFANTS![/QUOTE

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The foundational requirement cannot be achieved by infants.

The reason why paedobaptists baptize infants is simple: It is a remedy for the guilt of original sin. The vast majority of Credobaptists do not believe the guilt of original sin at birth, so the work-a-round for the hope of infant death without baptism is theological innovation called “The Age of Accountability.”

Baptists concerning whether children sin, believe that mankind inherits Adam’s sinful nature, which is an inclination to always sin.... a disposition towards sin - that it sets us up to be sinners, but we are not actually sinners until they knowingly transgress the Law.

There are two ways Baptists explain this.

1) Infants and children are born with no personal sin and guilt (or least morally neutral), and become sinful when they first consciously sin at the Age of Accountability. Their own inherit righteousness allows them to have no personal sin or guilt.

2) Infants and children do sin. They covet, lie, tease, start fights, act up in class, rebel against parental authority, throw tantrums, etc. However, these sins are not held against them until the age of accountability, when they consciously sin. Their own inherit righteousness allows them to have no personal sin or guilt.

Dismantling AoA is relatively easy as it is an foreign belief which as no foundation at all in Scripture.

Paul in Romans 5 assumes all humanity in two categories. Those that are in Christ and those that are in Adam. Paul's argument about the these two categories humanity can be clearly seen in his four examples developed in a Thesis/Antithesis structure.

Vs. 16 Adam brought Judgment, Christ brought Justification
Vs.17 Adam brought Death, Christ brought life.
Vs 18 Adam brought Condemnation, Christ brought acquittal.
Vs 19 Adam brought sin, Christ brought Righteousness.

Paul further develops the two categories of humanity in I Cor. 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” showing on judgement day, spiritual death and spiritual life will be made abundantly clear to all of humanity.

Our Lord also maintains all of humanity divided into TWO categories, “that which is born of flesh is flesh, that which is born of spirit is spirit.”

The TWO categories of humanity can also be see in Jesus teaching from the parables: Wheat and Tares, Sheep and Goats, Parable of the Dagnet (separating the good fish from bad, Matthew 13), The two sons, Wise and Foolish Virgins, Wise and Foolish Builders and the Marriage Feast.

However, Baptists have formulated an alternative theory of how many categories of humanity there are.

For Baptists, infants are NEITHER IN CHRIST NOR IN ADAM for the same reason…they don’t have guilt before God due to their own inherit righteous. Here we see a development of a THIRD CATEGORY foreign to Scripture.

This places infants in a strange and obscure THIRD CATEGORY which we have heard before….the old Roman Catholic doctrine of limbus infantum. This is where all the unbaptized infants went to after death. Rome no longer holds to this doctrine.

Only credobaptists today hold to this most horrid theological innovation of the THIRD CATAGORY…the Age of Accountability.

The “Age of Accountability” is just warmed over dead Roman Catholic dogma repackaged for baptistic consumption.

 

[Major1]

The reason why paedobaptists baptize infants is simple: It is a remedy for the guilt of original sin. The vast majority of Credobaptists do not believe the guilt of original sin at birth, so the work-a-round for the hope of infant death without baptism is theological innovation called “The Age of Accountability.”

Baptists concerning whether children sin, believe that mankind inherits Adam’s sinful nature, which is an inclination to always sin.... a disposition towards sin - that it sets us up to be sinners, but we are not actually sinners until they knowingly transgress the Law.

There are two ways Baptists explain this.

1) Infants and children are born with no personal sin and guilt (or least morally neutral), and become sinful when they first consciously sin at the Age of Accountability. Their own inherit righteousness allows them to have no personal sin or guilt.

2) Infants and children do sin. They covet, lie, tease, start fights, act up in class, rebel against parental authority, throw tantrums, etc. However, these sins are not held against them until the age of accountability, when they consciously sin. Their own inherit righteousness allows them to have no personal sin or guilt.

Dismantling AoA is relatively easy as it is an foreign belief which as no foundation at all in Scripture.

Paul in Romans 5 assumes all humanity in two categories. Those that are in Christ and those that are in Adam. Paul's argument about the these two categories humanity can be clearly seen in his four examples developed in a Thesis/Antithesis structure.

Vs. 16 Adam brought Judgment, Christ brought Justification
Vs.17 Adam brought Death, Christ brought life.
Vs 18 Adam brought Condemnation, Christ brought acquittal.
Vs 19 Adam brought sin, Christ brought Righteousness.

Paul further develops the two categories of humanity in I Cor. 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” showing on judgement day, spiritual death and spiritual life will be made abundantly clear to all of humanity.

Our Lord also maintains all of humanity divided into TWO categories, “that which is born of flesh is flesh, that which is born of spirit is spirit.”

The TWO categories of humanity can also be see in Jesus teaching from the parables: Wheat and Tares, Sheep and Goats, Parable of the Dagnet (separating the good fish from bad, Matthew 13), The two sons, Wise and Foolish Virgins, Wise and Foolish Builders and the Marriage Feast.

However, Baptists have formulated an alternative theory of how many categories of humanity there are.

For Baptists, infants are NEITHER IN CHRIST NOR IN ADAM for the same reason…they don’t have guilt before God due to their own inherit righteous. Here we see a development of a THIRD CATEGORY foreign to Scripture.

This places infants in a strange and obscure THIRD CATEGORY which we have heard before….the old Roman Catholic doctrine of limbus infantum. This is where all the unbaptized infants went to after death. Rome no longer holds to this doctrine.

Only credobaptists today hold to this most horrid theological innovation of the THIRD CATAGORY…the Age of Accountability.

The “Age of Accountability” is just warmed over dead Roman Catholic dogma repackaged for baptistic consumption.

If this was not so sad, it would be funny!

Infant baptism is not in the Bible.......end of story for me.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

If this was not so sad, it would be funny!

Infant baptism is not in the Bible.......end of story for me.

Exactly....my thoughts on the Age of Accountability....it is not in the Bible.

AoA is a Romanist doctrine credobaptists worship. END OF STORY FOR ME.

 

[Major1]

Exactly....my thoughts on the Age of Accountability....it is not in the Bible.

AoA is a Romanist doctrine credobaptists worship. END OF STORY FOR ME.

I really find following your reasoning difficult. The concept of the “age of accountability” is that children are not held accountable by God for their sins until they reach a certain age, and that if a child dies before reaching the “age of accountability,” that child will, by the grace and mercy of God, be granted entrance into heaven.

Frequently lost in the discussion regarding the age of accountability is the fact that children, no matter how young, are not “innocent” in the sense of being sinless. The Bible tells us that, even if an infant or child has not committed personal sin, all people, including infants and children, are guilty before God because of inherited and imputed sin.

The very sad fact that infants sometimes die demonstrates that even infants are impacted by Adam’s sin, since physical and spiritual death were the results of Adam’s original sin.

Age of Acct. simply means that a child/young person has reached the age where they can understand sin and what it is and how to cure it.

There is NO age of Acct. found in the Bible as it differs from one person to the next.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The Bible tells us that, even if an infant or child has not committed personal sin, all people, including infants and children, are guilty before God because of inherited and imputed sin.

The very sad fact that infants sometimes die demonstrates that even infants are impacted by Adam’s sin, since physical and spiritual death were the results of Adam’s original sin.

Major1: You and I concur here. From my perspective in reading threads on CF, Adam's imputed guilt is only held by a minority of credobaptists.

Credobaptists will use Duet. 1:39 & Is 7:14-15 primarily to show moral innocence rather than imputed guilt. Then they will use Ezek. 18:20 to show the impossibility of imputed or inherited sin.

I do have a lot of respect for Baptists that to hold to the Second London confession of Faith as it articulates your position on Adam's imputed sin.

Paedobaptists don't give a rip whether or not infants were baptized in the NT. We baptize infants based upon the promises attached to baptism....such as the forgiveness of sins. Baptism doesn't remove original sin, it removes the CURSE of sin that damns.

We must make a distinction between the winning of the forgiveness of sins, and the delivery of the forgiveness of sins. Jesus won the forgiveness of sin on the cross for all mankind. But how is that forgiveness delivered to mankind? Primarily though the word...faith comes by hearing. Because Baptism contains the Word of God, (Triune formula) baptism can deliver Christ to the child who is born guilty, deserving of capital punishment.

 

[The Liturgist]

Indeed I was baptized as an infant, and I feel greatly blessed for it.

 

[prodromos]

Baptism, chrysmation and communion are the threefold sacraments by which we are joined to Christ's body, the Church. We give our children the best advantage by joining them to Christ's body as early as possible, whereby they enter into the sacramental life of the Church.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The problem with infant baptism where baptism is for regeneration, is that there is a lack of evidence of the fruit of regeneration as the child grows up. I was baptised as an infant by an aunt who rushed me to the local Anglican church because she didn't want me baptised as a Catholic from my mother's background. As I grew up, I had no knowledge of what Christianity was or any interest in becoming one. It was not until I was 19 years of age when I was introduced to Christianity in an "alive" church where I received Christ as Saviour, and then got baptised as an adult. It was after that I showed the fruit of regeneration and repentance.

There's no sin in an infant being baptised, as long as while it is a dedication by the parents to the Lord, the child, as it grows up, is not taught that the baptism means that they are automatically saved.

In saying that, infant baptism is a sacrament of the Catholic church and provides the hope that as the child grows they become aware of God and through His grace by the time they are confirmed by the Bishop, they are believing in a trusting in Christ.

There are those who believe that a church that practices infant baptism is devoid of the Holy Spirit. I dispute that. My Presbyterian church in Auckland had infant baptisms and there are some wonderful Spirit-filled believers in it. I have good friends in Anglican and Lutheran churches.

Also, infant baptism involves the role of godparents who are responsible for the spiritual education and upbringing of the child. If the godparents do their job right there is every indication that the child will grow up believing in and trusting Christ and will begin to show the fruit of regeneration.

 

[bmjackson]

The question is: did the Jews consider people before bar mitzva
as members of the household? As only boys were initiated, I wonder whether they considered women also, not the Household.

 

[The Liturgist]

The problem with infant baptism where baptism is for regeneration, is that there is a lack of evidence of the fruit of regeneration as the child grows up. I was baptised as an infant by an aunt who rushed me to the local Anglican church because she didn't want me baptised as a Catholic from my mother's background. As I grew up, I had no knowledge of what Christianity was or any interest in becoming one. It was not until I was 19 years of age when I was introduced to Christianity in an "alive" church where I received Christ as Saviour, and then got baptised as an adult. It was after that I showed the fruit of regeneration and repentance.

With all due respect, your unfortunate experience is not universal. I was greatly blessed and have felt close to God and a Christian my entire life.

This is historically why anyone being baptized is supposed to have sponsors, also known as Godparents. It is the role of the Godmother and Godfather to see that the child is raised in the Christian faith and to look out for their spiritual needs. I was blessed in this respect because in addition to my elderly Godparents (my Godfather was a retired Lutheran pastor from the Augustana Synod, and his wife was a lovely lady with absolute faith), my parents and grandparents were extremely devout, as was my oldest uncle, and my maternal grandfather’s brother, who reposed just a few years ago, and his wife, were Methodist missionaries, with the brother being a fully ordained Elder in the United Methodist Church, before the current left wing takeover attempt which makes me so sad. So as a result, you could say I had multiple sets of godparents. I was also blessed to attend parochial school for most of my childhood. The benefits of this cannot be overstated.

However, the real advantage to my being baptized as an infant was that in the Methodist Church, I was able to partake of the Eucharist from a very early age, and my first impression of it was that it was the best tasting stuff I had ever encountered, to the extent that I naively tried to replicate it at home. Also, the wording used convinced me that the bread and unfermented wine was actually the body and blood of our Lord, and as I realized the connotations of that, the experience of the Eucharist became progressively more holy and transcendent over the course of my childhood.

Our Lord said “Suffer the little ones to come to me,” and I feel that we should provide them with every sacrament we can, including Baptism, Chrismation, the Eucharist and the Oil of Healing, as well as sacramentals such as Holy Water and the sacred myrhh that inexplicably streams from some icons and relics.

There's no sin in an infant being baptised, as long as while it is a dedication by the parents to the Lord, the child, as it grows up, is not taught that the baptism means that they are automatically saved.

I am of the view that no baptism guarantees automatic salvation, except in the case of people who have neurocognitive disabilities and lack the capacity to tell right from wrong, or children who die before their mental faculties are fully operational. For everyone else, Baptism is the primary means of responding to faith, or the start of the process of Theosis.

In saying that, infant baptism is a sacrament of the Catholic church and provides the hope that as the child grows they become aware of God and through His grace by the time they are confirmed by the Bishop, they are believing in a trusting in Christ.

There are two aspects of the Western approach I feel we should move away from: delayed first communion and delayed confirmation. I think the approach taken by Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox of baptism followed by chrismation followed by communion, starting when we are infants. However, a liturgical catechism led by the bishop seems a good substitute for delayed episcopal confirmation. Such a catechism session could instead be used to ordain youths as altar servers, readers and junior choristers.

There are those who believe that a church that practices infant baptism is devoid of the Holy Spirit. I dispute that. My Presbyterian church in Auckland had infant baptisms and there are some wonderful Spirit-filled believers in it. I have good friends in Anglican and Lutheran churches.

Outstanding! And I agree with you entirely: it is absurd to suggest churches that practice infant baptism are devoid of the Holy Spirit.

Also, infant baptism involves the role of godparents who are responsible for the spiritual education and upbringing of the child. If the godparents do their job right there is every indication that the child will grow up believing in and trusting Christ and will begin to show the fruit of regeneration.

Indeed so, we seem to be on the same page. I started writing this response thinking I was going to be disagreeing with you only to be delighted by the fact we are actually seemingly very close to being of one accord on the subject matter.