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

[Ain't Zwinglian]

But Paedobaptists do not think that the person baptized needs to hear, or accept, or believe the gospel at all. Just get baptized.

Nope. Paedo baptize infants as a remedy for original sin. Baptism has very specific promises attached to it as "for the forgiveness of sins" which the credos don't believe.

The remedy "infant salvation" for the credos is AoA which is not found in Scripture. In fact, credos themselves admit there is no teaching in this matter. Why do credos believe this? Please help me understand. Where do the credos get this belief that infants are guiltless and sinless before the AoA. Where is this teaching explicitly taught?

Basically, as I see it credos believe "infant salvation" is based upon their own righteousness of sinlessness and guiltlessness. But what does Jesus say? “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”." (Lk. 5:31-32)

Christ’s work on the cross was for sinners not the sinless or guiltless. All the thematic words of Christ’s work such as justification by faith, atonement, reconciliation, Sacrifice, Ransom, Redemption, Penal Substitution presuppose the sinfulness of mankind. We have no Scripture that speak of Christ dying for the sinless.

For Credos, infants don't need Christ and therefore are ushered into heaven on their own merits of sinlessness due to the Age of Accountability

This is none other than "Salvation without Christ alone." A perfect example of works righteousness.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes. In my original post I did a study on the word "household" and contextually how wide of meaning it has. I didn't do a search on the word "house" which you alerted me to Rhoda.

I am still trying to wrap my head around the NT concept of Slavery. Clare73 wrapped me pretty hard for taking a simplistic approach to this issue. Since then I have read some heavy weight articles on the subject....which caused a significant amount of more questions I need to think through.

I agree. It has taken me a long time to discover how slavery fitted into not only the culture of the New Testament, but that of the Old Testament. It seems to me that it could have ranged from the brutal institution such as we see with the Gibeonites in the book of Joshua where they faced the dire choice of being killed or becoming perpetual slaves to the Israelites to an economic factor in culture with gradations from outright slavery to bond-slavery to apprenticeship to employment. The fact that some slaves willingly chose to remain loyal to their masters tells me that it was not necessarily a completely grim institution. Also, the fact that Paul instructed slave owners on how to treat their slaves and did not insist on emancipation is quite significant to me.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Documentation please.

Document this assertion from the early church writings. I never heard of this before. What early church historical writing assert this?

I believe Scripture commands baptism. Do you believe Baptism is optional? Do you believe that Jesus gave a polite suggestion to be baptized and not a command? Do you believe Christians shouldn't be baptized? Just tell us! Should baptism be rejected by Christians?

Quote early church writing source. DON'T MAKE UP STUFF.

Please quote early church writings. Don't make up stuff.

​

Not making anything up. In the second century, we started seeing graves of children being baptized shortly before they died. Why do you suppose that is? Why is it that you have an 8-year-old who it says was baptized a week before they died?

Boy this refers to AoA The AoA is pure "tradition" of man. There is no promise of salvation attached to AoA. Just a tradition of man. Wow....placing trust in the traditions of men. Please show me where AoA allows a person to go to heaven. You are placing faith in a theological innovation! Please demonstrate AoA from Scripture. I am not a universalist. Are you a universalist?

​

I did not give my opinion on this, I quoted scripture.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Not making anything up. In the second century, we started seeing graves of children being baptized shortly before they died. Why do you suppose that is? Why is it that you have an 8-year-old who it says was baptized a week before they died?

Never heard that before. Which writings. Where do you get this stuff from? And is this just a one off incident or was it prevalent? Sound to be like an ole wives tale.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I agree. It has taken me a long time to discover how slavery fitted into not only the culture of the New Testament, but that of the Old Testament. It seems to me that it could have ranged from the brutal institution such as we see with the Gibeonites in the book of Joshua where they faced the dire choice of being killed or becoming perpetual slaves to the Israelites to an economic factor in culture with gradations from outright slavery to bond-slavery to apprenticeship to employment. The fact that some slaves willingly chose to remain loyal to their masters tells me that it was not necessarily a completely grim institution. Also, the fact that Paul instructed slave owners on how to treat their slaves and did not insist on emancipation is quite significant to me.

This only concerns the NT. Is it possible the reason why Scripture does not make a harsh condemnation of slavery, as it would be considered rebellion against Rome. At minimum, about 10% of the Roman world were slaves. If a new religion came on the scene which clearly advocated abolishing slavery as an institution, I would think Rome would eliminate it. Rome only wanted two things from their client states---taxes and pax romana. And if there were a breach of the peace from the early Christians preaching emanicpation ....I think it would invite persecution.

 

[bbbbbbb]

This only concerns the NT. Is it possible the reason why Scripture does not make a harsh condemnation of slavery, as it would be considered rebellion against Rome. At minimum, about 10% of the Roman world were slaves. If a new religion came on the scene which clearly advocated abolishing slavery as an institution, I would think Rome would eliminate it. Rome only wanted two things from their client states---taxes and pax romana. And if there were a breach of the peace from the early Christians preaching emanicpation ....I think it would invite persecution.

I don't believe that slavery was a terribly significant policy of Rome per se. It was part and parcel to virtually all of human society at the time. What mattered most to Rome was loyalty to the Empire and the Emperor. The fact that some conquered people such as the Jews viewed themselves as having been taken into slavery by Rome was seen by the Jews as grounds for various rebellions which culminated when the Roman Emperor Titus sacked Jerusalem.

There seems to have been a highly nuanced system of slavery in practice in the first century. At the bottom you would find conquered people who were sold to willing buyers or conscripted into government service. These folks were so insignificant that they were not given the benefit of names. Thus, you find Quartus (#4) and Tertius (#3) being referred to in the Pauline epistles. Slaves of this class were simply assigned numbers to identify them to their owners. When they left the owner and were replaced, their replacement was given their number and if they were sold to another owner that owner would give them another number.

A step above these were household slaves such as Onesipheros who was given a name. His name, as you probably know, meant "Useful" and Paul made a pun on his name in his letter to Philemon. A slave like him had significant commercial value because of his skills and was worth seeking after if he ran away. Slaves did run away and common slaves who ran away had extreme difficulty in fending for themselves.

Census statistics carefully enumerated Roman citizens first and foremost and foreigners designated by their place of origin (e.g. Bethlehem of Judea). At the bottom of the list slaves were listed as property of their owners (Romans or foreigners) along with other goods and chattels.

Then there were bond-slaves. This category is discussed at some length in the Old Testament and is mentioned frequently in the New Testament. These were slaves who apparently had served their time and were granted their freedom. Frequently, they were old and worn out and had little to no commercial value. Some heartless owners would simply turn them out on the streets to fend for themselves. Some slaves would decide to remain with their owner and thus became bond slaves with certain privileges.

In the various trades and guilds there was the beginning of the apprentice system which came into full flower during the Renaissance. Thus, a young lad would purchase the right to learn from a master for a specific period of time and would perform specified duties. The master had the right to reject the apprentice if the apprentice failed to meet the specified standards of the contract of apprenticeship.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

There seems to have been a highly nuanced system of slavery in practice in the first century. At the bottom you would find conquered people who were sold to willing buyers or conscripted into government service. These folks were so insignificant that they were not given the benefit of names. Thus, you find Quartus (#4) and Tertius (#3) being referred to in the Pauline epistles. Slaves of this class were simply assigned numbers to identify them to their owners. When they left the owner and were replaced, their replacement was given their number and if they were sold to another owner that owner would give them another number.

I, Tertius, who write this letter, greet you in the Lord. Romans 16

I don't think Tertius fits in the mold of insignificant. He was Paul's personal secretary....hence highly trained and educated. We examine Tertius competent and expert understanding of the Greek language every time we read Romans. If indeed, Tertius is a slave, the Holy Spirit sure used him in ways he could never imagined being a free person. But that is the core tenet of X'ianity. The small and weak things of the world confounding the strong and wise.

Otherwise, the rest of this post has been useful to me. Thanx.

 

[The Liturgist]

Never heard that before. Which writings. Where do you get this stuff from? And is this just a one off incident or was it prevalent? Sound to be like an ole wives tale.

If what he is saying is accurate it would doubtless be related to certain heretical sects, like the Montanists, who believed sins committed after baptism could not be forgiven. This resulted in a known superstition where people would postpone baptism until they were in extremism. However, such heretical sects and their practices cannot be considered normative - if one followed that rabbit hole we might all just wind up adding the Gospel of Thomas etc to our Bibles.

 

[prodromos]

Not making anything up. In the second century, we started seeing graves of children being baptized shortly before they died. Why do you suppose that is? Why is it that you have an 8-year-old who it says was baptized a week before they died?

I'm guessing you read this in a book somewhere. Did they provide any references, or is this just hearsay?

You were asked for a citation, so why haven't you given one?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

If what he is saying is accurate it would doubtless be related to certain heretical sects, like the Montanists, who believed sins committed after baptism could not be forgiven. This resulted in a known superstition where people would postpone baptism until they were in extremism. However, such heretical sects and their practices cannot be considered normative - if one followed that rabbit hole we might all just wind up adding the Gospel of Thomas etc to our Bibles.

Yes, that explains it. From my reading of the early church fathers which one bizillionth of your, I just don't see this practices the credos report. However, I forgot all about the heretical sects---this makes sense.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I, Tertius, who write this letter, greet you in the Lord. Romans 16

I don't think Tertius fits in the mold of insignificant. He was Paul's personal secretary....hence highly trained and educated. We examine Tertius competent and expert understanding of the Greek language every time we read Romans. If indeed, Tertius is a slave, the Holy Spirit sure used him in ways he could never imagined being a free person. But that is the core tenet of X'ianity. The small and weak things of the world confounding the strong and wise.

Otherwise, the rest of this post has been useful to me. Thanx.

Tertius, in the Roman world, was merely #3 slave of someone's household. He did not merit a name. Of course, from our perspective, as well as Paul's, he was highly valued. Indeed, he was highly literate during a time of enormous illiteracy.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Tertius, in the Roman world, was merely #3 slave of someone's household. He did not merit a name. Of course, from our perspective, as well as Paul's, he was highly valued. Indeed, he was highly literate during a time of enormous illiteracy.

Okay, now I get it. It is a naming convention and a personal identifier. This is why Tertius and Quartus are both mentioned at the end of Romans. So in all probability someone is the master of both #3 and #4. Tertius may have had a personal name, but he greets Paul's addressees as Tertius so his readers would know who he was. The same with Quartus.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Okay, now I get it. It is a naming convention. This is why Tertius and Quartus are both mentioned at the end of Romans. So in all probability someone is the master of both #3 and #4. Tertius may have had a person name, but he greets Paul's addressees as Tertius so his readers would know who he was.

Precisely!

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Precisely!

This naming convention opens up alot of possibilities to gather additional information. I just my mind wander with this new insight.

• The audience knows he is a slave.
• Probably assigned to Paul by the owner who is a believer.
• By being called #3 and #4 mentioned is Tertius from an affluent household? Maybe called a "mono" would not signify household wealth. But to have three for four slaves, the master must have had some wealth. Would this increase his social standing and authority as a slave?
• The master therefore is subsidizing the first production run of the Book of Romans (50 copies, who knows). This takes a lot of time and money.
• Tertius may or may not have been the only in the production of the books, but he would have consulted Paul in the first few copies to make sure they were right. This means Tertius probably had more knowledge about the Book of Romans than anybody but Paul.

A fun little exercise.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

I'm guessing you read this in a book somewhere. Did they provide any references, or is this just hearsay?

You were asked for a citation, so why haven't you given one?

Are you saying you don't believe me?

 

[prodromos]

Are you saying you don't believe me?

I haven't seen any reason to yet.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

I haven't seen any reason to yet.

So, no? You don't believe me?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Are you saying you don't believe me?

Cite the source....and not a heretical sect source....but cite the source and I will believe you. Let's get this thing over....CITE THE SCOURCE.

I like what Ronald Reagan said, "Trust but verify"

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Timestamped to the right place. 14:38.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Timestamped to the right place. 14:38.

The great thing about this clip is the early church along with the Corinthians ( I cor 15:29) believed baptism actually did something, even though it clearly was an abuse. Holding off baptism of course would be Tertillian's position but hardly uniform belief.

Credobaptists believe baptism does nothing, a purely empty sign. Just a ceremony.

Abuses occur in every century.