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

[Jesse Dornfeld]

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.

You have changed your stance quite quickly, it seems. Further, you give zero acknowledgment of being proven wrong.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

You have changed your stance quite quickly, it seems. Further, you give zero acknowledgment of being proven wrong.

You failed here. We asked for a citation not a summary from a secondary source. Uniform practice vs. abuse of practice. There are a boatload of indviduals here @ CF that know more about early church history in their little finger, than you would know in your whole body even if you were to grow to be three hundred years of age.

Your contrarianism is wearing thin on me. I am out of this conversation.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

You failed here. We asked for a citation not a summary from a secondary source. Uniform practice vs. abuse of practice. There are a boatload of indviduals here @ CF that know more about early church history in their little finger, than you would know in your whole body even if you were to grow to be three hundred years of age.

Your contrarianism is wearing thin on me. I am out of this conversation.

You turn to insults? Of course, you do. What else would you do?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

You turn to insults? Of course, you do. What else would you do?

I am accessing your account, hitting the ignore button and you are now forever blocked from my account.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

We asked for a citation not a summary from a secondary source.

I'm sorry, is what I said invalid? You are correct, you asked for a source. I provided one. Whether you accept the testimony of Gavin or not is a separate issue.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

I am accessing your account, hitting the ignore button and you are now forever blocked from my account.

This is what people do when you show them they are wrong and they no longer have an argument. This is what people do who are not interested in Truth.

 

[The Liturgist]

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.

That said, remember it was very common for Romans to give their children numeric names. Seriously. Octavius was not a slave, but his name literally means “Eighth.” Emperor Decius, who initiated a nasty persecution against Christians, had a name meaning “tenth.”

Thus you literally find Roman Patricians and notable Plebeians of Equestrian standing whose sons might be named Primus, Secundus, Tertius, Quartenus, Quintus, Sixtus, Septimus, Octavius, Nonarius, Decius… And whose daughters might be Prima, Secunda, Tertia, etc…

To us numbering children as their names might at first seem strange or callous, however, this is not the case, and also, that being said there are Christian saints with these names, for example St. Sixtus, and indeed Jacob Rees Mogg, a traditional Christian politician in the UK, named his sixth son Sixtus after St. Sixtus, and I like this as it is worth commemorating when someone has six children. Traditional Christianity’s greatest strength is the family, and the resurgence of large families among the most persecuted Christians of the Middle East and the most pious of Western Christians is a blessed thing.

Interestingly St. Sixtus, a martyred Bishop of Rome, is highly venerated among the West Syriac Christians of the Middle East.

 

[The Liturgist]

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.

Indeed so, this is entirely correct. And the peculiar thing is I have no idea where the Anabaptists got the idea from, since the only equivalent movement, the Hemerobaptists of the 2nd and 3rd century, who were related to the Mandaeans, were so obscure as to be unknown even among most 16th century intellectuals. And we can assert with extreme confidence that the Waldensians were not, as is often claimed without evidence, credobaptists, since they eagerly embraced the Reformed Church in Geneva after the massacre inflicted on them in Piedmont, and of the polemics directed against them none mention this.

Basically the only way for the credobaptist position to be correct is if there was a Great Apostasy as asserted by the Landmark Baptists and also by Restorationists, and this idea contradicts Matthew 16:18.

 

[prodromos]

Timestamped to the right place. 14:38.

Gavin doesn't give any reference for the tombstones either, so forgive me if I take his claim with a grain of salt.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Gavin doesn't give any reference for the tombstones either, so forgive me if I take his claim with a grain of salt.

I mean, of course, you say that. But do you think he is lying?

 

[prodromos]

I mean, of course, you say that. But do you think he is lying?

I believe he is sincere, but without seeing his sources, I have no way of knowing if he is misrepresenting them, intentionally or not.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

I believe he is sincere, but without seeing his sources, I have no way of knowing if he is misrepresenting them, intentionally or not.

Do you doubt his scholarship? Or is it something else? Just hard to swallow?

 

[prodromos]

Do you doubt his scholarship? Or is it something else? Just hard to swallow?

I don't know him from Adam. Show me the sources, then I can make a judgement.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

All are valid possibilities other than the concept of a production run of letters. That would have come much later, after the letter had been received and read. Production costs were substanstial, to say the least. Vellum, the stuff of scrolls, was made from delicately process sheepskin and even papyrus was hardly inexpensive, although much more common. It is much more likely that Paul dictacted one letter and that the letter was copied after it was delivered and read.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Vellum, the stuff of scrolls, was made from delicately process sheepskin and even papyrus was hardly inexpensive, although much more common. It is much more likely that Paul dictacted one letter and that the letter was copied after it was delivered and read.

Production cost of vellum would be practically cost prohibitive probably even for the wealthy. Vellum was probably reserved for national interests such as the Sanhedrin or Constantine's Fifty Bibles.

P52 the earliest manuscript we have is of Papyrus a medium which the early Christian used for their epistles. The individual sheets have are written on both sides (Recto and Verso) and then assembled into a Codex. The early Christian didn't invent the modern Codex but they used this new medium of invention for it was very inexpensive to use for publication.

There are two reasons why we have such few manuscripts from the Second and Third Century. 1) Christianity did not have a centralized government until the age of Constantine. Any ancient national archive system revolved around first and foremost a record of collecting taxes. From this, a national archive of other national documents leading up to the concept of a library. Since there was no center of Christianity in the Second and Third century, no codex's were archived.

2) The codex's of the Second and Third Century were made of Papyrus which were inexpensive but would degrade to dust or rot within years to decades due to Mediterranean humidity. Vellum stands up to humidity. We have examples of Papyrutic material thousand of years old, but are found in lower Egypt preserved by arid climate with extremely how humidity.

Papryus manuscripts had to be copied over and over again (leading to variant MS readings) until Constantine's vellum Codex's were produced. And we have three existing Vellum Codex's from the Fourth and Fifth Century substantially reducing variant readings.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

As R.C. Sproul pointed out - we have not one example of Paedobaptism in all of scripture.

This is a fairly common criticism leveled against the paedobaptists. There are no examples of infants being baptized in the NT and therefore should be seen as a prohibited practice. How valid is this criticism?

It basically comes down to an individuals rules for interpreting Scripture. We use the words “permitted” and “prohibited” to establish two distinct approaches for interpreting Scripture.

1. THAT WHICH IS NOT PROHIBITED IS PERMITTED.​

​

2. THAT WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED IS PROHIBITED.​

Clearly, paedos affirm proposition #1. Paedo’s state there is no there is no specific text in Scripture that bars babies from baptism therefore is infant baptism is permitted.

Credos affirm proposition #2. There is no explicit example of “infant baptism” in the Bible. There is no explicit command to baptize infants. Therefore, paedobaptism should be prohibited.

Which one of these poles of interpretation is correct?

Generally speaking, it is my position Scripture clearly affirms proposition #1….that which is things not prohibited is permitted. We see this clearly in Paul’s statements concerning the laws of Christian liberty.

I Cor 6:12 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable.​

​

I Cor 10:23 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable.​

The major problem with credobaptists as I see it, is they sometimes use both principles of Scripture sometimes leaning on the prohibited side, and other times leaning on the permitted side of interpretations.

Take for example, women taking holy communion. No where in Scripture is there an explicit example of women taking holy communion, and no where does Scripture explicitly state women can take Holy Communion. If the credos were consistent with the principle “that which is not specifically permitted, is prohibited” women would not take holy communion. Of course they could justify the practice of women taking Holy Communion with the belief, "well it is not prohibited so it is permitted." This would be the classic case of having your cake and eating it too.

Problems abound concerning “that is is not specifically permitted is prohibited” for interpreting Scripture. For example, the Churches of Christ denomination do not use musical instruments in worship. They believe no Scripture authorizes musical instruments, no evidence the early church used musical instruments, and certainly the NT gives no authority to add them now. The same could be said about the Amish, Mennonites, some Reformed/Presbyterians (through the Regulative Principle of Worship). Clearly, “if it is specifically not permitted, then it should be prohibited” interpretative principle is operative here.

Legalistic rules abound if one affirms the credo principles. For example, what about churches owning private property, usage of pictures and stain glasses windows within the church, usage of built in pulpits, displaying a crucifix or open cross symbol, and the recognition of Christmas and Easter as religious holidays, etc. The list can be endless of prohibited practices with loss of Christian freedom.

Horrendous abuses may about if a schizophrenic usage of this interpretative rule is used. Such as dancing is not permitted in the NT, therefore prohibited, but playing pool is not prohibited, therefore permitted. Or candles are not permitted for use in the NT, but no where does the NT prohibit fog machines and laser lights.

Paedobaptists baptize infants and allow women to take holy communion for the EXACT SAME REASON. Both are God’s work to mankind and you not called to restrict or withhold how God works through specific means to bring about his intended purposes. Baptism is seen as a remedy for original sin.

 

[BobRyan]

This is a fairly common criticism leveled against the paedobaptists. There are no examples of infants being baptized in the NT and therefore should be seen as a prohibited practice. How valid is this criticism?

The lack of Bible examples of such a practice is real and apparently both sides admit to it in the case of R.C. Sproul's debate with John MacArthur.

That detail is "instructive" for a lot of Christians.

It basically comes down to an individuals rules for interpreting Scripture.

Not so - as we still have the fact that both sides admit to this in that case of that debate between so-called "experts" on each side of the debate.

We use the words “permitted” and “prohibited” to establish two distinct approaches for interpreting Scripture.

Word games are fun. But the fact that no example exists is still one that both sides admitted to -- and thus constitutes "the easy part" of the discussion.

#1. Paedo’s state there is no there is no specific text in Scripture that bars babies from baptism... therefore is infant baptism is permitted.

So then no specific text that says
-- not to feed babies arsenic ,
-- no specific text saying not to elect a baby as your pastor
-- or not to allow a baby to drive your car.
-- or not to toss babies high into the air while riding a bike.

The "no text says not to do this" covers a lot of territory when you set that in isolation as if nothing else that applies should be noticed. That is not very useful.

Credos affirm proposition #2. There is no explicit example of “infant baptism” in the Bible. There is no explicit command to baptize infants. Therefore, paedobaptism should be prohibited.

Not quite the whole story.

1. no example of it in the Bible
2. Examples in the Bible saying that you must preach the gospel to the one you baptize.. not possible for babies.
3. Examples of "believe and is baptized - is saved" Mark 16:15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

IF you "delete all that" and then say the only criteria is "no command to baptize infants" you are dismissing most of the Bible argument against it.

Generally speaking, it is my position Scripture clearly affirms proposition #1….that which is things not prohibited is permitted

Requires taking that one criteria alone in isolation.
Does not actually work even when taken alone as shown above. in my examples for "what is ALSO not explicitly prohibited"

. The major problem with credobaptists as I see it, is they sometimes use both principles of Scripture sometimes leaning on the prohibited side, and other times leaning on the permitted side of interpretations.

Take for example, women taking holy communion. No where in Scripture is there an explicit example of women taking holy communion

If we could add to that "the one who takes holy communion must be a man" the way we have "must beileve AND be baptized" -- then you might have a case.

But by ignoring the full set of details that apply to the topic you get to your POV.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

no specific text saying not to elect a baby as your pastor

Pastoral criteria in articulated by Paul answers that.

So then no specific text that says not to feed babied arsenic

I think "thou shalt not murder" covers that

not to allow a baby to drive your car.

This example speaks volumes about your cognitive processes.

The "no text says not to do this" covers a lot of territory. That is not very useful.

Paul thinks it is useful....I can do all things but not all things are beneficial. And we use the guidance from the 10 Commandments to live out our lives. Not rocket science and VERY USEFUL.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

no specific text saying not to elect a baby as your pastor

Pastoral criteria in articulated by Paul answers that.

Just as "he who BELIEVES AND is baptized" answers your suggestion.

I think "thou shalt not murder" covers that

Just as "he who BELIEVES AND is baptized" answers your suggestion.

This example speaks volumes about your cognitive processes.

Agreed. I am paying attention to the details..

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Just as "he who BELIEVES AND is baptized" answers your suggestion.

Faith is a gift from God (Eph 2) It is not of an intellectual process. John the Baptist and Jeremiah were regenerated in the Womb. They both were filled with the HS. As the ole say goes "John was born again before he was born." God can bring the gift of faith to anyone regardless of age. David even trusted God upon his mother's breast Ps. 22). Yes, infant faith is possible as demonstrated by John, Jeremiah and David because it is a gift from God.