Baptizing your children.

[Locoponydirtman]

This is the Christian family forum, so let's talk about family.
They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.
Acts 16:31‭-‬33 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/act.16.31-33.NASB
A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
Acts 16:14‭-‬15 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/act.16.14-15.NASB

Do ya think those households may have included children, so why are we against baptizing children?
Didn't even the Jews circumcise on the 8th day?

 

[maxwel]

This is the Christian family forum, so let's talk about family.
They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.
Acts 16:31‭-‬33 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/act.16.31-33.NASB
A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
Acts 16:14‭-‬15 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/act.16.14-15.NASB

Do ya think those households may have included children, so why are we against baptizing children?
Didn't even the Jews circumcise on the 8th day?

Are you a Lutheran?

.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Are you a Lutheran?

.

Not exactly.
I'm more of a biblical literalist.

 

[maxwel]

Not exactly.
I'm more of a biblical literalist.

Well... it doesn't seem very literal to presume things which aren't in the text.

However, if you're a Lutheran, I'll give you a pass just for being a Lutheran.
(Insert generic Lutheran joke here.)

.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Do ya think those households may have included children, so why are we against baptizing children?

Infants and very young children could not possibly understand or respond to the Gospel. The households may have had older children, teenagers, and young adults. But baptism is for believers who understand what it signifies.

The problem with baptizing infants or very young children would be that the idea of baptismal regeneration would be promoted. This is the Catholic belief, and even the Orthodox have a similar belief. But baptismal regeneration is not scriptural. Martin Luther remained a Catholic in the matter of baptismal regeneration. Here is what he said in his Larger Catechism: Expressed in the simplest form, the power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Infants and very young children could not possibly understand or respond to the Gospel. The households may have had older children, teenagers, and young adults. But baptism is for believers who understand what it signifies.

The problem with baptizing infants or very young children would be that the idea of baptismal regeneration would be promoted. This is the Catholic belief, and even the Orthodox have a similar belief. But baptismal regeneration is not scriptural. Martin Luther remained a Catholic in the matter of baptismal regeneration. Here is what he said in his Larger Catechism: Expressed in the simplest form, the power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save.

I don't know what exactly you mean by baptismal regeneration.
What I know baptism is what does Scripture say.
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.
Romans 6:3‭-‬7 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/rom.6.3-7.NASB

 

[Locoponydirtman]

For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
Colossians 2:9‭-‬13 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/col.2.9-13.NASB

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
1 Peter 3:21 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/1pe.3.21.NASB

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Well... it doesn't seem very literal to presume things which aren't in the text.

However, if you're a Lutheran, I'll give you a pass just for being a Lutheran.
(Insert generic Lutheran joke here.)

.

I'll start with the Lutheran joke. What did the lutheran say to the lesbian Lutheran pastor?

You're not Lutheran, or a pastor you're not even a Christian.

I guess as for literal reading, whole household usually means more than just the husband and wife living there alone. I mean you wouldn't use whole household for that, it would be weird kind of like saying all both of them. So whole household would mean whoever was living in their house possibly even on their property, which according to the way they use the term then would mean servants as well as family, if they had servants. So I think the more logical assumption to make here is that there were children in the household, simply because the term household and what it means.

 

[kaylagrl]

I'll start with the Lutheran joke. What did the lutheran say to the lesbian Lutheran pastor?

You're not Lutheran, or a pastor you're not even a Christian.

I guess as for literal reading, whole household usually means more than just the husband and wife living there alone. I mean you wouldn't use whole household for that, it would be weird kind of like saying all both of them. So whole household would mean whoever was living in their house possibly even on their property, which according to the way they use the term then would mean servants as well as family, if they had servants. So I think the more logical assumption to make here is that there were children in the household, simply because the term household and what it means.

Well I'm not Lutheran, nor do I think little ones should be baptized. That being said my nephew is 11 and he was baptized about a year ago. I have no doubt he knows the significance of what he did. He told my husband that he has led for kids to the Lord at school. So proud of him.

 

[maxwel]

I'll start with the Lutheran joke. What did the lutheran say to the lesbian Lutheran pastor?

You're not Lutheran, or a pastor you're not even a Christian.

I guess as for literal reading, whole household usually means more than just the husband and wife living there alone. I mean you wouldn't use whole household for that, it would be weird kind of like saying all both of them. So whole household would mean whoever was living in their house possibly even on their property, which according to the way they use the term then would mean servants as well as family, if they had servants. So I think the more logical assumption to make here is that there were children in the household, simply because the term household and what it means.

Hey Loco,

The presumption occurs when we just start assuming things into the text that aren't stated in the text.
We have to "assume" there are children, and then we have to "assume" there are children of a particular age... an age too young to understand and assent to the gospel.

All of that information is simply missing from the text.
It just isn't there.

So to presume all of that into the text would seem like an error.


I understand Lutherans take a very strong view on this particular text.
I have no reason to hate on Lutherans.
I like Lutherans just fine.
But this is a place where I would just have to disagree.
I think they're presuming certain things which aren't there.


.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Hey Loco,

The presumption occurs when we just start assuming things into the text that aren't stated in the text.
We have to "assume" there are children, and then we have to "assume" there are children of a particular age... an age too young to understand and assent to the gospel.

All of that information is simply missing from the text.
It just isn't there.

So to presume all of that into the text would seem like an error.


I understand Lutherans take a very strong view on this particular text.
I have no reason to hate on Lutherans.
I like Lutherans just fine.
But this is a place where I would just have to disagree.
I think they're presuming certain things which aren't there.


.

It's okay to disagree.
Disagreement is not hate or enmity.

I would invite you to define household though. I mean in normal speaking when you say a person's household you mean?...

I'm making an assumption sure nuff, but it's an assumption based on normative standards considering the language used and with the culture of the time and place where this language was used .

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Well I'm not Lutheran, nor do I think little ones should be baptized. That being said my nephew is 11 and he was baptized about a year ago. I have no doubt he knows the significance of what he did. He told my husband that he has led for kids to the Lord at school. So proud of him.

So they started teaching this child scriptures at a very young age. likely he was taught things that would be considered well above his age and understanding level. So his parents intended for him to be a believer, and he was raised as such.

 

[maxwel]

It's okay to disagree.
Disagreement is not hate or enmity.

I would invite you to define household though. I mean in normal speaking when you say a person's household you mean?...

Household could easily refer to the husband and wife, or to any variety of extended family, with or without children.

So we have to make at least 3 assumptions:
1. Household has to necessarily include children, though we don't know if there even were any.
2. Household has to necessarily include children of an age too young to understand and assent to the gospel (this is the real issue).
3. That when they baptize "he and all his family" in verse 33, that the phrase "all his family" or "all his house" would necessarily encompass those too young to understand and assent to the gospel if children that age did happen to be present.
(As the scripture always shows baptism as an ordinance for those who are capable of believing, it would be easy to apply this principle, and then interpret verse 33 as meaning, "he and all his family which were ABLE to believe". This is how many of the classic commentators do view it.)

To arrive at infant baptism from this passage, we have to read a lot of assumptions into the text which aren't in the text, and then we have to ignore the principle we see throughout the New Testament that baptism is an ordinance for those capable of believing... which would automatically disclude infants and nullify the doctrine of infant baptism.

.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Household could easily refer to the husband and wife, or to any variety of extended family, with or without children.

So we have to make at least 3 assumptions:
1. Household has to necessarily include children, though we don't know if there even were any.
2. Household has to necessarily include children of an age too young to understand and assent to the gospel (this is the real issue).
3. That when they baptize "he and all his family" in verse 33, that the phrase "all his family" or "all his house" would necessarily encompass those too young to understand and assent to the gospel if children that age did happen to be present.
(As the scripture always shows baptism as an ordinance for those who are capable of believing, it would be easy to apply this principle, and then interpret verse 33 as meaning, "he and all his family which were ABLE to believe". This is how many of the classic commentators do view it.)

To arrive at infant baptism from this passage, we have to read a lot of assumptions into the text which aren't in the text, and then we have to ignore the principle we see throughout the New Testament that baptism is an ordinance for those capable of believing... which would automatically disclude infants and nullify the doctrine of infant baptism.

.

In normal speaking, even of the time, the words whole Household is not used to refer to a simple husband and wife living together, in fact we don't even use the term whole house hold to refer to a man and wife with just one child. Usually when we say whole house hold it refers to a complex living arrangement, which could include any number of arrangements, from the inclusion of grandparents to even in that time the servants. All I am saying is that is you apply normative standards to the term concidering the term, there was likely a range of related folks in that household.
So just applying normative standards to household could include any number of people likely more than two or three.

 

[maxwel]

In normal speaking, even of the time, the words whole Household is not used to refer to a simple husband and wife living together, in fact we don't even use the term whole house hold to refer to a man and wife with just one child. Usually when we say whole house hold it refers to a complex living arrangement, which could include any number of arrangements, from the inclusion of grandparents to even in that time the servants. All I am saying is that is you apply normative standards to the term concidering the term, there was likely a range of related folks in that household.
So just applying normative standards to household could include any number of people likely more than two or three.

Actually, we do use "household" in all kinds of ways, even when referring to just ONE person.
Ask any single person doing their taxes, lol.

And if "household" can refer to quite a range of things, then we CANNOT make any LOGICAL CONCLUSION about what particular people were actually there. That is not a logical conclusion we can make.

And the real issue here is about age.
We must assume that if there ARE children here, those children are necessarily of a PARTICULAR AGE.
And THAT is really just imagining things.
To say there ARE children here of a PARTICULAR AGE... that is just plain imagination.

Loco,
This has been fun, but this isn't a topic I usually debate.
It's not the kind of thing I worry about or lose sleep over.

So I'm going to bail on this one, and catch up with you elsewhere.
You have a great week bro.
.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

So we all agree that you will not find infant baptism in the Bible. It's just not there explicitly. Neither is there any thing forbidding either.

 

[pottersclay]

Agreed

So we all agree that you will not find infant baptism in the Bible. It's just not there explicitly. Neither is there any thing forbidding either.

.
Agreed. Baptism and communion are two things shared that are between the Lord and believer. Simply put it needs to be understood by the believer what he is partaking in and why.
There is a accountability. Both are not just for show nor are they rituals but are part of the Christians life.
It seemed important to Jesus enough to include it in his commission to us.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I don't know what exactly you mean by baptismal regeneration.

Baptismal regeneration is the belief that at the time of baptism, the sinner is actually born again (regenerated). This makes ordinary water supernatural, and does not give glory to God the Holy Spirit, who alone has power to supernaturally bring about the New Birth (born of the Spirit, born of God, born from above, born again). Thus baptism becomes a *sacrament* essential for salvation. WHICH IS FALSE.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

,

Baptismal regeneration is the belief that at the time of baptism, the sinner is actually born again (regenerated). This makes ordinary water supernatural, and does not give glory to God the Holy Spirit, who alone has power to supernaturally bring about the New Birth (born of the Spirit, born of God, born from above, born again). Thus baptism becomes a *sacrament* essential for salvation. WHICH IS FALSE.

I think that you should read the scriptures that I posted. They seem to refute your assertion.