Baptism... Again?

[stovebolts]

Hello Jeff, this is a quote from Tertullian's writing of "On Baptism" written in 210 A.D. While Tertullian wrote against the practice of infant baptism, it seems to me that since he felt the necessity to write about this sacrament, that infant baptism occurred well before the time of Augustine. Please correct me if you disagree.

"Why should innocent infancy come with haste to the remission of sins? Shall we take less cautious action in this than we take in worldly matters? Let them first learn how to ask for salvation, so that you may be seen to have given to one that asketh" On Baptism-Ch. 18 pg. 39

Tertullian: De Baptismo Liber. E. Evans, 1964. Latin and English

God bless, Westtexas

Thank you for this Westtexas
I'm sure hoping I quoted Shelly correcty in the matter, it was some time ago that I read that and it may explain why I couldn't find it where I though it would be (within Augustines section) I don't have the time to go over 140 pages where Shelly wrote what I thought he wrote, but I'll pick around this weekend. Anyway, thanks for bringing this up. As a side note, I couldn't help but notice his view on the innocentcy of infants.

 

[stovebolts]

If someone wants Origen's or Irenaeus' citation on infant baptism, I would be happy to dig it up, 150 years plus before Augustine.

Take care

Joe

Hi Joe,
I had an idea you'd show up.
If you would be truly happy to dig it up, I'd be more than happy to read it.
Thanks!

 

[Mike]

As a side note, I couldn't help but notice his view on the innocentcy of infants.

You caught that, eh? So there have been differences of opinion since near the beginnings of the church. I'm not feeling so bad about ours! Now, we need to understand which was happening during the NT time and which began shortly after.

 

[stovebolts]

This isn't about me. Someone asked me this, and I wanted to put it out there.

She was baptized as an infant - with water - in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Now, many years later, she is converting to another denomination, and they expressed the need to be baptized again! :o

With that, my feelings are clear. I would tell the pastor, no I wasn't aware of what was happening as an infant when I was baptized, but I was baptized. And God knew what was happening. There's no need to redo what was done. I was baptized and brought into the family of God. This is between myself and my God. If this is required to be a member here... have a nice life!

How do you feel? Do any of your churches require this of those baptized as infants?

But I'm not sure if you ever addressed my OP. If someone was baptized as an infant, do you believe they need to be baptized again as an adult. Believe me; no insult will be inferred. I'm sound in my confidence that I AM baptized, so this isn't about me. Just curious about your take.

Be blessed

Mike,
I am glad that you are sound in your confidence, however, what moved your friends to, as you put it, "converting to another denomination".

You asked me a direct question, so upon request, here is my direct response. Yes, I agree that your friends need to be baptized.

As you know, I don't considere baptism a form of legalism as part of a list that we need to check off our list of to-do's and I don't view baptism as a line in the sand that detirmines ones eternal fate to heaven or hell. Rather, I see baptism as a response to the gospel of Christ where one is assured the gift of the Holy Spirit. Baptism is part of God's transforming work in our lives.

You posted some scriptures, so while Joe is digging up some earlier writings, I’ll quickly go over some of the scriptures you posted.

In Acts 16:15 we have by way of example Lydia. The first question I have is where is the infant and what constitutes a houshold? Don’t you find it odd that a woman would leave an infant and why is there no mention of a husband? We know that Lydia was a prominent buisness woman so it wouldn’t be unusual for her houshold to include servants, but because no husband is mentioned (vs. 15 and it’s implications), I find it highly improbable that Lydia had an infant that was being taken care of by her servants.

As far as Acts 16:33-34, we do see that the jailer and his household were baptized, but in the verse just above it we also see that the “Word of the Lord was spoken to them.†By both Paul and Silas. This implies that those being spoken to were able to understand. Hence, Paul also writes: Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Earlier you quoted Ephesians 2:8-10, so the question I’ll pose is this. The text reads, “For by grace are ye saved through faithâ€. May I state that the word through in greek is dia. Dia in Greek means “an instrumentâ€. So we see that through the instrument of faith, grace is administered. This raises the question of who’s faith we are talking about. Is it our faith, or is it the faith that Jesus has in us?

As it pertains to baptism, you stated that baptism imparts fiath to the infant. This simply does not agree with the text. Even so, Paul states that faith comes through the hearing of the word and if you think about what you said about faith as it pertains to infant baptism, it would suggest that all infants who are baptized would grow up in the faith and I can’t say with certainty that this is a true statement. So again I ask, who’s faith is being spoken about in Eph 2:8-10?

This is about long enough, and I know I did not address the rest of what you posted, nor did I address your commentary. But this does give us a good starting point and honestly Mike, we need to narrow this down to one small managable piece at at time.

Grace and Peace,
Jeff

 

[francisdesales]

Hi Joe,
I had an idea you'd show up.
If you would be truly happy to dig it up, I'd be more than happy to read it.
Thanks!

No problem, I'll have to go home and get the citation, I'm at work now...!

Joe

 

[stovebolts]

LOL, no hurry Joe. Just try not to forget.
Thanks! :waving

 

[Mike]

Mike,
I am glad that you are sound in your confidence, however, what moved your friends to, as you put it, "converting to another denomination".

Jeff, just for clarification, this was not a personal friend of mine. Actually this stems from someone asking me via a PM here. I don't know the reason or which church the member converted from. I suggest that this member create a thread to get other perspectives. When I saw none was, I elected to create in on my own.

Thank you for answering the question in my OP. I also agree that this thread needs to be narrowed down. Giving our opinions on the need for another baptism hinges on other things, as we have found. Where would you suggest we focus it right now? I'll focus on the meaning of "household" found in Acts 16 for now, if that's alright. I did read something indicating the original word meant the entire family, including children, but I'll have do more research. We could also talk about whether it's logical to assume that children were or weren't included in these households when they weren't specifically cited in Acts 16.

Sound okay?

Should we re-title this to "Infant Baptism" and move it to the Bible Study Forum? Would that title invoke too many volatile emotions?

Be blessed

 

[stovebolts]

eh, bad idea to move this type of discussion to another forum.

Households seems like a good enough place to start.

 

[westtexas]

Where would you suggest we focus it right now? I'll focus on the meaning of "household" found in Acts 16 for now, if that's alright. I did read something indicating the original word meant the entire family, including children, but I'll have do more research. We could also talk about whether it's logical to assume that children were or weren't included in these households when they weren't specifically cited in Acts 16.

Mike, It is my thinking in the 2 verses that you have brought up that there are no infants in this household and, if there are children, that they are old enough to be able to reason for themselves. verse 33 "and was baptized, he and all his" and then in verse 34 "and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house". It seems to me that it would take a reasoning mind to believe in God and to rejoice over what He had done through this baptism. The way I read these 2 verses is that ALL were baptized and then that ALL believed.
What do you think? Westtexas

 

[jasoncran]

household refers to the slaves of the estate.

 

[westtexas]

household refers to the slaves of the estate.

Not always.
Acts 16:34--.........pepisteukos (having believed) theo (in God) panoikei (with his whole household)
panoikei is a derivative of the 2 words pas and oikos
pas-all
oikos-a) a house or dwelling b)by metonymy, of the members of a household or family--Vines Dictionary

thus--all his family
Westtexas

 

[francisdesales]

LOL, no hurry Joe. Just try not to forget.
Thanks! :waving

Forget? Mwah? How could I forget such a "challenge"???!!! :p

Here is what I found. This is the first example that the Church considered that infants could be made holy by being united to Christ (through Baptism, of course, Romans 6...)

Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", 2, 22, 4 (c. 180 AD)

For He came to save all through means of Himself -- all, I say, who through Him are born again to God -- infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord.

We already have Tertullian's statement given by Westtexas.

Hippolytus of Rome, "The Apostolic Tradition", 21:1-5 (c. 215 AD) This is the kind of historical evidence that is very difficult to argue with...Especially when we consider the title...

At the hour in which the cock crows, they shall first pray over the water. When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water. Then they shall take off all their clothes. The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any foreign object with themselves down into the water.

Origen, "Homilies on Numbers" 8:3 (c. 244 AD)

Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sn... And if it should seem necessary to do so,there may be added to the aforementioned considerations the fact that in the Church, Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the useage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous.

This is an interesting comment - since it marks definitively that Augustine didn't "come up" with the notion that men are born into sin and require baptism...


He later writes in the "Commentaries on Romans" 5:9 (c. 244 AD)

The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stain of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.

Ah, well, move that idea of "original sin" back to the Apostles...

Hope this helps, Jeff. Much earlier than Shelley noted.

Regards

 

[westtexas]

Origen considers the practice of "apostolic origin".

Hello Joe, what is your view of the teaching of infant baptism from the Didache? While infant baptism is not mentioned either way, the one who is about to be baptized is instructed to fast for a day or two.

God bless, Westtexas

 

[francisdesales]

Hello Joe, what is your view of the teaching of infant baptism from the Didache? While infant baptism is not mentioned either way, the one who is about to be baptized is instructed to fast for a day or two.

God bless, Westtexas

Proselyites to Judaism were told to do the same thing - receive instruction, and when ready, they were to fast. The Didache was written by someone familiar with Judaism. I presume that infants about to be circumcised or Baptized were not subjected to this requirement, obviously meant for adults. The parents or family would speak for the infant and raise them in the faith. Eventually, the child would speak for themselves and confirm the faith.

Regards

 

[Mike]

I've been trying to find time to hone in on what was meant by "household" in the original Greek used in Acts 16. This isn't easy for me as the extent of my Greek knowledge is the alphabet - alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon... So in searching all over the net to get a handle on what was implied when it was used, I come back here and realize I had missed it a few posts above. Thanks, westtexas! I need to do a more thorough job reading before I do my own research.

So "Oikos" - the inmates of a house, all the persons forming one family, a
household

Now that even I'm on board with everyone else here ;), I suppose the only thing left is to speculate whether there would have been infants present in the households.

15When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home.
-----
33At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family.

I'm not sure where this particular part of the conversation can conclude if those on both sides feel led either way. There's nothing saying there were infants, and there's nothing saying there weren't. I don't believe it's fair to say that, since Lydia was a business person selling cloth, that she wouldn't have infants. I feel if there were infants present, but they weren't included in the baptism, this would have been mentioned, or Luke would have said something like "all who confessed..."

It seems to me, by saying of the jailer, "he and his whole family", this implies a lot. It really seems to be on Luke to be clear, as thorough and detailed as his accounts were, in limiting those who were baptized.

 

[stovebolts]

Hi Mike and thanks for your reply.

Could you respond to what I wrote on the other page? I'll post it again here.

As far as Acts 16:33-34, we do see that the jailer and his household were baptized, but in the verse just above it we also see that the “Word of the Lord was spoken to them.†by both Paul and Silas. This implies that those being spoken to were able to understand. Hence, Paul also writes: Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

The crux of the matter in the two cases mentioned is they both leave out the answer to the question we're left asking, "Were there infants that were also baptized".

Joe,
Thanks for taking the time to research those for me. I really appreciate that, and now i'll have to search out the original manuscripts and give them a read.

What I find ironic, is that we have two of the church fathers who take on two different ideas on children and baptism which leads me to the conclusion that this debate has been going on well before we were born, and will rage on after we're dead. What I appreciate about those in this thread is that we're not at each others throats, and I appreciate that very much.

Unfortunatly I've got too many irons in the fire, but I'm not in a hurry and I know you'll be around.

Grace and Peace.

 

[Mike]

Hi Mike and thanks for your reply.

Could you respond to what I wrote on the other page? I'll post it again here.

As far as Acts 16:33-34, we do see that the jailer and his household were baptized, but in the verse just above it we also see that the “Word of the Lord was spoken to them.†by both Paul and Silas. This implies that those being spoken to were able to understand. Hence, Paul also writes: Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

The crux of the matter in the two cases mentioned is they both leave out the answer to the question we're left asking, "Were there infants that were also baptized".

Jeff, sorry. I thought I did address it in my last post, but not as specifically as I could have.

Forgive me if I'm over simplistic, but I'm a simple person. :yes The way I interpret this and other verses that talk about people responding to the Gospel is that these are the people who can outwardly respond to it. You may feel this is a reach, but I don't. If I'm playing music for a group in my home where there are infants, everyone receives the stimulation. Capable people can respond, but does this mean that infants in the room are not impacted by the music? How much more can God stir the hearts of those infants? Can we say that it is beyond reason to believe that He could?

I'm sure you'd say "of course He could" and you'd also say, "but would He?"

Consider this from Luke 1:
"39At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, 40where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth. 41When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit."

And John had not yet been born!!! Could God stir such a response in the heart of an infant? I believe so. John, within the womb, responded to the presence of the Lord Who was also yet born.

This doesn't say that there were infants there, we agree. But I do believe this does address the ability of an infant to receive the seed of faith while in an apparently incapable state to do so. It might not convince you, but I believe it does speak to it.

I'll see you at the Coney Island in about an hour!!

 

[stovebolts]

Nice response Mike ;) Oh, and thanks for picking up the tab at lunch today

Out of time for now, but you'll be hearing from me :nod

 

[Mike]

:bounceball

 

[Mike]

Just kidding. Take your time.