If paedobaptism were taught...

[MennoSota]

...in the Bible, I would believe it.
However, attempting to imply infants into the word "household" does not make paedobaptism a truth in scripture. It makes paedobaptism a feeling someone has about the word "household."
Someone mentioned that they don't let feelings determine their belief, but they let truth determine their belief.
How does a practice never endorsed in the Bible, but felt to be possible, somehow get taught as truth?

 

[Lamb]

Jesus told the disciples to go and baptize ALL nations. It's not just about having babies included in households but by Jesus' authority, babies are to be baptized because they too are a part of all nations.

Acts 2:39 says the promise is for you and your children. That's not a feeling.

 

[Albion]

...in the Bible, I would believe it.
However, attempting to imply infants into the word "household" does not make paedobaptism a truth in scripture. It makes paedobaptism a feeling someone has about the word "household."

That's basically it. However, the possibility of households not including children is so unrealistic that my conclusion is the opposite of yours--and mine, by the way, is also what the church has believed, whether we are speaking of Catholics, Orthodox Christians, or Protestants.

What's more, there is no other scriptural evidence that weighs against this conclusion. All the talk about there supposedly having to be a profession of faith prior to baptism, etc. etc. is even more speculative or hypothetical than the idea of households with children!

One more thing. With most Baptists and Anabaptists it seems to be the case that first they reject the idea of sacraments as sacraments, i.e. as something instituted by the Lord for our benefit. So then they posit as true a consequence of that thinking. That is to say, seeing the sacraments as mere ordinances that convey nothing to us from God, they wind up insisting that these are all about our eligibility, our worthiness, to perform them for the Lord.



.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]

...in the Bible, I would believe it.

Including those under 13 (and not dogmaticallty forbidding them) is no more taught in the Bible than including blonde haired people or fat people.

The ministry of baptism has no prohibitions stated in the Bible about age, race, gender, language, skin color, shoe size, weight, IQ, financial status or nationality.

IF some dude 1500 years after Jesus suddenly, out of the blue, invented a DOGMA that it is heretical, prohibited, banned, forbidden to baptize anyone over 6 feet, 3 inches tall - I'm sure you'd insist, "Where does the Bible state THAT? And how come NO ONE saw that or did that for 1500 years"?




.

 

[Lamb]

That's basically it. However, the possibility of households not including children is so unrealistic that my conclusion is the opposite of yours--and mine, by the way, is also what the church has believed, whether we are speaking of Catholics, Orthodox Christians, or Protestants.

Now why would tradition for over a thousand year think that households included children for baptism until the 1500s? The answer would lie in how the Israelites/Jews thought of children being a blessing from God. With very few exceptions they had large households and those households included their servants and their children as well. It's not something we in the modern times relate to because we're so worried about being able to afford children (which is probably the number one or number two reason for abortion in the United States) so we don't understand how God's people in the bible viewed children. The family was extremely important to them which is why the need for the Promise to include their children.

 

[Albion]

Now why would tradition for over a thousand year think that households included children for baptism until the 1500s?

A very good question.

With very few exceptions they had large households and those households included their servants and their children as well. It's not something we in the modern times relate to because we're so worried about being able to afford children (which is probably the number one or number two reason for abortion in the United States) so we don't understand how God's people in the bible viewed children. The family was extremely important to them which is why the need for the Promise to include their children.

Certainly so. You notice that these facts never are entertained by the No Infants! folks. They simply want to say that there is no way to be sure that all the households referred to in Scripture were normal ones. So, in consequence, we are expected to conclude instead that they were not. (?)

 

[MennoSota]

That's basically it. However, the possibility of households not including children is so unrealistic that my conclusion is the opposite of yours--and mine, by the way, is also what the church has believed, whether we are speaking of Catholics, Orthodox Christians, or Protestants.

What's more, there is no other scriptural evidence that weighs against this conclusion. All the talk about there supposedly having to be a profession of faith prior to baptism, etc. etc. is even more speculative or hypothetical than the idea of households with children!

One more thing. With most Baptists and Anabaptists it seems to be the case that first they reject the idea of sacraments as sacraments, i.e. as something instituted by the Lord for our benefit. So then they posit as true a consequence of that thinking. That is to say, seeing the sacraments as mere ordinances that convey nothing to us from God, they wind up insisting that these are all about our eligibility, our worthiness, to perform them for the Lord.



.

I have a household with cognizant children who no longer need a wet nurse. [emoji41] It's no so hard to imagine now is it?!
As to sacraments, I see none in the Bible. I see two ordinances, commandments, for the church.
1) Have the Lord's supper in remembrance of Christ's sacrificial atonement for his children.
2) Baptize disciples who have come to faith in Christ.

 

[Albion]

I have a household with cognizant children who no longer need a wet nurse. [emoji41] It's no so hard to imagine now is it?!

I take it that you found them as teenagers under a cabbage leaf, then. Otherwise, they would have been infants and then preschoolers in your household.

 

[Josiah]

NO traditional/orthodox Christian is founding a dogma on the "speculation" that everyone in the households in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 were under the age 13, it was that Anabaptist in the late 16th Century who invented a dogma insisting that all of them were over that age.


The ministry of baptism has no prohibitions stated in the Bible about age, race, gender, language, skin color, shoe size, weight, IQ, financial status, hair length or nationality.

IF some dude 1500 years after Jesus suddenly, out of the blue, invented a DOGMA that it is heretical, prohibited, banned, forbidden to baptize anyone over 6 feet, 3 inches tall - I'm sure Baptists would insist, "Where does the Bible state THAT? And how come NO ONE saw that or did that for 1500 years"?

IF some dude, 1900 years after Jesus, suddenly, out of the blue, invented a DOGMA that Black people are excluded from the Commandment,"Thou Shalt Not Kill", I'm sure most Baptists would insist, "Where does the Bible state THAT? And how come not one Christian on Earth ever saw that for 1900 years?

 

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]





Including those under 13 (and not dogmaticallty forbidding them) is no more taught in the Bible than including blonde haired people or fat people.

The ministry of baptism has no prohibitions stated in the Bible about age, race, gender, language, skin color, shoe size, weight, IQ, financial status or nationality.

IF some dude 1500 years after Jesus suddenly, out of the blue, invented a DOGMA that it is heretical, prohibited, banned, forbidden to baptize anyone over 6 feet, 3 inches tall - I'm sure you'd insist, "Where does the Bible state THAT? And how come NO ONE saw that or did that for 1500 years"?




.

Where did I set 13 as an age?
Would you baptize an unrepentant 13 year old? 20 year old? 30 year old? 60 year old? 8 year old?
Why does your church actually baptize unrepentant people, Josiah? Do you have a biblical reason for baptizing unrepentant people?

 

[Josiah]

NO traditional/orthodox Christian is founding a dogma on the "speculation" that everyone in the households in Acts 16:15 and Acts 16:33 were under the age 13, it was that Anabaptist in the late 16th Century who invented a dogma insisting that all of them were over that age.


The ministry of baptism has no prohibitions stated in the Bible about age, race, gender, language, skin color, shoe size, weight, IQ, financial status, hair length or nationality.

IF some dude 1500 years after Jesus suddenly, out of the blue, invented a DOGMA that it is heretical, prohibited, banned, forbidden to baptize anyone over 6 feet, 3 inches tall - I'm sure Baptists would insist, "Where does the Bible state THAT? And how come NO ONE saw that or did that for 1500 years"?

IF some dude, 1900 years after Jesus, suddenly, out of the blue, invented a DOGMA that Black people are excluded from the Commandment,"Thou Shalt Not Kill", I'm sure most Baptists would insist, "Where does the Bible state THAT? And how come not one Christian on Earth ever saw that for 1900 years?


.

Where did I set 13 as an age?

The sole issue in the Baptist Dogma of Anti-Paedobaptism is AGE.
A certain birthday one MUST DOGMATICALLY have past before some claimed 'prohibition' to baptize is lifted. That supposed ban is eliminated only by a birthday anniversary.


"Paedo" is the word Baptists use. It's a very general, non-specific word but was used primarily for anyone under 20 or 21, and more often, one under 13 or pre-puberty.
The Dogma is "ANTI" (against, forbidden, wrong, mockery) PAEDO (usually pre-puberty) "BAPTISM"
It's all about people who are under a certain AGE.

True, as you yourself noted, Baptists always refuse to declare what that AGE is (but it can be conveyed as the age of "X"). So, the actual dogma is "It is wrong, forbidden, heretical to baptize anyone under a certain age and we don't have a clue what age that is."


Now, read the post you quoted.



- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

I take it that you found them as teenagers under a cabbage leaf, then. Otherwise, they would have been infants and then preschoolers in your household.

And thus the point is made.
You are speculating that the jailer, if he even had children, had infants, not teenagers, when he was baptized. You have built an entire dogma/doctrine off from pure speculation and use it to justify baptizing unrepentant sinners (but only up to a certain age, mind you). It's a brilliant speculation because it relies on feeling without fact and thus pits opinion against opinion. Who could ever prove your opinion wrong (or my opinion wrong, for that matter). It is why we have multiple threads dealing with the same topic from different angles. There is no possible way to show an undocumented opinion to be wrong or right.
However, we have many documented baptisms in the Bible and in each baptism the person actually shown being baptized has confessed faith in the atoning work of Jesus. This is fact, not speculation. This is truth, not feelings. This is reality, not fantasy. We address what is actually known and we recognize theology bases upon this known truth. It is known, in scripture, that the Apostles practiced credobaptism. It is unknown if they practiced paedobaptism. There is the truth. You are not bound by any law to stop paedobaptism. You should acknowledge, however, that it is purely speculative and based on feelings without fact.

 

[Albion]

And thus the point is made.
You are speculating that the jailer, if he even had children, had infants, not teenagers, when he was baptized.

But you are speculating that he did not. And remember that you are also speculating that EVERY OTHER household mentioned in scripture in connection with a baptism ALSO had no young children. The chances of all of this being true are remote, yet you have built a doctrine upon the theoretical possibility.

 

[MennoSota]

The sole issue in the Baptist Dogma of Anti-Paedobaptism is AGE.
A certain birthday one MUST DOGMATICALLY have past before some claimed 'prohibition' to baptize is lifted. That supposed ban is eliminated only by a birthday anniversary.


"Paedo" is the word Baptists use. It's a very general, non-specific word but was used primarily for anyone under 20 or 21, and more often, one under 13 or pre-puberty.
The Dogma is "ANTI" (against, forbidden, wrong, mockery) PAEDO (usually pre-puberty) "BAPTISM"
It's all about people who are under a certain AGE.

True, as you yourself noted, Baptists always refuse to declare what that AGE is (but it can be conveyed as the age of "X"). So, the actual dogma is "It is wrong, forbidden, heretical to baptize anyone under a certain age and we don't have a clue what age that is."


Now, read the post you quoted.



- Josiah




.

The sole issue is biblical support.

 

[MennoSota]

But you are speculating that he did not. And remember that you are also speculating that EVERY OTHER household mentioned in scripture in connection with a baptism ALSO had no young children. The chances of all of this being true are remote, yet you have built a doctrine upon the theoretical possibility.

I am going by what is actually evidenced. I do not create a dogma from mere speculation like paedobaptism does.

 

[Albion]

I am going by what is actually evidenced..

If so, you would have been able to show us some evidence.

 

[MennoSota]

If so, you would have been able to show us some evidence.

Evidence that Peter didn't baptize until confession?
Read and see credobaptism.
Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 8:35-36,38 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
Acts 9:17-18 So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized;
Acts 10:44-48 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.
Acts 16:14-15 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
Acts 16:14-15,30-33 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us. Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And 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 and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.
Acts 18:8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.
Acts 19:2-5 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 22:14-16 And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

Now, show me scripture where paedobaptism is done.

 

[Albion]

Evidence that Peter didn't baptize until confession?
Read and see credobaptism.
Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 8:35-36,38 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

These verses do not prove anything other than that he did not baptize THOSE PEOPLE until after they had made a confession of faith.

 

[Albion]

Acts 16:14-15,30-33 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us. Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And 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 and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.

Now, show me scripture where paedobaptism is done.

See the bolded parts in red.

 

[MennoSota]

These verses do not prove anything other than that he did not baptize THOSE PEOPLE until after they had made a confession of faith.

Which IS credobaptism. Thank you!!!