NOT for debate. Infant Baptism in Early Church History

FreeInChrist

Active Member
I wanted to post this NOT to argue nor even discuss... but just to offer some of the thoughts on the subject.

If you want to debate, have at it.... but I WILL NOT.

Infant Baptism in Early Church History by Dennis Kastens

Issues, Etc. Journal - Spring 1997 - Vol. 2 No. 3
Infant Baptism in Early Church History

by Dennis Kastens

From the beginning of New Testament Christianity at the Feast of Pentecost (Acts 2: 38-39) to our time, unbroken and uninterrupted; the church has baptized babies. Entire households (Jewish, proselytes and Gentiles) were baptized by Christ’s original 12 Apostles (I Corinthians 1: 16; Acts 11: 14, 16: 15, 33, 18: 8) and that practice has continued with each generation.

The Early Church
Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom. "Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9: 3).
Justin Martyr (100 - 166) of the next generation states about the year 150, "Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years" (Apology 1: 15). Further, in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr states that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament.

Irenaeus (130 - 200), some 35 years later in 185, writes in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus "came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men."

Church Councils and Apologists
Similar expressions are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185 - 254) and Cyprian (215 - 258) who reflect the consensus voiced at the Council of Carthage in 254. The 66 bishops said: "We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God..... especially infants. . . those newly born." Preceding this council, Origen wrote in his Commentary on Romans 5: 9: "For this also it was that the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were committed knew that there is in all persons a natural pollution of sin which must be done away by water and the Spirit."

Elsewhere Origen wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: "Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins.

Cyprian’s reply to a country bishop, Fidus, who wrote him regarding the Baptism of infants, is even more explicit. Should we wait until the eighth day as did the Jews in circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born (To Fidus 1: 2).

To prevent misunderstanding by rural bishops, perhaps not as well-schooled as other or even new to the faith, the Sixteenth Council of Carthage in 418 unequivocally stated: "If any man says that newborn children need not be baptized . . . let him be anathema."


Augustine
Augustine (354 - 430), writing about this time in De Genesi Ad Literam, X: 39, declares, "The custom of our mother church in baptizing infants must not be . . . accounted needless, nor believed to be other than a tradition of the apostles."
He further states, "If you wish to be a Christian, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin." And again, "Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without participation in His sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they cannot possibly be vivified in Christ."


Specific directions, with detailed instructions, for the baptizing of infants were given by bishops to pastors and deacons during this era of Christian history. In the year 517, seven bishops met in Gerona, Catelina, and framed 10 rules of discipline for the church in Spain. The fifth rule states that ". . . in case infants were ill . . . if they were offered, to baptize them, even though it were the day that they were born . . . " such was to be done (The History of Baptism by Robert Robinson, [London:

Thomas Knott, 1790], p.269.).
The foregoing pattern, practiced in both East and West, remained customary in Christianity through the Dark and Middle Ages until modem times. Generally, the infant was baptized during the first week of life, but in cases of illness this took place on the day of birth. An example of this already comes from about 260 in North Africa in an inscription from Hadrumetum (Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres II, 4429-A):
Arisus in pace
natus ora sexta
bixit supra scriptas VIIII

This Latin inscription indicates that a child who died nine hours after its birth was baptized. Such practice of Baptism within the first days of life, or on the day of birth in an emergency, remained for both Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

The Witness of the Catacombs
The witness of the literary texts of the early church fathers, councils and apologists for the practice of infant Baptism in the first Christian centuries receives valuable confirmation from the catacombs and cemeteries of the Middle East, Africa and southern Europe. Below are epitaphs from the 200’s of small children who had been baptized. It is interesting to note that there are no Christian epitaphs in existence earlier than 200. As soon as the era of Christian inscriptions begins, we find evidence for infant Baptism. [editor's note- the two referenced epitaphs are in the original document].

In that century there are attributes and symbols in tombstones inscriptions of little children which allows us to clearly infer we are dealing with baptized children. The following is as early as 200 or shortly thereafter: [editor's note- the referenced epitaph is in the original document].

In the second last line is the phrase Dei Serv(u)s which means slave of God followed by the Chi Rho symbol for Christ. The last line is the Greek ichtheos familiar as the "fish symbol" - an anagram for Jesus Christ God’s Son Savior. These words and symbols mark the one-year, two months, and four-day-old child as a baptized Christian.

From the Lateran Museum, also from the 200’s, is a Greek inscription that gives information about the religious status of the parents. It reads, "I, Zosimus, a believer from believers, lie here having lived 2 years, 1 month, 25 days."


Also from this era are headstones for children who received emergency baptism with ages ranging from 11 months to 12 years. Since the patristic sources of the third century, as those earlier, give us to understand that the children of Christian parents were baptized in infancy, we must conclude that these emergency baptisms were administered to children of non-Christians. The inscriptions themselves confirm this conclusion. In the Roman catacomb of Priscilla is reference to a private emergency baptism that was administered to the one-and-three-quarter-year-old Apronianus and enabled him to die as a believer. The inscription reads:
Dedicated to the departed.
Florentius made this inscription
for his worthy son Apronianus who
lived one year and nine months and five days.
As he was truly loved by his grandmother
and she knew that his death was imminent,
she asked the church that he might depart from the world as a believer.

The fact that it was the grandmother who urged the baptism makes it very probable that the father of the child, Florentius, was a pagan. This is confirmed by the formula in the first line which is pagan and not found on any other Christian epitaphs. We have thus in this inscription evidence for a missionary baptism administered to a dying non-Christian infant.

Sole Opponent - A Heretic
In the 1,500 years from the time of Christ to the Protestant Reformation, the only bonafide opponent to infant Baptism was Tertullian (160 - 215), bishop of Carthage, Africa. His superficial objection was to the unfair responsibility laid on godparents when the children of pagans joined the church. However, his real opposition was more fundamental. It was his view that sinfulness begins at the "puberty, of the soul," that is "about the fourteenth year of life" and "it drives man out of the paradise of innocence" (De Anima 38:2). This rules out the belief in original sin.

Tertullian’s stance, together with other unorthodox views, led him to embrace Montanism in 207. Montanism denied the total corruption and sinfulness of human nature. With its emphasis upon the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit, it was the precursor to the modern Charismatic Movement.

Except for Tertullian’s heretical views, marking his departure from mainstream Christianity, the only other opposition to infant Baptism came during a brief period in the middle of the fourth century. The issue was the fear of post-Baptismal sin. This heretical view also denied Baptism to adults until their death-bed. It was not in reality a denial of infant baptism in and of itself. In fact, the heresy encouraged the Baptism of infants when death seemed imminent, as it also did for adults.

The Anabaptists
Not until the 1520s did the Christian Church experience opposition specifically to infant Baptism. Under the influence of Thomas Muenzer and other fanatics who opposed both civil and religious authority, original sin and human concupiscence was denied until the "age of accountability." Although there is no basis in Scripture for this position, a considerable number of Swiss, German and Dutch embraced the Anabaptist cause. So offensive was this position that Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Reformed alike voiced strong warning and renunciation. It was considered a shameless affront to what had been practiced in each generation since Christ’s command in the Great Commission (Matthew 28: 18-20) to baptize all nations irrespective of age.

Regeneration for All Ages continued in part 2
Who would be so blind as to limit this expression of God’s grace and mercy to adolescents and adults and to exclude infants and children?. If John the Baptizer could be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1: 15), and if Jesus could say (Matt. 18: 6), "Whoever offends one of these little ones (Gk."toddlers") who believe in Me, it were better that he were drowned in the depth of the sea," and if the Apostle Peter could say on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2: 39), "The promise is unto you and to your children," what mere mortal dare declare so gracious an invitation to be invalid for infants, or forbid the continuance of the Baptism of infants for coming generations?

If the entire families and households of the Philippian jailer, Lydia, Cornelius, Crispus and Stephanas of the New Testament were incorporated into the household of faith through Baptism, surely that testimony is immutable and established for all time.

Yes, we baptize babies. Unmistakably Scriptural proof substantiates that doctrine. Christian history, unbroken and uninterrupted. reflects such practice in each generation. Conscientious Christians do not delay but hasten with their children to Baptism that they may received the gift of salvation and regeneration and gratefully embrace the Apostle’s affirmation extended to those of all age groups: "For as many of you as have been baptized have put on Christ" (Galatians 3: 27).


Dennis Kastens
 
On a different Christian forum, a woman who is Roman Catholic just recently posted this below:

According to Early Church writings, they DID Baptize babies and small children – and referred to it as an ”Apostolic Tradition”:

Irenaeus

He [Jesus] came to save all through himself – all, I say, who through him are reborn in God; infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so.
Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D.215]).

Origen
THE CHURCH RECEIVED FROM THE APOSTLES THE TRADITION OF GIVING BAPTISM EVEN TO INFANTS.
The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian
As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).


I'm convinced that either these church fathers taught heresy or else these are not their original writings. I see NOWHERE in Scripture the practice of "infant" baptism.
 

Polycarp was.​

Infant Baptism In Early Church History



By Rev. Dennis Kastens







From the beginning of New Testament Christianity at the Feast of Pentecost (Acts 2:38-39) to our time, unbroken and uninterrupted; the church has baptized babies. Entire households (Jewish, proselytes and Gentiles) were baptized by Christ's original 12 Apostles (1 Corinthians 1:16; Acts 11:14; 16:15, 33; 18:8) and that practice has continued with each generation.



The Early Church


Polycarp
(69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom, "eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9:3). Justin Martyr (100-166) of the next generation states about the year 150, "many, both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples since childhood, remain pure to the age of sixty or seventy years" (Apology 1:15). Further, in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr states that Baptism in the circumcision of the New Testament.

Irenaeus (130-200), some 35 years later in 185, writes in Against Heresies II 22:4 that Jesus "came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men."



Church Councils and Apologists



Similar expressions are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185-254) and Cyprian (215-258), who reflect the consensus voiced at the Council of Carthage in 254. The 66 bishops said: "We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God . . .especially infants . . . those newly born." Preceding this council, Origen wrote in his Commentary on Romans 5:9: "For this also it was that the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were committed knew that there is in all person a natural pollution of sin which must be done away by water an the Spirit."

Elsewhere Origen wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: "Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins." Cyprian's reply to a country bishop, Fidus, who wrote him regarding the Baptism of infants, is even more explicit. Should we wait until the eighth day as did the Jews in Circumcision? No, the chid should be baptized as soon as ti is born (To Fidus 1:2).

To prevent misunderstanding by rural bishops, perhaps not as well-schooled as other or even new to the faith, the sixteenth Council of Carthage in 418 unequivocally stated: "if any man says that newborn children need not be baptized . . . let him be anathema."



Augustine


Augustine (354-430) writing about this time in De Genesi Ad Literam, X:39, declares, "The custom of our mother church in baptizing infants must not be . . . accounted needless, nor believed to be other than a tradition of the apostles."

He further states, "If you wish to be a Christian, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin." And again, "Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without participation in His sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they cannot possibly be vivified in Christ."

Specific directions, with detailed instructions, for the baptizing of infants were given by bishops to pastors and deacons during this era of Christian history. In the year 517, seven bishops men in Gerona, Catelina, and framed 10 rules of discipline for the church in Spain. The fifth rule states that ". . . in case infants were ill . . . if they were offered, to baptize them, even though it were the day that they were born . . ." such was to be done (The History of Baptism by Robert Robinson, [London: Thomas Knott, 1790], p. 269.).

The foregoing pattern, practiced in both East and West remained customary in Christianity through the Dark and Middle Ages until modern times. Generally, the infant was baptized during the first week of life, bun in cases of illness this tool place on the day of birth. An example of this already comes from about 260 in North Africa in an inscription from Hadrumetum (Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres II, 4429-A):



Arisus in pace




natus ora sexta




bizit supra scriptas VIIII



This Latin inscription indicates that a child who died nine hours after its birth was baptized. Such practice of Baptism within the first days of life, or on the day of birth in an emergency, remained for both Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.



The Witness of the Catacombs



The witness of the literary texts of the early church fathers, councils and apologists for the practice of infant Baptism in the first Christian centuries receives valuable confirmation from the catacombs and cemeteries of the Middle East, Africa and southern Europe. Below are epitaphs from the 200's of small children who had been baptized. It is interesting to note that there are not Christian epitaphs in existence earlier then 200. As soon as the era of Christian inscriptions begins, we find evidence for infant Baptism.

In that century there are attributes and symbols in tombstone inscriptions of little children which allows us to clearly infer we are dealing with baptized children. The following is as early as 200 or shortly thereafter:

ENTYCHIANO




FILIODVLCIS SIMO




EN GYCHVS - PATER




D-L-VA-I-M-II D-IIII




chiro.gif
DEI-SERVS-I




IXQYS




In the second last line is the phrase Die Serv(u)s which means slave of God followed by the Chi Rho symbol for Christ. The last line is the Greek word ICHTHUS familiar as the "fish symbol" -- an anagram for Jesus Christ God's Son Savior. These words and symbols mark the one-year, two-months, and four-day-old child as a baptized Christian.

From the Lateran Museum also from the 200's, is a Greek inscription that gives information about the religious status of the parents. It reads: "I, Zosimus, a believer from believers, lie here having lived 2 years, 1 month, 25 days."

Also from this era are headstone for children who received emergency baptism with ages ranging from 11 months to 12 years. Since the patristic sources of the third century, as those earlier, give us to understand that the children of Christian parents were baptized in infancy, we must conclude that these emergency baptisms were administered to children of not-Christians. The inscriptions themselves confirm this conclusion. In the Roman catacomb of Priscilla is reference to a private emergency baptism that was administered to the one-and-three-quarter-year-old Apronianus and enabled him to die as a believer. The inscription reads:



Dedicated to the departed.




Florentius made this inscription




for his worthy son Apronianus who




lived one year and nine months and




five days. As he was truly loved by his




grandmother and she know that his




death was imminent, she asked the




church that the might depart from the




world as a believer.




The fact that it was the grandmother who urged the baptism makes it very probable that the father of the child, Florentius, was a pagan. This is confirmed by the formula in the first line which is pagan and not found on any other Christian epitaphs. We have thus in this inscription evidence for al missionary baptism administered to a dying not-Christian infant.



Sole Opponent -- A Heretic


In the 1,500 years from the time of Christ to the Protestant Reformation, the only bonafide opponent to infant Baptism was Tertullian (160-215), bishop of Carthage, Africa.
His superficial objection was to the unfair responsibility laid on godparents when the child of pagans joined the church. However, his real opposition was more fundamental. It was his view that sinfulness begins a the "puberty of the soul," that is "about the fourteenth year of life" and "it drives man our of the paradise of innocence" (De Anima 38:2). This rules out the belief in original sin.

Tertullian's stance, together with other unorthodox views, led him to embrace Montanism in 207. Montanism denied the total corruption and sinfulness of human nature. With its emphasis upon the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit, it was the precursor to the modern Charismatic Movement.

Except for Tertullian's heretical views, marking his departure from mainstream Christianity, the only other opposition to infant Baptism came during a brief period in the middle of the fourth century. The issue was the fear of post-Baptismal sin. This heretical view also denied Baptism to adults until their death-bed. It was not in reality a denial of infant baptism in and of itself. In fact, the heresy encouraged Baptism of infants when death seemed imminent, as it also did for adults.



The Anabaptists


Not until the 1520's did the Christian Church experience opposition specifically to infant Baptism.
Under the influence of Thomas Muenzer and other fanatics who opposed both civil and religious authority, original sin and human concupiscence was denied until the "age of accountability." Although there is no basis in Scripture for this position, a considerable number os Swiss, German and Dutch embraced the Anabaptist cause. So offensive was this position that Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Reformed alike voiced strong warning and renunciation. It was considered a shameless affront to what had been practiced in each generation since Christ's command in the Great commission (Matthew 28:18-20) to baptize all nations irrespective of age.



Regeneration for All Ages


Who would be so blind as to limit this expression of God's grace and mercy to adolescents and adults and to exclude infants and children? If John the Baptizer could be filed with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb (Luke 1:15), and if Jesus could say (Matt. 18:6), "Whoever offends on of these little ones (Gk. "toddlers") who believe in Me, it were better that . . . he were drowned in the depth of the sea," and if the Apostle Peter could say on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:39), "The promise is unto you and to your children," what mere mortal dare declare so gracious and invitation to be invalid for infants, or forbid the continuance of the Baptism of infants for coming generations?

If the entire families and households of the Philippian jailer, Lydia, Cornelius, Cripus and Stephanas of the New Testament were incorporated into the household of faith through Baptism, surely that testimony is immutable and established for all time.

Yes, we baptize babies. Unmistakably Scriptural proof substantiates that doctrine. Christian history, unbroken and uninterrupted, reflects such practice in each generation. Conscientious Christians do not delay but hasten with their children to Baptism that they may receive the gift of salvation and regeneration and gratefully embrace the Apostle's affirmation extended to those of all age groups: "For as many of you as have been baptized have put on Christ" (Galatians 3:27).

I just wonder if there were no child baptisms in the bible....WHAT DID THEY DO WITH THE KIDS... WHILE THE WHOLE HOUSEHILE WAS BEING BAPTISED? THAT WOULD INCLUDE ASSORTED FAMILY MEMBERS AS WELL AS THOSE FOLLOWING.

In biblical times, a household was more than just a family; it included all who lived under one roof, such as relatives, servants, and sometimes even slaves, functioning as both a familial and economic unit. This structure was central to social life and often reflected the authority of the oldest male member, who managed the household's affairs.


Cornelius' HouseholdActs 10:1-48Cornelius, a devout man, and his entire household were baptized after hearing the Gospel.
Lydia's HouseholdActs 16:14-15Lydia, a seller of purple, and her household were baptized after she responded to Paul's message.
Philippian Jailer’s HouseholdActs 16:30-34The jailer and his entire household were baptized after the jailer believed in the Lord.
Crispus' HouseholdActs 18:8Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his whole household believed and were baptized.
Stephanas' Household1 Corinthians 1:16Paul mentions baptizing the household of Stephanas, indicating their belief in Christ.
[th]
Household​
[/th][th]
Reference​
[/th][th]
Details​
[/th]​
SO WHEN THE BIBLE SAYS ENTIRE HOUSEHOLD, WHOLE HOUSEHOLD THE HOUSEHOLD HER HOUSEHOLD
WHAT DID THEY DO WITH THE KIDS FOR IT SEEMS THAT THE THOUSEHOLDS WERE BAPTISED

In the Bible, instances of household baptisms, such as Cornelius' household, suggest that the entire household was baptized together after they all heard the gospel and received the Holy Spirit. This pattern indicates a collective baptism rather than individual baptisms occurring at different times.

SO THIS HAS TO MEAN THEY RUSHED THEM OFF TO THE NEIGHBORS, OR PUT THEM TO BED
EITHER WAY... IT SMACKS OF CJHILD ABUSE FOR IGNORING THEM SHEEEEEEEEESHHHHHHHHH!!!
 
From the beginning of New Testament Christianity at the Feast of Pentecost (Acts 2: 38-39) to our time, unbroken and uninterrupted; the church has baptized babies.
False.
Not a debate, just a statement of fact that there is no evidence that babies were baptized at Pentecost.

One should be more careful when presenting "facts".
 
False.
Not a debate, just a statement of fact that there is no evidence that babies were baptized at Pentecost.

One should be more careful when presenting "facts".
LISTEN... I only post what the historians have written.

I want to know what they did with the babies when the entire household from slaves, to servants, to other families all got baptized when the household was baptized.

NO BIRTH CONTROL THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN BABIES , TOTS OR TODDLERS.

DO YOU KNOW
 
LISTEN... I only post what the historians have written.

I want to know what they did with the babies when the entire household from slaves, to servants, to other families all got baptized when the household was baptized.

NO BIRTH CONTROL THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN BABIES , TOTS OR TODDLERS.

DO YOU KNOW
Yes, I know.

A circumstantial case can be made from Scripture that babies are included in the baptism of "households" (just as a circumstantial case can be made that there were no babies in those few specific households mentioned in scripture). "Infant Baptism" (like infants going to heaven) is simply a subject that Scripture is silent on.

I also know that by the Second Century, the ECFs and archeology evidence supports infant baptism as a practice that was done and affirmed.

I don't waste time trying to argue from silence (either way). Read scripture and come to your own conclusion and ... you have my blessings.

I was just pointing to a specific exaggeration that was in factual error. There was no "and their whole household was baptized" in Acts chapter 2 (Pentecost). Peter was speaking to the crowd that THEY needed to be baptized for the forgiveness of THEIR sins. The "promise" (forgiveness and the Spirit was available) was for them and future generations. "Whole households" come later in Acts (like the Jailer).

I want to know what they did with the babies when the entire household from slaves, to servants, to other families all got baptized when the household was baptized.
Do you actually have any proof of this?
Name the verse where "slaves" and "servants" were baptized". It just says "and their whole household" for I believe THREE specific households ... Lydia, the Jailer and someone whose household/daughters were commended for their "service" (do infants serve?) to the church [I cannot remember his name].
 
Yes, I know.

A circumstantial case can be made from Scripture that babies are included in the baptism of "households" (just as a circumstantial case can be made that there were no babies in those few specific households mentioned in scripture). "Infant Baptism" (like infants going to heaven) is simply a subject that Scripture is silent on.

I also know that by the Second Century, the ECFs and archeology evidence supports infant baptism as a practice that was done and affirmed.

I don't waste time trying to argue from silence (either way). Read scripture and come to your own conclusion and ... you have my blessings.

I was just pointing to a specific exaggeration that was in factual error. There was no "and their whole household was baptized" in Acts chapter 2 (Pentecost). Peter was speaking to the crowd that THEY needed to be baptized for the forgiveness of THEIR sins. The "promise" (forgiveness and the Spirit was available) was for them and future generations. "Whole households" come later in Acts (like the Jailer).


Do you actually have any proof of this?
Name the verse where "slaves" and "servants" were baptized". It just says "and their whole household" for I believe THREE specific households ... Lydia, the Jailer and someone whose household/daughters were commended for their "service" (do infants serve?) to the church [I cannot remember his name].

These are the ones that are most prominent and cannot be ignored.

Cornelius' HouseholdActs 10:1-48Cornelius, a devout man, and his entire household were baptized after hearing the Gospel.
Lydia's HouseholdActs 16:14-15Lydia, a seller of purple, and her household were baptized after she responded to Paul's message.
Philippian Jailer’s HouseholdActs 16:30-34The jailer and his entire household were baptized after the jailer believed in the Lord.
Crispus' HouseholdActs 18:8Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his whole household believed and were baptized.
Stephanas' Household1 Corinthians 1:16Paul mentions baptizing the household of Stephanas, indicating their belief in Christ.


Ai~ The New Testament mentions several households that were baptized, including Cornelius' household, Lydia's household, the Philippian jailer's household, Crispus' household, and Stephanas' household. In these cases, it is generally understood that the entire household, which could include family members and possibly servants, was baptized after they heard the gospel and expressed faith.


Family households did not consist of nuclear families in the modern understanding of a married couple and their children but rather, were multigenerational (up to four generations) and included the social arrangement of several families, related by blood and marriage, who lived in two or three houses architecturally connected. …
Those who belong to the family household are mentioned a number of times in the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 7:1, 7; 36:6; 45:10; cf. Genesis 46:26; Exodus 20:8-10, 17; Deuteronomy 5:12-15, 21; Joshua 7:16-18; Judges 6:11, 27, 30; 8:20). These texts indicate that the family household was primarily a kinship system that included lineal descent and lateral extension: grandparents, adult male children and their wives and children, unmarried children, and widowed and divorced adult daughters who may have had children.
Thus, it’s not just a matter of a nuclear family (which already may have included 4-8 children), but of extended family (involving even more children), which makes it all the more likely that children would typically be present in a biblical “household.” This was before widespread contraception. Children were a blessing, both according to the biblical texts saying so, and economically, since children provided labor on the family farm or as a worker in its trade.

It’s very difficult, logically and exegetically, and in light of relevant historical knowledge, to concludes that a biblical “household” could not possibly contain small children.

The paedobaptist argument here is that these households almost certainly included infants. And admittedly by all indication the Greek term for household, oikos, does sometimes intend to include complete households inclusive of children, slaves, and sometimes even business associates. But as always, context is the final arbiter as to how a term is being used in a particular setting. Calvinists are of course very familiar with this grammatical rule in terms of understanding to what extent words like “all” and “every” are meant in scripture when used in the context of salvation.
 
These are the ones that are most prominent and cannot be ignored.
I stand corrected. I could only recall 3 of the 5 households from memory.
 
1Co 16:15 [ESV] 15 Now I urge you, brothers--you know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints--
  • Stephanus "household" (including any infants baptized if "household" included infants) "devoted themselves to the service of the saints". (suggests may not have been infants in THAT household, or "household" does not mean EVERY MEMBER ... for baptism or service.)

[Act 18:8 ESV] 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.
  • Crispus entire household "believed in the Lord" and were "baptized" ... That is the definition of CredoBaptism!

[Act 16:32-33 ESV] 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 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.
  • Both the Jailer and every member of his household both:
    • heard the word of the Lord
    • and were baptized
  • Do infants hear the word of the Lord, or was every member of the "household" old enough to understand and be baptized?
  • It really sounds more Credo than Infant to me (however it is definitely "Paedo" [Family] salvation/covenant evidence.)

[Act 16:15 ESV] 15 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.
  • Lydia is silent about infants and children ... there very well may have been, or there may not have been. That Lydia (a woman) was head of the household was an unusual case. [shrug]

[Act 10:24, 44, 47-48 ESV] 24 And on the following day they entered Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. ... 44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. ... 47 "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.
  • Not Cornelius' household, but the "friends and relatives" that he had called to HEAR Peter speak:
    • They heard
    • They spoke in tongues
    • They were baptized
  • Does not sound like "infant Baptism" to me.

So the reality is that the SCRIPTURAL case for baptizing infants is very weak, and the HISTORIC case for baptizing infants is very strong. So as Paul says:

Romans 14:4-6 [ESV]
Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

... same with Paedo vs Credo Baptism: Let each be fully convinced in his own mind, and "sprinkle" or "abstain", each to the glory of the Lord.
 
1Co 16:15 [ESV] 15 Now I urge you, brothers--you know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints--
  • Stephanus "household" (including any infants baptized if "household" included infants) "devoted themselves to the service of the saints". (suggests may not have been infants in THAT household, or "household" does not mean EVERY MEMBER ... for baptism or service.)

[Act 18:8 ESV] 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.
  • Crispus entire household "believed in the Lord" and were "baptized" ... That is the definition of CredoBaptism!

[Act 16:32-33 ESV] 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 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.
  • Both the Jailer and every member of his household both:
    • heard the word of the Lord
    • and were baptized
  • Do infants hear the word of the Lord, or was every member of the "household" old enough to understand and be baptized?
  • It really sounds more Credo than Infant to me (however it is definitely "Paedo" [Family] salvation/covenant evidence.)

[Act 16:15 ESV] 15 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.
  • Lydia is silent about infants and children ... there very well may have been, or there may not have been. That Lydia (a woman) was head of the household was an unusual case. [shrug]

[Act 10:24, 44, 47-48 ESV] 24 And on the following day they entered Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. ... 44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. ... 47 "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.
  • Not Cornelius' household, but the "friends and relatives" that he had called to HEAR Peter speak:
    • They heard
    • They spoke in tongues
    • They were baptized
  • Does not sound like "infant Baptism" to me.

So the reality is that the SCRIPTURAL case for baptizing infants is very weak, and the HISTORIC case for baptizing infants is very strong. So as Paul says:

Romans 14:4-6 [ESV]
Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

... same with Paedo vs Credo Baptism: Let each be fully convinced in his own mind, and "sprinkle" or "abstain", each to the glory of the Lord.
Does it matter?

People bend over backwards to prove that a baby baptism is only a waste of time.

I truly do not care... as anti Calvin as I am there is one thing that he said that made perfect sense.....

“Reason would tell us that baptism is rightly administered to babies. The Lord did not give circumcision long ago without making them (infants) partakers of everything represented by circumcision. He would have been deceiving his people with a sham, if he had reassured them with false signs. The idea is very shocking. He distinctly states that the circumcision of the infant is the seal of covenant promise. If the covenant remains firm and unmoved, this is just as relevant to the children of Christians today as it was to the children of the Jews under the Old Testament…The truth of baptism applies to infants, so why do we deny them the sign? The Lord himself formally admitted infants to his covenant, so what more do we need?”

John Calvin, Institutes of the christian religion, 4:16:5 (Beveridge Edition)

There were grave marks marked so we know that children and infants were baptised back then.

(This laptop has decided to keep thing italicized)

Dont sweat it.

YOU were not baby baptised. Your children were not baby baptised. I have no children who could have been baby baptised.

So let us just sit around the ole 1f525.png campfire making smores and singing Kumbaya.
 
YOU were not baby baptised. Your children were not baby baptised. I have no children who could have been baby baptised.

So let us just sit around the ole 1f525.png campfire making smores and singing Kumbaya.
As long as we are just sitting around the campfire sharing stories, I have a good story about God’s sense of humor.

When I was born, my Catholic maternal grandparents (who were Catholic in name only) demanded that their grandchild (me) be baptized. My Methodist “Lily and Holly” (visit church on Easter and Christmas only) paternal grandparents were insistent that their Protestant grandchild would not be baptized Catholic. My 100% atheist father just wanted peace and quiet (to be left alone), so he located a Lutheran Church that was willing to perform an infant baptism. So I was infant baptized Lutheran, by an atheist father, to keep the peace between grandparents that treated Christianity as a social obligation.

God has a sense of humor.
 
As long as we are just sitting around the campfire sharing stories, I have a good story about God’s sense of humor.

When I was born, my Catholic maternal grandparents (who were Catholic in name only) demanded that their grandchild (me) be baptized. My Methodist “Lily and Holly” (visit church on Easter and Christmas only) paternal grandparents were insistent that their Protestant grandchild would not be baptized Catholic. My 100% atheist father just wanted peace and quiet (to be left alone), so he located a Lutheran Church that was willing to perform an infant baptism. So I was infant baptized Lutheran, by an atheist father, to keep the peace between grandparents that treated Christianity as a social obligation.

God has a sense of humor.
Thanks for sharing,

I love this story.....
 
I wanted to post this NOT to argue nor even discuss... but just to offer some of the thoughts on the subject.

If you want to debate, have at it.... but I WILL NOT.

Infant Baptism in Early Church History by Dennis Kastens

Issues, Etc. Journal - Spring 1997 - Vol. 2 No. 3
Infant Baptism in Early Church History

by Dennis Kastens

From the beginning of New Testament Christianity at the Feast of Pentecost (Acts 2: 38-39) to our time, unbroken and uninterrupted; the church has baptized babies. Entire households (Jewish, proselytes and Gentiles) were baptized by Christ’s original 12 Apostles (I Corinthians 1: 16; Acts 11: 14, 16: 15, 33, 18: 8) and that practice has continued with each generation.

The Early Church
Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. This enabled him to say at his martyrdom. "Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9: 3).
Justin Martyr (100 - 166) of the next generation states about the year 150, "Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years" (Apology 1: 15). Further, in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr states that Baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament.

Irenaeus (130 - 200), some 35 years later in 185, writes in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus "came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men."

Church Councils and Apologists
Similar expressions are found in succeeding generations by Origen (185 - 254) and Cyprian (215 - 258) who reflect the consensus voiced at the Council of Carthage in 254. The 66 bishops said: "We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God..... especially infants. . . those newly born." Preceding this council, Origen wrote in his Commentary on Romans 5: 9: "For this also it was that the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were committed knew that there is in all persons a natural pollution of sin which must be done away by water and the Spirit."

Elsewhere Origen wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: "Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins.

Cyprian’s reply to a country bishop, Fidus, who wrote him regarding the Baptism of infants, is even more explicit. Should we wait until the eighth day as did the Jews in circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born (To Fidus 1: 2).

To prevent misunderstanding by rural bishops, perhaps not as well-schooled as other or even new to the faith, the Sixteenth Council of Carthage in 418 unequivocally stated: "If any man says that newborn children need not be baptized . . . let him be anathema."


Augustine
Augustine (354 - 430), writing about this time in De Genesi Ad Literam, X: 39, declares, "The custom of our mother church in baptizing infants must not be . . . accounted needless, nor believed to be other than a tradition of the apostles."
He further states, "If you wish to be a Christian, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin." And again, "Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without participation in His sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they cannot possibly be vivified in Christ."


Specific directions, with detailed instructions, for the baptizing of infants were given by bishops to pastors and deacons during this era of Christian history. In the year 517, seven bishops met in Gerona, Catelina, and framed 10 rules of discipline for the church in Spain. The fifth rule states that ". . . in case infants were ill . . . if they were offered, to baptize them, even though it were the day that they were born . . . " such was to be done (The History of Baptism by Robert Robinson, [London:

Thomas Knott, 1790], p.269.).
The foregoing pattern, practiced in both East and West, remained customary in Christianity through the Dark and Middle Ages until modem times. Generally, the infant was baptized during the first week of life, but in cases of illness this took place on the day of birth. An example of this already comes from about 260 in North Africa in an inscription from Hadrumetum (Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres II, 4429-A):
Arisus in pace
natus ora sexta
bixit supra scriptas VIIII

This Latin inscription indicates that a child who died nine hours after its birth was baptized. Such practice of Baptism within the first days of life, or on the day of birth in an emergency, remained for both Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

The Witness of the Catacombs
The witness of the literary texts of the early church fathers, councils and apologists for the practice of infant Baptism in the first Christian centuries receives valuable confirmation from the catacombs and cemeteries of the Middle East, Africa and southern Europe. Below are epitaphs from the 200’s of small children who had been baptized. It is interesting to note that there are no Christian epitaphs in existence earlier than 200. As soon as the era of Christian inscriptions begins, we find evidence for infant Baptism. [editor's note- the two referenced epitaphs are in the original document].

In that century there are attributes and symbols in tombstones inscriptions of little children which allows us to clearly infer we are dealing with baptized children. The following is as early as 200 or shortly thereafter: [editor's note- the referenced epitaph is in the original document].

In the second last line is the phrase Dei Serv(u)s which means slave of God followed by the Chi Rho symbol for Christ. The last line is the Greek ichtheos familiar as the "fish symbol" - an anagram for Jesus Christ God’s Son Savior. These words and symbols mark the one-year, two months, and four-day-old child as a baptized Christian.

From the Lateran Museum, also from the 200’s, is a Greek inscription that gives information about the religious status of the parents. It reads, "I, Zosimus, a believer from believers, lie here having lived 2 years, 1 month, 25 days."


Also from this era are headstones for children who received emergency baptism with ages ranging from 11 months to 12 years. Since the patristic sources of the third century, as those earlier, give us to understand that the children of Christian parents were baptized in infancy, we must conclude that these emergency baptisms were administered to children of non-Christians. The inscriptions themselves confirm this conclusion. In the Roman catacomb of Priscilla is reference to a private emergency baptism that was administered to the one-and-three-quarter-year-old Apronianus and enabled him to die as a believer. The inscription reads:
Dedicated to the departed.
Florentius made this inscription
for his worthy son Apronianus who
lived one year and nine months and five days.
As he was truly loved by his grandmother
and she knew that his death was imminent,
she asked the church that he might depart from the world as a believer.

The fact that it was the grandmother who urged the baptism makes it very probable that the father of the child, Florentius, was a pagan. This is confirmed by the formula in the first line which is pagan and not found on any other Christian epitaphs. We have thus in this inscription evidence for a missionary baptism administered to a dying non-Christian infant.

Sole Opponent - A Heretic
In the 1,500 years from the time of Christ to the Protestant Reformation, the only bonafide opponent to infant Baptism was Tertullian (160 - 215), bishop of Carthage, Africa. His superficial objection was to the unfair responsibility laid on godparents when the children of pagans joined the church. However, his real opposition was more fundamental. It was his view that sinfulness begins at the "puberty, of the soul," that is "about the fourteenth year of life" and "it drives man out of the paradise of innocence" (De Anima 38:2). This rules out the belief in original sin.

Tertullian’s stance, together with other unorthodox views, led him to embrace Montanism in 207. Montanism denied the total corruption and sinfulness of human nature. With its emphasis upon the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit, it was the precursor to the modern Charismatic Movement.

Except for Tertullian’s heretical views, marking his departure from mainstream Christianity, the only other opposition to infant Baptism came during a brief period in the middle of the fourth century. The issue was the fear of post-Baptismal sin. This heretical view also denied Baptism to adults until their death-bed. It was not in reality a denial of infant baptism in and of itself. In fact, the heresy encouraged the Baptism of infants when death seemed imminent, as it also did for adults.

The Anabaptists
Not until the 1520s did the Christian Church experience opposition specifically to infant Baptism. Under the influence of Thomas Muenzer and other fanatics who opposed both civil and religious authority, original sin and human concupiscence was denied until the "age of accountability." Although there is no basis in Scripture for this position, a considerable number of Swiss, German and Dutch embraced the Anabaptist cause. So offensive was this position that Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Reformed alike voiced strong warning and renunciation. It was considered a shameless affront to what had been practiced in each generation since Christ’s command in the Great Commission (Matthew 28: 18-20) to baptize all nations irrespective of age.


Regeneration for All Ages continued in part 2
Who would be so blind as to limit this expression of God’s grace and mercy to adolescents and adults and to exclude infants and children?. If John the Baptizer could be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1: 15), and if Jesus could say (Matt. 18: 6), "Whoever offends one of these little ones (Gk."toddlers") who believe in Me, it were better that he were drowned in the depth of the sea," and if the Apostle Peter could say on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2: 39), "The promise is unto you and to your children," what mere mortal dare declare so gracious an invitation to be invalid for infants, or forbid the continuance of the Baptism of infants for coming generations?

If the entire families and households of the Philippian jailer, Lydia, Cornelius, Crispus and Stephanas of the New Testament were incorporated into the household of faith through Baptism, surely that testimony is immutable and established for all time.

Yes, we baptize babies. Unmistakably Scriptural proof substantiates that doctrine. Christian history, unbroken and uninterrupted. reflects such practice in each generation. Conscientious Christians do not delay but hasten with their children to Baptism that they may received the gift of salvation and regeneration and gratefully embrace the Apostle’s affirmation extended to those of all age groups: "For as many of you as have been baptized have put on Christ" (Galatians 3: 27).


Dennis Kastens
Baptism is a public declaration of the believer that he has been saved and intends to follow the teachings of Jesus for the rest of their life. It does not save in and of itself.


Doug
 
I was christened in a Trinity church as a baby. Methodist, Anglican, Presbyterian combined.

Mum was Methodist..believed in the Trinity.. but dad was a kind of unitarian..with belief in God..but not Jesus as God.

I was confirmed in a Methodist church (very similar to United Methodist)

I was baptised by immersion in a Methodist church (charismatic).

I was re-baptised by immersion in an IFB church, because i didn't know what I was doing at the Methodist church!

Salvation itself..I believe i was converted around 13 when I knew I needed Jesus's forgiveness for my sin.
 
I was christened in a Trinity church as a baby. Methodist, Anglican, Presbyterian combined.

Mum was Methodist..believed in the Trinity.. but dad was a kind of unitarian..with belief in God..but not Jesus as God.

I was confirmed in a Methodist church (very similar to United Methodist)

I was baptised by immersion in a Methodist church (charismatic).

I was re-baptised by immersion in an IFB church, because i didn't know what I was doing at the Methodist church!

Salvation itself..I believe i was converted around 13 when I knew I needed Jesus's forgiveness for my sin.

@360watt , Thank you for sharing....

Your salvation around 13 was without baptism?

I was baby baptized in a Presbyterian church. As a young child I knew we celebrated the birth of Jesus because he
got us to heaven when we die. (Mom and likely great grandma telling me that and I believed it) Then approaching the age of 12
after going to Sunday school throughout grade school I joined the communicant classes required to join the church and also to
have my first Holy Communion which would not have happened because in the classes we were taught about Jesus and
in order to join the church the members of the class had to , as a group, in front of the congregation express our faith in Jesus.
It was like a swearing in procedure but if you did not do that then you were not accepted as a member of the family of God and the church and you could not ever take communion until you did.

These days they have added to those taking the clkass that they have to write out their own mission statements before
being accepted.

After my group was accepted then we did have our first... and to this day all Presbyterians churchs allow anyone with a faith in Christ... member or not... to partake... Unlike the RCC who only will serve their actual members.

So for me to come into my believing faith in Jesus and I wont say my salvation ... but the start of it.... cause I had more to learn
as I matured and understood... but it started with my baptism in from of the congregation , then for 12 or 13 years what I learned from the folks, and friends, and church and Sunday school, which got me to my communicants classes, again oin front of the congregation.... was all part of my coming to faith . And I had 3 confirmed answered prayers in my life, from a teen, in my 30s, then in my late 60s. Not for discussion but they were provable.... and I had quite an experience with the Holy Spirit
about 8 or 9 years ago.... So I know He is in me, and He DOES pay attention.
 
I would say in Infant baptism you are dedicating them to the Lord. The practice of child baptism, is taught nowhere in Scripture. So it is just symbolic.

Many churches have a tradition of child dedication, in which newborns are dedicated by their parents to the Lord in the presence of the congregation. Again this practice is nowhere taught in the New Testament either. It is rather a tradition like many others in church life.
 
I would say in Infant baptism you are dedicating them to the Lord. The practice of child baptism, is taught nowhere in Scripture. So it is just symbolic.

Many churches have a tradition of child dedication, in which newborns are dedicated by their parents to the Lord in the presence of the congregation. Again this practice is nowhere taught in the New Testament either. It is rather a tradition like many others in church life.
You know what.... Until someone can tell me what they did with the kids of the Jailer, Lydia, Stephanus , Cornelius and Crispus when their entire "ENTIRE" families including all in the household which could be other family members, as well as servants....
were baptised then I believe that the authors of the New Testament included all in their mention of households so they did not need to say husband wife, brother sister, maid servant, grandpa, grandma, children under the age of 12 , babies,
as saying household covered everyone.

Not one single household's story, like the jailer ,, said specifically what was done after he asked how to be saved....
He was told "They responded by telling him to "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
With no limitations...

Johnnie Calvin said it was appropriate.....

Westminster confession of Faith said you ARE to be baptized only once.

And those babies were given a Baptismal Certificate from their church.

So as I have one of those , and my church says baptism only once....

AND I KNOW baptism does not save..... I am not going to worry about it.

Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. Plus

Irenaeus, who was also a disciple of Polycarp, wrote about the tradition of baptizing infants. His writings suggest that the practice was well-established in the early Christian community.

If this is such an appalling idea explain why

1 Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.???

Bible hub says

Being sanctified means being set apart by God for His holy purposes, initially at the moment of salvation and progressively through one’s lifetime. This sanctification is enabled by the Holy Spirit, rooted in the redeeming work of Christ, and verified throughout the genuine history and reliability of Scripture. It involves human cooperation but is ultimately a work of divine grace, pointing to a future where humanity’s full holiness will be realized in the presence of the risen Lord.
_______________-

1 Corinthians 7:14
The children of believing parents are "holy," meaning "set apart." God considers such a child to be "clean." That does not mean "sinless," but they are still legally clean in His sight. They are therefore acceptable in His presence and have the opportunity to have true success in life as a result. They have the chance to believe God, to cast their lot with Him, and to be spared the horror of having to face many of the evils in this world.
But, just as parents can lose their sanctification, so children who are set apart can also lose their status. Law plays no favorites. It does not care whether one is male or female, or thirteen, nineteen, or ninety-three. If a ninety-three year old male jumps off the 80th floor of the Empire State Building, which direction will he go? What if a 16-year old girl does the same thing? The law of gravity does not play favorites.
Law does not care what one's race, sex, or age are. If parents who are sanctified break the laws of God persistently, they will lose their sanctification. If a seventeen-year-old does the same thing, even though his parents are sanctified and a child is held to be clean because of God's judgment, he can lose his too.
For a child who is sanctified, even though unconverted, there is still a great deal that he will be held accountable for. "To whom much is given, much is also required." Jesus does not say that this only applies to converted parents.
The child's sanctification gives him the advantage of access to God. Because of that access, he has the guidance of God available to him, and from that guidance he can form a proper vision of what he wants to do with his life (Proverbs 29:18). This allows him to see what he wants to do in terms of conductwhat he wants to pursue, the way he wants to do work, the attitude he has toward other people, parents, neighbors, fellow-employees, etc.
We can tell from the conduct of people in this world that they do not have this guidance. But a sanctifed child has access to the knowledge of what God expects, and from that he can make it his goal in life to act that way. He can set his will to do the right thing. He is sanctified, and divine guidance is what he gains from it.
He has access to truth. Even if his parents fail to give it to him directly, every Sabbath that he attends church services he is receiving it through one of God's ministers. It is available, but he still must make choices. He must discipline himself to follow the information, the true knowledge, given to him. The advantage lies in the fact that he has access to truth about the way life is to be conducted and how he can please God. He can do it because he is not cut off from God. His lamp is not put out (Proverbs 20:20).

John W. Ritenbaugh
________________________________

In answer to Do sanctified people need to be baptised?

WIKI
Sanctified people, or those who have been set apart for a holy purpose, may still choose to be baptized as a public declaration of their faith, but it is not universally required for salvation across all Christian traditions. Different denominations have varying beliefs about the necessity of baptism for those who are already sanctified.
 
Baptism is a public declaration of the believer that he has been saved and intends to follow the teachings of Jesus for the rest of their life. It does not save in and of itself.

Doug
I think it's a bit more than that.

At minimum, it's also a declaration by the church that they have accepted the believer as a member of the group.

Really, it's an adoption ceremony.
 
Each person is held accountable for their own salvation. If you mom and dad are saved that does not mean you are or will be. It's all about personal faith. God is going to judge everyone justly and fairly.

This is a different subject that the age of accountability.

There is no one age in the Bible at which all children are declared to be “accountable.” Neither is there one chronological age in a person’s life in which a person suddenly and automatically knows right from wrong or is capable of understanding God’s plan for salvation.

The condition of accountability is what matters. Every infant or child who dies before reaching a condition of moral culpability goes instantly to heaven at death.
 
@360watt , Thank you for sharing....

Your salvation around 13 was without baptism?

I was baby baptized in a Presbyterian church. As a young child I knew we celebrated the birth of Jesus because he
got us to heaven when we die. (Mom and likely great grandma telling me that and I believed it) Then approaching the age of 12
after going to Sunday school throughout grade school I joined the communicant classes required to join the church and also to
have my first Holy Communion which would not have happened because in the classes we were taught about Jesus and
in order to join the church the members of the class had to , as a group, in front of the congregation express our faith in Jesus.
It was like a swearing in procedure but if you did not do that then you were not accepted as a member of the family of God and the church and you could not ever take communion until you did.

These days they have added to those taking the clkass that they have to write out their own mission statements before
being accepted.

After my group was accepted then we did have our first... and to this day all Presbyterians churchs allow anyone with a faith in Christ... member or not... to partake... Unlike the RCC who only will serve their actual members.

So for me to come into my believing faith in Jesus and I wont say my salvation ... but the start of it.... cause I had more to learn
as I matured and understood... but it started with my baptism in from of the congregation , then for 12 or 13 years what I learned from the folks, and friends, and church and Sunday school, which got me to my communicants classes, again oin front of the congregation.... was all part of my coming to faith . And I had 3 confirmed answered prayers in my life, from a teen, in my 30s, then in my late 60s. Not for discussion but they were provable.... and I had quite an experience with the Holy Spirit
about 8 or 9 years ago.... So I know He is in me, and He DOES pay attention.
Yeah..water baptism by immersion is a symbol of salvation already given, not part of salvation or guaranteed to happen for the believer. So it was when I believed on Jesus Christ that salvation was given by Him. It was 13 when I realized the necessity to believe on Him.
 
Back
Top Bottom