What part of "and they had their whole household baptized" do people not understand?

Question

aren't babies part of a household?

lix: that's pure hogwash

Answer 1

You are one of the few people that recognize babies as needing a Savior and therefore needing baptism. If you think about those times rather trying to apply our society today to 2000 years ago, you'll see that babies, wives, and servants have the same social status. It was not an issue of age, it was an issue of who was in charge of that household, a "decree" if you will of authority, not decisions by individual household members. In other words, the master of that household had decided that he would run his affairs in a Christian manner from that point forward.

This is all simple enough, the same ideas were behind the rite of circumcision in the Old Testament. We see the same covenant applications. To not see them is to separate the Old Testament from the New so much that it becomes almost unrecognizable when it is the same Bible! Please don't make that mistake, covenant is covenant, it is the same kind of household, the only difference is in the administration and of course the addition of Gentiles as the Spirit continues to move among God's people today.

Answer 2

It's really confusing because of symantics, because yes, a baby is part of a household generally speaking, BUT many Christian religious groups believe that baptism is a promise to and acceptance of God made by someone chronologocally old enough to make a rational decision. Therefor, with this belief, a baby cannot really benefit or be held as baptized as part of a household and it have any real spiritual meaning for that individual. On the other hand, if one believes that baptism is the gift of one's child to God and a request by parents that blessings and graces be bestowed upon that one certain individual then baptism takes on a whole other meaning. But wait, that also is pretty impossible to do with meaning as a "household". So, while I get that a baby can reside in a household and therefor may be considered a part of a household, I just don't get how a baptism can be anything BUT a individual event for each and every person. Are you positive you are not referring to having an entire house and all within it blessed?? That would be different and about stuff, not persons or babies. It would make sense to say, "and they had their whole household blessed" because customarily many families can and do have this done.

Answer 3

Look, I agree with you totally, and also with txofficer. I use to be very critical of the doctrine until I began to study the history of the Church and the writings of the early Fathers. It seems that Protestants hold to a lot of doctrines out of sheer ignorance of history, and the established exegesis of the scriptures.

Many of those who operate from a 'Sola Scriptura' viewpoint are extremely misguided in their interpretation of scriptures, as Scripture and Tradition cannot function independently- they form a complete faith, as in a marriage: a marriage cannot be broken apart and be expected to hold to its old definition.

Understanding history, and reading many apologetics about the practice, I now support the idea of infant baptism. I'm not Catholic, but Orthodox (formerly Protestant), so I don't hold to the same concept of 'Original Sin'- therefore, there is no worry of perdition if Baptism is postponed.

It is simply done as an act of love, and not any form of 'forced belief'. I suppose I can't really summarize it, but of course, I would recommend anyone who has problems with this doctrine to check out the Orthodox and Catholic apologetic links in the 'source' section.

While we're on the subject, I'm reminded of this verse:

People were also bringing babies to Jesus to have him touch them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." (Luke 18:15-17)

Answer 4

You are correct. And for those who say only an adult can be baptized. One must realize that a baby being baptized is to remove the stain of original sin only. When they are older like10 and have had their religious education and know the difference between right and wrong that is when they confirm themselves to Jesus Christ.

Answer 5

At that time, infant mortality rates were very high and children were not counted as part of a household until at an age of accountability. Usually round about 12.

Answer 6

There may have been babies in the households mentioned. There also may very well have not had any babies in them. (I can think of many households that I know where there are no small children). These verses are not solid proof texts in the argument of adult versus infant baptism.

Answer 7

Yes, they are, which is why the early church baptized infants, and the church has continued to down to the present time. Baptists have departed from the teaching of Holy Scripture on this point.

Answer 8

Take that passage with what the Lord said,"Go and make DISCIPLES and baptise in the name of the Father ,the Son,and the Holy Spirit."
Paul knew the jailer would testify and the ones who could understand in his house would also convert,be saved and get baptized.
It is not Biblical in any way to baptise infants.They are dedicated but not baptised until they make the decision for Christ.That's scripture not man made stuff.
Besides if a baby dies it go straight to heaven,Jesus said so.

Answer 9

I reckon it's a differing of opinion on how that verse is translated. I now support infant baptism, but it was only partly because of that verse ... I had it explained very well to me by 'Catholicism for Dummies'.

Answer 10

You have to understand the whole chapter .Not just one verse.Old testament John preached baptism unto repentence.In the new testament baptism is after repentence.