Protestant objections infant baptism: Lydia and the jailers family

Hi,

Someone who’s opposed to infant baptism argues that when it talks about the family of Lydia, it doesn’t include infants, because she was a merchant (Acts 16:14), so she didn’t have any small children, otherwise she wouldn’t have been a merchant, but stay at home to take care off these children.

Regarding the jailer and his family, they point out that those in his family who were baptized in that story were those who had the word of God preach to them (Acts 16:32), and since infants cannot receive the word of God, they either had no infants, or the infants weren’t baptized as well.
Also, v. 34 seems to talk about his household believing in God (depends on Bible version it seems).

How do I answer such objections? I pointed out the greek word used for household, and what a household back then constituted.

I want to make clear, that even if those stories aren’t valid evidence for infant baptism, my belief in infant baptism is not based solidly on these two stories, but more clear evidence.

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 16:14-15[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 16:31-34[/BIBLEDRB]

Try this:catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism
It is written that baptism now replaces circumcision.
IT is not only the CC that practices infant Baptism many Protestant communities do as well, I would say more do than don’t, so this person should maybe clean his own house before someone elses.

I have read some of it, especially how baptism replaces circumcision.

I have used that argument, but they try to explain it away, some even denied original sin.

I know for example Lutherans practice infant baptism, but I didn’t think of that when I wrote the title.

Maybe this article from my blog will help somewhat. The Case For Infant Baptism

Thank you, although what I was looking for was answers to the specific objections that I received regarding the story of Lydia and the jailer, not infant baptism in general.

But I will bookmark your link for later reading.

Since “they” are making the accusation, they bear the burden of proof that it is wrong or incorrect. It had been both believed and practiced for 1,500+ years before the Anabaptists, in their rebellion, privately interpreted scripture and denied it.

The majority of their protestant brothers, from Lutheran to Anglican to Reformed, practice infant baptism. Shouldn’t they get their brothers on the same page before attacking the ancient Church?

I don’t think they would consider us “brothers” in that sense, anymore than they would consider Catholics that way. Brothers in Christ? Sure. Brothers as in sharing a particular communion, or commonality of communions? Not so much.

Jon

Good points. I agree.

Except that you are trying to respond from a Sola Scriptura perspective when in fact the best answer is to use both the Bible and Christian history to show that both support it. Most of the n-Cs that you’ll encounter will be ignorant of all that. It’s just that no one ever tells them these things and so their whole sense of Christian history is only 500 years old instead of 2,000 years with us. It’s odd. They may not want to hear it, but I just point out that these are historical facts and it makes no sense not to know and understand them. :shrug:

If you want an argument from scripture alone, then look up a debate between John MacArthur (adult believers only) vs R.C Sproul (pro infant baptism) on YouTube

R.C Sproul (non-catholic) gives a great biblical reasoning for infant baptism.
It’s always good to see non-Catholics, defend Catholic truth :thumbsup:

It’s best just to skip over John MacArthur, his believers baptism polemic, is just rife with a personal viewpoint trying hard to justify his anti-Catholicism at all cost! ( not that R.C Sproul is any better when it comes to hating on the Church)

God bless!

Thank you for the advice. I didn’t know Sproul believed in infant baptism, although I know he’s a Reformed Baptist, and I’ve read some of his writings during my time when I was interested in teaching from Reformed people.

Not saying I just want to argue from Scripture. No no, the Early Church Fathers writings are important evidence to support the pro-infant baptism interpretation of Scripture, and to point out the long history of infant baptism.

However, I pointed out some that were said by Early Church Fathers on infant baptism and how some speak of how they were baptized as infants, for example how St. Polycarp states that he has served the Lord 86 years.

But one of them insisted that we shouldn’t go outside Scripture. Then they must say that the Early Church was in error. The problem is that many firmly hold a Sola Scriptura position, and rely on private interpretation apart from sacred Tradition and the Church.

Ironically, one of these who held a pelagian position and denied original sin has brought up Early Church Fathers quotes that supposedly reject original sin, and she believes that it’s a gnostic heresy which came through Augustine. Of course I don’t believe that.

Many of them only like the Early Church Fathers when they can wrest their writings to support their heresies of Sola Scriptura and such, just like they wrest Scripture to support it.

Apart from that, the Early Church Fathers are apparently wolves in their sight.

I think all mainstream Protestant groups practice infant baptism - Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians and some others. None of those who practice infant baptism are Catholic haters but if you look at those who do not practice infant baptism they seem to be mainly Catholic haters.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.