![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/09\/WaterClear4.jpg\"){kind=spacer}
<\/a><\/p>\nLucas Banzoli<\/a> is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ\u2019s human nature after His death.<\/p>\n This is my\u00a034th refutation<\/a>\u00a0of articles written by Lucas Banzoli. As of yet, I haven\u2019t received\u00a0a single word<\/em>\u00a0in reply to any of them (or if Banzoli\u00a0has<\/em>\u00a0replied to anything, anywhere, he certainly hasn\u2019t informed\u00a0me<\/em>\u00a0of it). Readers may decide for themselves\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0that is the case. I use RSV for the Bible passages unless otherwise indicated. Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas\u2019 Portugese into English. His words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I\u2019m replying to the relevant portions of Lucas\u2019 article, \u201cDevemos batizar os beb\u00eas?\u201d<\/a> [Should we baptize babies?<\/em>] (8-14-12). Note my title. That question is specifically<\/em> what I am addressing here: did these baptisms of \u201chouseholds\u201d described in the Bible include children below the age of reason; infants, newborns, etc., and is it reasonable and plausible to deny<\/em> this?<\/p>\n They preach the baptism of infants, who have no ability to discern between good and evil in order to repent of their sins, and thus repentance does not become a necessary precedent for baptism, any more than it is a precedent necessary for salvation. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n As a newborn is not yet able to even know who Jesus is, much less believe in Him with all his heart, so he does not enter into the necessary condition required to be baptized. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n To be saved (or baptized), one does not necessarily have to be aware<\/em> of what is happening. For example, say a person was born with a severe brain defect and eventually died without ever having been capable of rational thought or communication. Is that person damned simply because of being unable to believe? I think not.<\/p>\n Most Protestants agree with Catholics that God\u2019s mercy must extend to those who do not yet know or understand the gospel, or else all aborted babies, children who die at a young age, or before the age of reason, and so forth would go to hell (since they either cannot know or not properly understand the gospel). Therefore, to be saved is not necessarily to understand fully either the gospel or the means of grace by which one is saved (and Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants include baptism as a crucial factor in this salvation).<\/p>\n Furthermore, St. Paul in Colossians 2:11-13 makes a connection between baptism and circumcision. Israel was the church before Christ (Acts 7:38; Rom. 9:4). Circumcision, given to boys eight days old, was the seal of the covenant God made with Abraham, which applies to us also (Gal. 3:14, 29). It was a sign of repentance and future faith (Rom. 4:11).<\/p>\n Infants were just as much a part of the covenant as adults (Gen. 17:7; Deut. 29:10-12; cf. Matt. 19:14). Likewise, baptism is the seal of the New Covenant in Christ. It signifies cleansing from sin, just as circumcision did (Deut. 10:16, 30:6; Jer. 4:4, 9:25; Rom. 2:28-9; Phil. 3:3).<\/p>\n Critics of infant baptism like to point out that the Bible never specifically commands us to baptize infants. But neither does it tell us that we should baptize only adults, or those past the age of reason who can make their own \u201cpersonal commitment\u201d to Christ. It has examples of adults being baptized, of course (Lucas cites many of those), but then it also has examples of \u201chouseholds\u201d being baptized, and these (at the very least in some<\/em> instances!) almost certainly had children in them who were also baptized at that time. So we see both things.<\/p>\n [B]aptism is never disassociated from the \u201cbelieving\u201d factor. It is necessary to believe that Christ Jesus is the Son of the living God in order to be baptized.<\/span><\/p>\n If we\u2019re gonna play the game of being hyper-literal about all the relevant biblical passages (as if only one interpretation across-the-board is possible), there are several that reference baptism without mentioning repentance<\/em>, too:<\/p>\n And in three other biblical passages, entire households are referred to as being saved<\/em>:<\/p>\n Luke 19:9<\/strong>\u00a0And Jesus said to him, \u201cToday salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham.\u201d<\/p>\n Acts 11:14<\/strong>\u00a0he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.<\/p>\n Acts 16:31<\/strong>\u00a0And they said, \u201cBelieve in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n Acts 16:15<\/strong>\u00a0. . . she was baptized, with her household, . . .<\/p>\n Acts 16:33<\/strong>\u00a0. . . he was baptized at once, with all his family.<\/p>\n Acts 18:8<\/strong> Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his household; . . .<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 1:16<\/strong> (I did baptize also the household of Steph\u2019anas. . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Moreover, many biblical passages connect\u00a0household<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0children<\/em>\u00a0(if indeed such a demonstration is necessary, so obvious is it: especially for that culture and time):<\/p>\n Genesis 18:19<\/strong>\u00a0No, for I have chosen him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice . . . (cf. 31:41)<\/p>\n Genesis 36:6<\/strong>\u00a0Then Esau took his wives, his sons, his daughters, and all the members of his household, . . .<\/p>\n Genesis 45:9-11<\/strong> Make haste and go up to my father and say to him, `Thus says your son Joseph, God has made me lord of all Egypt; come down to me, do not tarry; [10] you shall dwell in the land of Goshen, and you shall be near me, you and your children and your children\u2019s children, and your flocks, your herds, and all that you have; [11] and there I will provide for you, for there are yet five years of famine to come; lest you and your household, and all that you have, come to poverty.\u2019<\/p>\n Genesis 47:12<\/strong>\u00a0And Joseph provided his father, his brothers, and all his father\u2019s household with food, according to the number of their dependents.<\/p>\n Numbers 18:11<\/strong>\u00a0. . . I have given them to you, and to your sons and daughters with you, as a perpetual due; every one who is clean in your house may eat of it.<\/p>\n 1 Chronicles 10:6<\/strong>\u00a0Thus Saul died; he and his three sons and all his house died together.<\/p>\n Matthew 19:29<\/strong>\u00a0And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name\u2019s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. (cf. Mk 10:30)<\/p>\n 1 Timothy 3:12<\/strong>\u00a0Let deacons be the husband of one wife, and let them manage their children and their households well;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n On a Reddit AskHistorians<\/em> page (\u201cWhat was the average number of children a Christian family had around 0 \u2013 100 A.D.?\u201d<\/a>), one of the historians stated: \u201cAncient Hebrew peasant families typically had 4-8 children, . . .\u201d<\/p>\n Plenty of Protestant Bible commentaries concur with the argument I have made (since, after all, the historic overwhelmingly majority position among Protestants is infant baptism):<\/p>\n Barnes\u2019 Notes on the Bible<\/a><\/em>\u00a0[for Acts 16:15]:<\/p>\n No mention is made of their having believed, and the case is one that affords a strong presumptive proof that this was an instance of household or infant baptism. Because:<\/p>\n (1) Her believing is particularly mentioned.<\/p>\n (2) it is not intimated that they believed.<\/p>\n (3) it is manifestly implied that they were baptized because she believed. It was the offering of her family to the Lord. It is just such an account as would now be given of a household or family that were baptized upon the faith of the parent.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Surveying the classic Bible commentaries with regard to their remarks about Acts 16:15 is instructive:<\/p>\n Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary<\/em><\/a> states: \u201cHere also is the first mention of a Christian household. Whether it included children, also in that case baptized, is not explicitly stated; but the presumption, as in other cases of household baptism, is that it did.\u201d<\/p>\n Matthew Poole\u2019s Commentary<\/em><\/a> concludes:<\/p>\n And her household;<\/strong>\u00a0when Lydia had right to baptism, by reason of her faith in Jesus Christ, all her family, whom she could undertake to bring up in the knowledge of Christ, were admitted to that ordinance also; as all the servants, and such others as were born in his house, or bought with his money, were circumcised with Abraham,\u00a0Genesis 17:12,13<\/span>. Now the gospel does not contract in any respect, but enlarges, the privileges of believers in all things. And if they might under the law have their children and servants admitted into a covenant with God, (which could not but rejoice religious parents and masters, who value the relation they and theirs have to God, above all earthly things), surely under the gospel none of our families are excluded, unless they willfully exclude themselves.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Expositor\u2019s Greek Testament<\/a><\/em>\u00a0agrees:<\/p>\n [A]s in the case of Cornelius, so here, the household is received as one into the fold of Christ, cf.<\/span>\u00a0Acts 16:33\u00a0and\u00a0Acts 18:8. We cannot say whether children or not were included, . . . but nothing against infant baptism, which rests on a much more definite foundation, can be inferred from such cases, . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Bengel\u2019s Gnomen<\/a><\/em> concurs: \u201cWho can believe that in so many families there was not a single infant? and that the Jews, who were accustomed to circumcise their infants, and the Gentiles, to purify their infants by washings (lustrations), did not also present them for baptism?\u201d<\/p>\n Pulpit Commentary<\/em><\/a>: \u201cThis frequent mention of whole households as received into the Church seems necessarily to imply infant baptism. The exhortations to children as members of the Church in\u00a0Ephesians 6:1, 2, and\u00a0Colossians 3:20, lead to the same inference.\u201d<\/p>\n Even critics<\/em> of infant baptism deduced from the \u201chousehold\u201d passages fairly admit that it can\u2019t be ruled out<\/strong><\/em>. Ellicott\u2019s Commentary for English Readers<\/a><\/em> comments on Acts 16:15: \u201cthe utmost that can be said is that the language of the writer does not exclude infants.\u201d<\/p>\n The 1909 Hastings\u2019 Dictionary of the Bible<\/em> (\u201cBaptism\u201d<\/a>) makes a superb summary of all of these arguments and some more:<\/p>\n The NT contains no explicit reference to the baptism of infants or young children; but it does not follow that the Church of the 2nd cent. adopted an unauthorized innovation when it carried out the practice of infant baptism. There are good reasons for the silence of Scripture on the subject. The governing principle of St. Luke as the historian of the primitive Church is to narrate the advance of the Kingdom through the missionary preaching of the Apostles, and the conversion of adult men and women. The letters of the Apostles were similarly governed by the immediate occasion and purpose of their writing.<\/p>\n We have neither a complete history, nor a complete account of the organization, of the primitive Church. But of one thing we may be sure: had the acceptance of Christianity involved anything so startling to the Jewish or the Gentile mind as a distinction between the religious standing of the father of a family and his children, the historian would have recorded it, or the Apostles would have found themselves called to explain and defend it. For such a distinction would have been in direct contradiction to the most deeply rooted convictions of Jew and of Gentile alike.<\/p>\n From the time of Abraham onwards the Jew had felt it a solemn religious obligation to claim for his sons from their earliest infancy the same covenant relation with God as he himself stood in. There was sufficient parallelism between baptism and circumcision (cf. Colossians 2:11) for the Jewish-Christian father to expect the baptism of his children to follow his own as a matter of course. The Apostle assumes as a fact beyond dispute that the children of believers are \u2018holy\u2019 (1 Corinthians 7:14), i.e.<\/em>\u00a0under the covenant with God, on the ground of their father\u2019s faith.<\/p>\n And among Gentile converts a somewhat different but equally authoritative principle, that of\u00a0patria potestas<\/em>\u00a0, would have the same result. In a home organized on this principle, which prevailed throughout the Roman Empire, it would be a thing inconceivable that the children could be severed from the father in their religious rights and duties, in the standing conferred by baptism. Thus it is because, to the mind of Jew and Gentile alike, the baptism of infants and children yet unable to supply the conditions for themselves was so natural, that St. Luke records so simply that when Lydia believed, she was baptized \u2018with her household\u2019; when the Philippian jailor believed, he was baptized, and all those belonging to him. If there were children in these households, these children were baptized on the ground of the faith of their parents; if there were no children, then the principle took a still wider extension, which includes children; for it was the servants or slaves of the household who were \u2018added to the Church\u2019 by baptism on the ground of their master\u2019s faith.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ***<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>,\u00a0and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n