William, Thanks for your question: “Could you provide a command stating that baptism is for professors alone? What about all those OIKOS baptisms? I'm not buying that only believers are baptised.”
It’s a fair challenge. And I don’t want to fall into the trap of superficially scanning scripture for ammunition for “my side” of the discussion nor encourage others to do so. I would drop my Baptist understanding in a hot minute for a better one. But so far it’s the best I’ve got so I’ll show how I would address your question.
The reason I “hesitated” and asked what baptism was ( in my last post) is a large part of my thinking on the full response. I’m working through Greg Strawbridge’s Defence of Infant Baptism and while I’m grateful he has set out his reasoning and bases so graciously and succinctly, I am seeing where I would differ and where I think his reasoning is flawed. There are no radical new insights unfortunately (actually…fortunately) but rather the root differences concern the accurate determination, tracking and application of type and antitype between the OT and the NT. Baptists would maintain that paedobaptists (and mostly presbyterians) carry too much that was intended to be ‘merely’ typical of the church, literally into the NT church. There is a very succinct and useful summary of this in the Appendices included in James Haldane’s Commentary on Galatians. Haldane was a Scottish presbyterian minister who changed his views and as such is educational to both sides (just as Dr Strawbridge is).
Is there a command for baptism for professors alone? Straighforwardly, yes. Mark 16:15-16.
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Note also that theWCoF implicitly regards baptism as a sign “not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also,” of “his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.” Explicitly this requires understanding and belief prior to baptism. West. Conf., chap. 28, Sect. 1
The Oikos baptisms are very interesting. But if you depart from the Baptist understanding of them (that there were no infants in these households –a fact rendered plausible by the demography of the households) you may find yourself trying to prove too much. Are unbelievers to be baptised on the authority of the head of the house? Or do we conclude that everyone baptised in these households was given by the Holy Ghost to understand the Gospel and believe.
Even if we list the household baptisms exhaustively, two explicitly qualify that the baptism was on understanding and belief.
Cornelius (Acts 11:14)” and he shall speak words to you by which you will be saved , you and all your household.”
Lydia (Acts 16:15)
The Phillipian Jailor (Acts 16:33)
Crispus (Acts 18:8) “And Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard [u][/u]were believing and being baptized.”
Stephanas (1 Cor 1:16) I believe that unless we really are going to depart from Sola Scriptura or (equally unbiblically but with at least “logical”consistency ) baptise unbelieving relatives and servants, no case for infant baptism (explicitly or inferrentially) can be made from the household baptisms.
I still think it useful to discuss precisely what Baptism is. Ironically, Baptists probably have the “lowest” view of Baptism of any theological grouping. I don’t mean that irreverantly but rather technically in view of its place, purpose and effects. Best Regards, Dan
