The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Oikos Baptism

In discussions of paedo/credo-baptism, I often hear the paedo-baptist position being supported by references to oikos(household) baptism in the NT. Although this is not the main argument for paedo-baptism, it is used as supplemental evidence. My question is that if oikos-baptism is Biblical, why do we not practice it today. I have seen many infant baptisms, but I have not yet seen any household baptisms. If you ask many paedo-baptists, they don't seem to have an answer. Some people say that it just doesn't fit in our individualistic society (Western perspective). Even the WCF 28.4 says that the subjects of baptism are those that profess faith or infants of one or both believing parents.

If, as many paedo-baptists claim, "there must have been some infants" in the household baptism examples of Acts, shouldn't we also have to claim "there must have been some older family members who didn't necessarily confess faith in Christ but who did not actively refuse baptism" who were baptized as well?

I am looking to hear primarily from paedo-baptists. Just for the record, I am paedo-baptist as well.

Thanks,
John

I'm not totally sure I understand your question, but I'll take a stab at it. I think the reason you don't see many households baptised anymore, is because its a one-time deal. Once a household is baptised then the only subsequent baptisms in that household would be for the children, individually, as they come into the family. The only time a household could be baptised today is when everyone (adults and children) in the family is unbaptised and the parents both want to receive baptism (for themselves and for their children.) I think this is pretty rare, even today, in the West.

John,

It is not unusual for people to look at these household baptisms out of their historical context. By that I mean that they seem to forget that the Jews had several thousand years of history within which covenant circumcision was practiced. The promise given to Abraham was to him and to his seed/children. There is both a physical and spiritual meaning to that word "seed" as you most likely know.

So, when we get to the New Testament where as paedobaptists we understand that baptism has replaced circumcision as the covenant sign, we must insist that household baptisms were administered on the basis of that which had been practiced for millennia; believers and their children. Seeing that the gospel came first to the Jews, they would expect that their children would be included. Thus, the question regarding "older unbelieving family members" is mute. Adults must profess faith (notice I did not say 'believers' although that is certainly true. ) in order to receive baptism. The children of those professing faith are still included in the covenant since there is nowhere to be found a rescinding of children from the original covenant injunction.

And it is probably prudent to add, for the sake of our credo-baptist brethren, that the significance of the baptized infant was not a sign that they were de facto: saved, redeemed, elect, regenerate, Christians, etc., even though some may have been indeed elect. They, no less than adults, must be converted; repent and believe on Christ unto salvation.

I think it is not as rare as you suppose unless we grant that parents are rarely converted. I would say that almost anytime an adult who was raised in a non-Christian home is converted, the odds are that he/she and his/her family has not been baptized. In some of these cases, I would guess the spouse is converted as well within some period of time of the other's conversion. If you do not limit this to the West, I think this is even more common.

The reason we do not see family baptisms today is not lack of subjects but it is that vast majority of churches no longer practice family baptism (hence, my original post).

John

Just to press a little. Were not Lydia and the Philippian jailer Gentiles? And yet their families were baptized even though they did not have millenia of Jewish heritage?

How do you determine if an infant/very young child is old enough to no longer be subject to his parents choice but be required to make a profession of faith?

John

1. True enough that the Gentiles did not have this Jewish heritage/teaching/practice, but the apostles and disciples of the Lord at that time who were evangelizing the Gentile world did have that heritage to which they adhered. So again, the baptizing of infants of believing parent(s) was the God-ordained covenantal command that continued without abrogation for the Church. It was a matter of teaching the Gentiles about God's covenant with believers and their children along with all the truths concerning God, the Messiah, Church polity, etc., etc., that had to be done. Gentiles were virtually totally ignorant of true religion compared to the Jews who had to be reminded and corrected of these things.

2. This matter of the demarcation line as to age has always been a subject of debate. I think one could say safely and rightly say that there is no definitive age since age isn't the determining factor but rather the ability of a child to rightly understand the Gospel, discern conviction of sin and know their need of Christ. Some, particularly the continental churches, set the age at 16 for being admitted into membership. Others leave it open. Just recently, we became aware of an OPC congregation that allowed children as young as 7 to make a confession of faith and be received into membership; an anomaly to be sure in the OPC.

Do you have any thoughts on this age question?

In His grace,

John,

I have witnessed over the years perhaps three or four cases of a family being baptized in our churches. The last two times that I witnessed this was a single mother with one or two children. The children were still younger than, I would say, 12 years. The mother is baptized after she professed faith publicly in a service (one ceremony) after which the children are baptized.

What I think is typical in such cases is the parents grew up in a family the may have become disconnected from the church or even had no relation with the church whatsoever. At some point in time one or both parents were evangelized and after, say, one year of cathecism classes for the parent, he or she is questioned by the elders and is allowed for public profession of faith.

Johan

Pilgrim,

I understand your line of reasoning, but I do not find that it satisfactorily answers my question. I am not saying that I believe oikos-baptism should be used, but only that I have not found a convincing argument that it should not be yet.


First, I think we may not be 100% addressing the same issue. One issue is the age at which one can make a confession of faith. The other issue is the age at which a child no longer a subject of baptism due to his parents confession. We have two possibilities: A) the age at which a child can no longer be baptized due to his parents is the same age at which they show the maturity to make a valid confession of faith (but not that they will) and B) the age at which a child can no longer be baptized due to his parents is not necessarily equal to the same age at which they show they maturity to make a valid confession of faith.

Also, as far as church membership goes, I would say there is a difference between being baptized and being able to make a confession of faith. To be a full, communing member, one has to make a valid confession of faith. For a child/infant, baptism would place them as a non-communing member. I do agree 100% that a child should be mature enough to truly understand what their confession means and not just "agreeing to what mommy and poppy have taught them." To me, seven years old is most likely too young and to restrict confessions to over-16-year-olds is too harsh. I have not doubt a seven year old can confess the facts of the Gospel well enough, but I doubt that in most cases the seven year old truly understands. That is not to say that a seven year old can not be truly saved or that there are some seven-year-olds that could make a valid profession. I cannot give a specific age either. Regardless of age, I think the parents and elders should be responsible to thoroughly examine the child to determine the validity of the confession.

Back to the original point. Do you see the age which a child can not be baptized due to his parents is the same age at which a child shows the cognitive ability to make a valid confession? Or, should a church restrict paedo-baptism to say under 3-year-olds even though a 3-year old would not be expected to be able to make a confession of faith. Then, any non-baptized child whose parents entered the church when they were three would be barred from the church until that time at which they could make a valid confession.

I don't have the answer to this, that is why I am asking.

John

Johan,

that is interesting. I wonder if non-Western churches practice this more.

John

John,

I am not sure if you mean I am in a non-Western church? I would say our church is a Western church. It's not American but it is Western!

Your question about the age of the children is quite interesting. I am not sure what would have been the case if the children were about 17 or 18 years old. My guess is that in such a case they would have had to follow the cathecism classes as did their parents and then be baptized after profession of faith. So, we do have credo-baptism in our churches, but it applies only in special cases.

Johan

And that's what I thought I have been trying to address?? IMHO, the NT record of household baptisms was expected since it was a practice inaugurated by God with Abraham and carried through as the record shows by the apostles/disciples. Thus, I too see no reason why it should NOT be continued since there is no explicit nor implicit command given in the NT after household baptisms were administered.

For myself, the answer is very simple. If a child is capable of making a valid profession of faith then he/she cannot be baptized without it. What age that a valid profession can be made is that which is up for debate. I may be mistaken, but I have thought that many churches to be safe, perhaps, have set the age at 3. After the age of 3 infant baptism is no administered without a profession of faith. Doubtless, this age limit varies considerably in different denominations and congregations. Personally, I do not believe a 3 year old is capable of giving a valid profession of faith. And since salvation is not tied to baptism, denying baptism to young children does no harm nor does it endanger their eternal end.

I think we are on the same page here. And, I too have no definitive answer as to the "age" question which I stated above. But setting the cut-off for covenantal baptism at age at 3 seems reasonable. Thereafter, a child would have to make a valid profession of faith. Setting an age when a child could do that I think is nothing more than arbitrariness since God works in individuals as He wills. Also, a young child, let's say at 7 years old [i]may[/b] be able to make a valid profession of faith, but I suspect that this would be a rare exception.

Bottom line for me is that I don't see any hard and fast biblical rule that would determine ages. Prudence and general biblical guidelines in regard to professions of faith I think are the best policy. And, as far as the cut-off age for covenantal baptism, again I think 3 is fine.

In His grace,

Hi Johan,

It's easy to identify "Western" with America/Europe and forget those are not the only places with Western societies. Thanks for the reminder.

John

By 'not satisfactory' I did not mean that you did not give a satisfactory reason as to why NT household baptisms were administered. I think you did. By 'not satisfactory' I was referring to the final conclusion that it was only to be administered during the NT time and not to be continued today. I am still chewing on this part.

Let me try to clarify your position. Are you saying that you believe that "oikos-baptism" is still the Biblical practice today with the caveat below that at some age a child has to be baptized based on profession instead of the parent's profession? In other words, for you is "paedo-baptism = oikos-baptism"?


Ok, I see you are with my B) position. That wasn't clear to me from your original post and caused some confusion.


I agree completely.

John

The situation would be, of course, that at least one adult in a family is converted and that there are infants or very young children in that family. Then, the believing parent(s) would have to make a credible/valid profession of faith which would then allow those particular children to be baptized as well. After a certain age, let's say 3 years old, a child would also have to make a public valid profession of faith in order to receive baptism.

In His grace,

Just a quick note here John then I'll stick my credo-baptist nose elsewhere:

Because it is A. The Sabbath and B. Lydia was worshiper of God.

She probably fell under the category of being a God Fearer Having some knowledge of the religion of Israel.

Carry on.

Pete,

Not sure what your point is? Lydia was a "worshiper of God" which I believe you are correct in concluding this is a term used to designate a specific type of people who were outside of Israel, etc. But, she was yet unconverted not having heard that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah spoken of in the O.T. prophecies. However, when Paul and those with him began teaching about the things of God, salvation, Jesus Christ, etc., the Holy Spirit working with and through this spoken Word (Gospel), regenerated her dead soul and consequently she responded; aka: came under conviction of sin and believed upon Christ with a living faith. And thus, having given a credible profession of faith even at that very moment, which I think was more than obvious to Paul & co., she and her household were baptized.

Not that you are implying any such thing, but unbelieving adults who might have been part of Lydia's "household" were surely not baptized. Neither should one think that young children were baptized. But as was the practice, infants and babes were baptized along with their parents as they were considered part of the covenant community; set apart from the rest of the world since they are not unclean (1Cor 7:14). Is it necessary that these baptized infants hear the Gospel and be urged to repent of their sins and turn to Christ in faith? You betcha.... covenant members (external) have great privileges but those privileges are the means of grace which if God wills they may lead to salvation.

In His grace,

I knew I should have elucidated a little more on this post and I am sure the credo-baptist thing didn't help.

What I wanted to point out to John that since Lydia fell under the term God Fearer. She was probably a little more aware of the customs of the Jewish religion and as such understood the covenant nature of the baptism rite. That's all, nothing else meant or implied.

It was more of a response to John's statement about the ignorance of the gentiles when it came to such covenant terms. Now the Philippian jailer he more than likely wasn't a God Fearer and as such had no context to the baptism rite.

Exit stage left.

Good point... and well taken!

Are there any scriptural references to infant baptism etc??

gnarley

Yes, the myriad references to circumcision in the O.T. which was the old covenant "shadow" of the new covenant baptism just as the ceremonial sacrifices were shadows of the sacrifice offered by Christ.

As has been stated several times before in this thread, there is a definite and sure continuity between the old covenant and the new covenant because there is but ONE covenant of grace. The discontinuity is to be found in the administrations of that one covenant beginning with Adam, then Noah, Abraham, Jacob, David, etc. The "sign" was changed to reflect the better/new administration when Messiah came to accomplish all that was before prophesied and shown in shadows and types.

Credo-baptists will as a matter of course reject this explanation and bifurcate the one covenant of grace into two "covenants". The more knowledgeable credo-baptists are quick to reject this bifurcation and speak rather of "discontinuity" between the administrations of the one covenant of grace. This is much more helpful and I believe with them, biblical. That we agree to disagree on the degree of continuity/discontinuity is where things should be and thus it is not a matter of breaking union as it usually is between paedos and credos; mostly on the credo side historically.

So, if one accepts that baptism has replaced circumcision as the covenant sign and seal, then one does not need a specific NT verse that shows infants were baptized because "believers and their children" being the covenant promise of God was expected and practiced. Further, with such a incredibly important matter as God's covenant any change in that covenant, for example, the dispensing of including children would surely be present in the teaching of Christ and/or the inspired NT writers. I see no NT command to stop the practice of giving covenant children the sign of the covenant. Thus when it says that "households" were baptized, surely if there were children in those families, they were included as they had been for thousands of years before.

In His grace,