PrestorJohn said: Now I understand the reasoning (although I disagree with it) for baptizing infants even if there is but one believing person in the household. However, I must say that I can't see the reasoning from scripture or the Westminster Confession that an unbelieving spouse should be baptized because the head of the household has been baptized.
The reasoning is identical. The head of the household is precisely that -- a covenantal head. If he should decide to move his family from Texas to Indiana or Michigan, the spouse and children my object, but at the end of the day they go. Similarly when he changes his religion from paganism or some other form of idolatry to the true religion, he does so not only for himself but also for all his family.
Quote
Also Richard I'd like an explanation with respect to Lydia in Acts 16:14-15. She apparently was the head of the household. Now I can't see that she was married but let us suppose that she was, does this mean since she was the head her husband (who may have been unbelieving) was baptized also? Does this mean we are to baptize unbelieving husbands?
In my opinion, a woman is never a head of a household in which there is a husband present. She may have significant teaching and child-rearing responsibilites (and does at the church I pastor), such as Eunice and Lois did (2 Tim. 1:5). But there is no reason to maintain that she "automatically" takes the place of the husband in a covenantally structured family. So, when I said "for whatever reason," I was contemplating divorce or widowhood. I was not suggesting that Lydia may have been head of a household in which a husband was present. Further, in the same epistle in which 1 Cor. 7:14 appears, we have the clear teaching that the husband is the head of the wife (not just the children). But if the husband is the head of the wife, then the wife is not and cannot be the head of the husband. Of course, being the cads and curmudgeons that we are, Paul also found it important to explain that headship does not mean tyranny (1 Cor. 11:2-16).
Did that elucidate fairly?
Quick question in return: how do you think paedobaptists should deal with the commandment God gave to Abraham not only to circumcise Ishmael and Isaac (and his natural-born children), but also to circumcise his household servants? I realize you are not a paedobaptist and so this is not really your difficulty, but how do you think we should handle it? Do you not see the elegance of dealing with households rather than simply "infants?"
