While I am sure Richard will reply to you I would like to briefly respond here as well. Oikos is employed in a phrase that runs throughout the Old Testament and right through the New Testament. Of course, it means household. It begs the question, "Was baptism administered in the New Testament according to the Abrahamic household model or according to the modern "Baptist" model which emphasizes baptism as an individual and adult decision"? I will let Richard address that.

But, it also begs for its identity in family blessing and cursings? Is there similarity here?

Reading both the Old and New Testaments we see the continuity of family blessing and cursing. What about, "And Jesus said unto him, To-day is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham" (Luke 19:9). This is found in the story about Zacchaeus the tax collector. No other member of Zacchaeus' family is mentioned in the story, yet Jesus doesn't say that salvation had come to just Zacchaeus, but that salvation had come to Zacchaeus' household. And what about, "The Lord grant mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus: for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain" (2 Tim 1:16). Onesiphorus had served Paul so the Apostle invoked a blessing upon his whole house. While neither of these New Testament examples speak directly to the issue of baptism, they do in fact speak to the issue of family and household blessings. Blessings (which baptism certainly is) and cursings had effects on whole families! Adam is a prime example. The whole human race is of the seed of Adam and ALL fell in Adam. The curse also fell upon his seed (his family) that had no direct accountability in his personal sin. You can trace this all the way through the Old Testament….and the New. Thus, here we see a continuity in family blessings and cursing.

Additionally, the salvation of the household is a normal Bible pattern, not the salvation of just independent individuals (John 4:53; Acts 10:2, 11:14; Matt 10:12-14).
Quote
Hebrews 11:7-9 By faith Noah, being warned of God concerning things not seen as yet, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house [did they all believe?, 1 Pet 3:20-21]; through which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed to go out unto a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he became a sojourner in the land of promise, as in a land not his own, dwelling in tents, with [his family] Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
In general, there are family blessing and cursings. In general, the New Testament baptismal practice (yes, a blessing to those who are elect and a curse to those who are …) was the baptism of an entire household at one time and not the baptism of individuals one by one. Moreover, these references to receiving the covenant sign of baptism are couched in similar language as the references to Abraham's reception of the covenant sign. Thus, IMHO the Old Testament pattern of giving the covenant sign of salvation to the whole household, including infants (i.e. eight day old Isaac), carries right over into the New Testament. Of course, this is only one point in the totality of the whole of the argument, but sufficient enough for our purposes here, IMHO.

IMHO, Dispensational Theology (DT) appears to be at the root of much of the mis-understanding of baptismal issues. If and when it is replaced with a proper hermeneutic of Covenant Theology (CT) a better understanding of the issues will arise. What I do find amazing is that the majority of individuals that are of the CT view have studied the DT view, but very few in the DT view seem to have studied the CT view—or maybe they have and they have all become CTers <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Reformed and Always Reforming,