The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Oikos Baptism

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.