The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Household Baptisms

So, Joe are you confessing that your synapses aren't firing since YOU were DUNKED too! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Yes, I agree and BTW great post! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bravo.gif" alt="" />

I agree with you that luggage (language) has allot to do with the issue. But, I also see the language I used in the New Testament--the salvation of households. IMHO it is phrased as such in the New Testament not for our confusion, but for our edification in that God desires us to understand that his blessing are "family" in nature when ...... I know you know the arguments.

I believe we can get out selves into trouble, if we lose the language. I think it is better to keep the language of the Old/New Testament and then more fully expand upon its meaning. It means something to say "salvation come to this house" and apparently God himself did not desire us to lose that emphasis. IMHO it is more correct to change our doctrines, and explanations thereof, to match the text of Scripture then to attempt to change the Scripture to match our doctrines....

Of course, individualism is a point in both the Old and New Testaments as I said, "Additionally, the salvation of the household is a normal Bible pattern, not the salvation of just independent individuals ....". I am of course using the NT terminology from the examples given above. The point using the terms in the NT was to draw out their correct meaning...revealing that baptism is covenantal in scope... THAT IS THEIR PURPOSE IN SCRIPTURE--don't throw them out!!!! My emphasis was to make a specific point on family blessings and cursing. This was the stated intent (it also begs for its identity in family blessing and cursings?) of the post and should be interpreted as such.

I wasn't even aware I had any synapses as I have been dunked more than once. The title of song: The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia, fits well.... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Joe,
Another thing we need to keep in mind is that the issue of divided families is also taught in the NT. That is not to say that God doesn't often work in whole families, for He certainly does, but sometimes He doesn't.

Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

Matthew 10: 21 Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, 22 and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved...34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

John 7 2 Now the Jews' Feast of Booths was at hand. 3 So his brothers [2] said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. 4 For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For not even his brothers believed in him. 6 Jesus said to them, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil. 8 You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.” 9 After saying this, he remained in Galilee.

I agree with you of course. Divided families are also taught in the OT as well--as I cited in my post above w/Noah.... But, do you have an example in Scripture of a child within the covenant not being circumcised/baptized, because they are from a divided family? If there is a beleiver...there should be a baptism is the example I see....(I am speaking of infants here....).

Though there may be divided families after the fact, this does not change the eternal covenant of God ........ NO WHERE do we see the covenant of circumcision NOT applied to the covenant family: not in a (1) possible future falling away, nor, in a (2) possible dividing of the family later. What we do see is family circumcision in obedience the covenant God gave us. What we do see in covenantal loyalty.

I wholeheartedly agree! Maybe we can rename our board "PCT"

Paedobaptists and Credobaptists Together <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Not that it has any parallel to the horrendous ECT...

Good question Joe!
Well, we do have Timothy who was half Jewish.
We know he wasn't circumcised until later, and we assume he had to be baptized, but the question is when. If God had told us this maybe we wouldn't have anything to disagree on. Would his mother have baptized him as an infant when his father was not a believer if she hadn't circumcised him? I don't know!

Joe,

Your response is probably sufficient for everything that PrestorJohn proposed. Of course, I do not deny that the households "believed." I simply have a less individualistic view of what that means. When papa became a Christian the entire family became Christians. They together professed Christ; together attended upon the ordinances of public worship; together learned to walk in the ways of God; and together rejoiced in the gospel.

Please understand that while I'm responding to you, my responses are primarily intended as additions to your response to PrestorJohn. But I would add that in the case of the youngsters that profession was not necessarily verbal; and they attended upon the ordinances at first at least because papa did. They learned to walk in the ways of God and as they grew in stature, they also grew in wisdom and righteousness. While their rejoicing may have been childish at first, as they matured, so did their rejoicing.

After all, they are not just Christian babies; they are also baby Christians! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Wes,

The only "change" I would make in your post is that I would replace "often" with "usually" or even "normally." God has usually saved people in the lines of generations.

Yes, Timothy was half and half (Acts 16:1). His mother, grandmother, and Timothy himself were most probably converted during Paul’s first missionary journey (2 Tim 1:5), by Paul himself—though his mother and grandmother had a great influence upon him….. We see his conversion IMHO in Paul’s ministry because of Paul’s reference to him as his ‘spiritual child” (1 Cor 4:17; 1 Tim 1:2; 2 Tim 1:2). Since, all this happened IMHO on the 1st missionary journey the timing would be very close to his mother’s conversion, et. al.….

Additionally, Timothy had learned the Jewish Scriptures (2 Tim 3:14-15, O.T.) from his childhood forth (though his father was a Gentile) thus making me think he was baptized very early on at/after his mother's conversion. Additonally he (1) was not circumcised at 8 days of age, (2) there is no record of either his conversion or baptism later in church records, and (3) his name “Timotheus” itself means “honoring or worshipping god” (originally a heathen name, but adopted by early Christians and Jews with changed reference to “the God”).

PS: Jewish tradition has it that there were "checkers" at the door of the Temple who would yes, check you, to insure you would not pollute the holy place, being non-circumcised. Thus, the purpose of the circumcision was to gain access and literally be all things to all men.....

Forgive me if I gave the impression that I wanted to throw out or circumvent the language of the N.T. As you know, I believe that every jot and tittle is inspired and thus not one word is expendable or should be ignored. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

My intent was to "expand upon its meaning". When we read that "salvation has come upon this house", it is NOT to be understood as meaning, that every single individual was given salvation. But rather, that the salvation which was given to those who believed, came into that house(hold). The way I understand this phrase would be akin to saying that "salvation has come to Florida" when someone there believes. Now, of course, the N.T. doesn't recognize Florida as part of the covenantal structure! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" /> But, I think the illustration hopefully goes to show the point. There are many external blessings which a household is given, which overflow and are due to having a believer in the house, of which you know quite well. And to make one other point about language, I would strongly reject the description of covenant children as "little Christians"! For it ASSUMES their salvation when that type of language is used, when there is no biblical warrant for it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

So again, I apologize if you or anyone else thought I was trying to ignore the biblical language.

In His Grace,

Wes

I am hesitant to get involved in this discussion, because of my limited knowledge as compared to others on this forum. But nothing ventured nothing gained.

The case of Lydia’s household is inconclusive. There is no mention of infants or older children in her household. Even many paedobaptists hold this instance of household baptism as inconclusive for their position. That of course doesn’t necessarily mean that there were no infants in the household, but if I was a paedobaptist, I don’t think I would use this passage to support my case.

The account of the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:30-34) is probably the best possibility for baptizing infants in the household baptism. But as we see in verse 34 both he and his household believed in God.
Admittedly some versions (RSV, NEB) read like the household rejoiced with him because he had found faith. But even if that is correct, we have a problem with infants rejoicing. Though infants can detect joy in a household, can they rejoice because their father has found faith in God?

I could say more about that but as far as I can tell these cases in the book of Acts actually lend support for confessor’s baptism.

Tom

Joe

I am feeling a little bit venturesome today. I just hope not too venturesome, because I am no match when it comes to education on these matters. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/argue.gif" alt="" />
If my knowledge comes to an end, regardless of whether or not I agree with you or not, I will bow out.

So be easy on me, big guy. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/coffee2.gif" alt="" />

My understanding of what you are saying is that basically that this matter must be interpreted through the eyes of the Abrahamic Covenant. Is that correct?

If so, then it is my understanding as Dr. Fred Malone put it.
“However, it is my belief that the fuller revelation of the New Covenant must define how the Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled in it, rather than letting the Abrahamic Covenant interpret the New Covenant revelation of its fulfillment. It is the principle by describing the relationship between the testaments with the little rhyme:
The New is the Old concealed
The Old is the New revealed.”

Tom

Pilgrim

When I read Acts 2:38,39 & 41, as far as children were concerned, or anyone else for that matter. I see only those in the crowd who recieved Peter's word were baptised.

Tom