The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Oikos Baptism

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,