I recently posted some brief thoughts on household texts in the New Testament as they are used in the Baptism debate. I think it fair of me to bring out a little further my exegetical thoughts around the texts and will endeavour to do so in following posts beginning here with Acts 10 and 11.
*
Luke, (as a paedobaptist might point out) seems to continually stress the entirety or all-ness of the households; All the household, the whole household, the entire household, etc., possibly indicating the increased likelihood of infants.
Acts 10 is no exception: all the household were baptised. However a careful look of Acts 10-11 will show us other important all's. First we have a prophetic word given in 11:14, ‘He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’ [emphasis mine] And Second back in 10:44, 46, ‘While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word...they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God.’ [emphasis mine]
To point out that Luke keeps insisting on the entirety or all-ness of the household to include non-professing children, the following logic must be applied:
- All heard the message by which they would be saved
- All received the Holy Spirit + spoke in tongues
- All were baptised
...therefore
- Infants heard the message by which they would be saved
- Infants received the Holy Spirit + spoke in tongues
- Infants were baptised
To keep the logic that all means infants must also mean three things:
1. Infants heard so presumably understood (by the spirit) the message of Salvation
2. Infants received the Holy Spirit
3. This manifested itself in the infant by speaking in tongues
It appears from this that a paedobaptist position that uses the texts this way can remain consistent if one accepts the regenerative faith of the infant pre-Baptism.
Perhaps Luke has a different purpose for these household texts than is often appealed to by the paedobaptist brother or sister - namely the coming of Gentiles (God-fears in this instance) into the covenant.
Showing posts with label Baptism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baptism. Show all posts
Friday, December 08, 2006
Friday, November 24, 2006
Household Baptisms in the New Testament
In support of an 'infant Baptist' position, texts such as Acts 10; 16:15, 33; and 1 Cor. 1:16 are appealed to. The argument basically runs like this:
I have numerous difficulties with this logic, I shall explain just two here.
First, this argument rests on the premise that some who were baptised were non-professing. I believe the biblical texts tell a different story.
Acts 10-11 - Cornelius and his household are commanded to be Baptised (10:48), however the whole household was told to be saved before the baptism (cf. 11:14)
Acts 16:33 - The Philippian Jailer and all his family were baptised (v.33). However, the word of the Lord was spoken to all who were in his household (v.32) implying all were able to understand it, and further, all rejoiced that the jailer believed in God, implying again a faith in what was spoken to them (v.34) They must hear the word, then respond to it. - as Piper says, this is just as plausible as assuming infants.
1. Cor. 1:16 - The household of Stephanas was Baptised (v.16). However, this household was a household of believers (1. Cor. 16:15).
Acts 16:15 - Here is the only example of a household baptism with a profession of household faith. However, isn't it an exegetical fallacy to apply silence logic from this one verse onto the other three which would seem to contradict this? Is it not more consistent to interpret this in light of every other household Baptisms which wouldn't contradict 16:15?
Second, this argument rests on the premise that there were infants within the households. There is simply no evidence for such an assumption. Further, if we submit to the scriptures above which seem to support household faith, then in order to be consistent, it would seem that an infant Baptist has to insist on the faith of the infant.
Other than these assumptive passages, there is no mention of infant baptism in the Bible, period. Its just not there. What there is in evidence is a very elaborate systematic argument with no 'obvious' working out of such in the apostolic church.
I believe therefore that the household argument as outlined at the top of this post is not a strong argument for the case of infant baptism. It is an argument from silence, an argument open to exegetical issue, and an argument which ignores household faith
- A head of a household professes faith,
- The whole household is therefore Baptised,
- Households normally contain infants,
- It is likely that these particular baptised households contain infants,
- Therefore non-professing infants in these households were baptised,
- Therefore, we likewise should baptise non-professing infants of households where the head has professed faith.
I have numerous difficulties with this logic, I shall explain just two here.
First, this argument rests on the premise that some who were baptised were non-professing. I believe the biblical texts tell a different story.
Acts 10-11 - Cornelius and his household are commanded to be Baptised (10:48), however the whole household was told to be saved before the baptism (cf. 11:14)
Acts 16:33 - The Philippian Jailer and all his family were baptised (v.33). However, the word of the Lord was spoken to all who were in his household (v.32) implying all were able to understand it, and further, all rejoiced that the jailer believed in God, implying again a faith in what was spoken to them (v.34) They must hear the word, then respond to it. - as Piper says, this is just as plausible as assuming infants.
1. Cor. 1:16 - The household of Stephanas was Baptised (v.16). However, this household was a household of believers (1. Cor. 16:15).
Acts 16:15 - Here is the only example of a household baptism with a profession of household faith. However, isn't it an exegetical fallacy to apply silence logic from this one verse onto the other three which would seem to contradict this? Is it not more consistent to interpret this in light of every other household Baptisms which wouldn't contradict 16:15?
Second, this argument rests on the premise that there were infants within the households. There is simply no evidence for such an assumption. Further, if we submit to the scriptures above which seem to support household faith, then in order to be consistent, it would seem that an infant Baptist has to insist on the faith of the infant.
Other than these assumptive passages, there is no mention of infant baptism in the Bible, period. Its just not there. What there is in evidence is a very elaborate systematic argument with no 'obvious' working out of such in the apostolic church.
I believe therefore that the household argument as outlined at the top of this post is not a strong argument for the case of infant baptism. It is an argument from silence, an argument open to exegetical issue, and an argument which ignores household faith
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)