# What do Baptists do with Acts 16:33-34?



## Romans922 (Apr 14, 2011)

27 When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped.
28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.”
29 And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas.
30 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and *he was baptized at once, he and all his family*.
34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that *he had believed in God*. 

It says, that the jailer and all his family were baptized. The next verse gives the reason: because HE had believed in God...not he and all his family had believed, but he...

What do baptists do with these verses?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Apr 14, 2011)

I think this passage is an excellent argument for infant baptism, however I think it must be looked at in context. Verse 31 says that he and his household were all saved, which must preceed baptism. Obviously we don't believe today that if one man believes and is saved then his whole family is automatically saved as well. Clearly there were things being done by Paul and the other apostles that were unique to their time, such as speaking in tongues, etc. In this case, the power of Paul's words were sufficient to bring an entire family to faith, and thus they were all baptized.


----------



## Jack K (Apr 14, 2011)

I've met several Baptists who maintain that verse 34 should be translated "he had believed along with his entire household" because only that translation fits the context of what they believe Scripture clearly teaches. But I'm not really qualified to judge the translation issue. I wonder, though, if any Baptists on this board would take that position.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 14, 2011)

> And he rejoiced along with his entire household



The non-Covenantal Baptist would make much of this phrase.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 14, 2011)

I think Bill's statement covers the issue.

Honestly, no theology of baptism should begin in strictly narrative-historical and descriptive passages. Not that narrative contains no didactic or doctrinal content; however, passages that describe historic instances of church practice is far more useful for judging (confirming or disconfirming) the _consistency_ of the thesis formulated.

This passage is a good case in point. The words in their sentence relations are susceptible to different association, thus making evident the role of the translator-as-exegete or interpreter. As far as possible, translations should be "neutral" and "objective," but that stance is inevitably colored by some theological bias, no matter how small.

The paedobaptist can point to the unmistakable presence of the head-of-household principle, as the focus of the passage is settled on the Jailer (as the earlier section of the same chapter focuses on Lydia, another head-of-household). Whatever else the passage may imply, the thing that is definitively stated is that he (repeatedly, the masculine singular is used), he did the said activities, including the believing at the end. What the P-B sees in the text is explicit affirmation of what his *theology of baptism* would lead him to expect to find: namely, households baptized on the explicit faith-commitment of the head-of-house.

Other participation in the various situations (welcoming, washing, feeding, ets.) is certainly hinted at, and for this cause the credobaptist can also embrace this passage. The C-B, in this particular case, is doing the majority of "inference" from the explicit statements. But *inference is a legitimate hermeneutical category*. The question is "warrant" for such inference. And if the C-B is warranted to do such in this passage (granted), then he must allow the same to the P-B in this, or in other passages.

The great enemy of cordial dispute in these baptism debates, is the _unreasonable_ assumption/accusation that one side or the other refuses to let the Bible speak. "You read-into the text your postion; but if you wouldn't, you'd admit I am right!" Sorry, but the truth is: it is very difficult not to recognize all the unstated assumptions we bring to the text, especially if one has not studied his own frame of reference.


----------



## Herald (Apr 14, 2011)

Romans922 said:


> 27 When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped.
> 28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.”
> 29 And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas.
> 30 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
> ...



Look at verse 31. Are we to conclude the members of the jailer's household would be saved based on his act of faith? Of course not. Verse 32 says that Paul preached the gospel to the jailer and to all who were in his house. The strong inference here is that the jailer and his whole household believed. Considering the miracle that had just taken place, through the mighty work of the Spirit, it is more than a plausible inference. Subsequently all his household was baptized (verse 33) and they all rejoiced that it started first with the jailer (verse 34). The jailer was the central figure in this story.

P.S. If I covered ground others already touched on I apologized. I'm mobile right now.

Sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix


----------



## EverReforming (Apr 14, 2011)

As was mentioned, this is a good passage to argue for infant baptism. 

The flip side of the coin though would be that the ages of the members of his household are not indicated, so while there could have been infants in the household, it can't be assumed that there necessarily were infants in the household. The passage states that the gospel was preached to the entire household and that the entire household rejoiced. Why would they rejoice in his belief if they too had not believed?


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Apr 14, 2011)

Does all always mean all?


----------



## KMK (Apr 14, 2011)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Honestly, no theology of baptism should begin in strictly narrative-historical and descriptive passages. Not that narrative contains no didactic or doctrinal content; however, passages that describe historic instances of church practice is far more useful for judging (confirming or disconfirming) the consistency of the thesis formulated.



Very well put, and would apply to any theology. (Miraculous Gifts, Church Govt. etc.) Would you agree, Rev Buchanan?


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 14, 2011)

I think it's an argument from silence actually. It says household but doesn't give any further information. It doesn't mention children.

All of the explicit examples of baptism in the bible are of believers. All of the examples that some believe implicitly teach infant baptism are arguments from silence. I am personally more comfortable with the explicit. It rules out the possibility of eisegesis.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 14, 2011)

KMK said:


> Very well put, and would apply to any theology. (Miraculous Gifts, Church Govt. etc.) Would you agree, Rev Buchanan?


Certainly.



EverReforming said:


> The flip side of the coin though would be that the ages of the members of his household are not indicated, so while there could have been infants in the household, it can't be assumed that there necessarily were infants in the household. The passage states that the gospel was preached to the entire household and that the entire household rejoiced. Why would they rejoice in his belief if they too had not believed?


The issue is mooted, when it is shown that *it is irrelevant* whether any particular household has infants or not. The question is: "what general description defines _household_ in biblical literature?" And since the biblical/ancient definition is comprehensive and ordinarily requires explicit _exclusionary_ notes when there are such exclusions, then the onus is on those who would make the claim that infants are excluded. And this always takes the form of a theologically driven argument, rather than a textual one.

Normal children get excited when their family is excited, and join the celebration even when they do not enter the festivities as fully cognitive participants. Joy is contagious. Few would deny the most-reasonable conclusion that there was more explicit faith in that house that same day, than simply the Jailer. The point is, that the TEXT emphasizes HIS faith, and doesn't mention anyone else', while it's terms are also consistent with the covenant-solidarity motif of the OT.




Osage Bluestem said:


> All of the explicit examples of baptism in the bible are of believers. All of the examples that some believe implicitly teach infant baptism are arguments from silence. I am personally more comfortable with the explicit. It rules out the possibility of eisegesis.


These statements are subject to strong criticism on textual, and not merely inferential. grounds.

1) The first statement prejudices the term "household," and makes a judgment of exclusion before the term is defined. If the term _includes_ everyone, including infants, then infants are, *in fact* included in principle in the multiple household baptisms, regardless of even a single actual case (the unknown factor).

2) The second statement is in explicit conflict with 1Cor.10:1-2, which teaches (in so many words) that ALL were baptized, and that "all" included "little ones," see Ex.10:9-10; Num.14:3,31, etc.

3) The "explicit-vs.-implicit" claim is a red herring. It is generally impossible in practice; and even if it reduces the likelihood of improper eisogesis, a refusal to allow the fullest context to inform the interpretation of any isolated text is certain to create repeated conflicts.

Consider the widely held modern notion that the Bible is socially conditioned, and reflects multiple (incompatible) "theologies," sometimes even contemporaneous (i.e. the Peter vs. Paul school). Such persons accuse "conservatives" of the eisogetical assumption that the Bible reflects one, coherent and non-contradictory Author, preventing us from reckoning honestly with the "tensions" contained in the text or canon.

The "liberals" just claim to be reading the text "as-is," and say that we are not. And allowing them their primary assumptions (i.e. "pure" exegesis, and a naturalistic theological enterprise), they have a point. That's what heretics do as well. The Arians just quote Scripture. The Socinians just quote Scripture.

If we are wise, we will not commit ourselves to an interpretive principle that surrenders the very ground needful to refute these Scripture-twisters.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 14, 2011)

Osage Bluestem said:


> I think it's an argument from silence actually. It says household but doesn't give any further information. It doesn't mention children.
> 
> All of the explicit examples of baptism in the bible are of believers. All of the examples that some believe implicitly teach infant baptism are arguments from silence. I am personally more comfortable with the explicit. It rules out the possibility of eisegesis.



Actually, a large portion of the baptisms (post-Pentecost church era) mentioned in the NT are of the household variety, where personal faith of every individual in the household is not explicitly mentioned. There are, of course, obvious exceptions to this: the men on the day of Pentecost (families not present), the Apostle Paul (no family), the Ethiopian eunuch (obviously no family). But once you factor out these instances, the majority of the remaining baptism are of the household variety.


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 14, 2011)

Just to be clear, 'infants' don't have to be brought into this argument. The question is whether if one professes faith, him and his household should be baptized or only those who profess faith should be baptized.


----------



## Herald (Apr 14, 2011)

Romans922 said:


> The question is whether if one professes faith, him and his household should be baptized or only those who profess faith should be baptized.



Well, we know how the answer to your question falls among party lines.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 14, 2011)

Romans922 said:


> Just to be clear, 'infants' don't have to be brought into this argument. The question is whether if one professes faith, him and his household should be baptized or only those who profess faith should be baptized.


 
It is an argument from silence on both directions regarding the topic of household. 

1. The bible doesn't say that everyone in the household professed faith.
2. The bible doesn't say that there were small children in the households.

However, in every explicit example of personal baptism the bible describes a believer getting baptized, so I believe the safest rout to rightly dividing the word of truth is to hold to believer's baptism.


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 14, 2011)

David, everyone here holds to believers baptism.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 14, 2011)

Romans922 said:


> David, everyone here holds to believers baptism.


 
That's great!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 15, 2011)

Osage Bluestem said:


> It is an argument from silence on both directions regarding the topic of household.



It's fine (and accurate) to see you include both sides under your description. However, the term "argument from silence" is imprecise, often pejorative, and we should use better terminology. The arguments are more properly denominated "inferential," on both sides. They each extrapolate on certain terms in the immediate text/context; and they also bring to bear the wider scope of a whole-Bible context and theology.

A true "argument from silence," besides being weak and most likely formally fallacious in the question-begging sense, is an attempt to argue for a positive conclusion on the basis of missing data. This is not something the Baptists are doing with this text, nor is it the case with the Presbyterians.



Osage Bluestem said:


> so I believe the safest rout to rightly dividing the word of truth is to hold to believer's baptism.



And do your duty to your conscience, by all means.


----------



## semperreformata (Apr 23, 2011)

Romans922 said:


> 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.



This verse gives evidence not for Infant Baptism,but against it. I say this with respect to my paedo-brethren for consider in this section(vv 27-34) is a Gospel call being given. As we know when the Gospel is preached. At the end of the Gospel call is a call to repentance,this please don't confuse my language for stating I'm referring to an altar call. No I am speaking to what is biblical(Gospel presentation,followed by a call to repentance[repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ]), you present the Gospel and then give the call to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. I can't by any plausible means stretch the text to infer,not in good conscious. To quote Luther,"My Conscious is held captive to the Word of God." To me using this section for infant baptism is honestly pushing it to a stretch. I say this not out of disrespect,but a call to serious thought. For us as reformed folk we are those devoted to handling the text with honesty and I believe we need to seek to be consistent on all issues.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 23, 2011)

John,
Do you genuinely believe that the "problem" with paedobaptism is the result of *frivolous* (as opposed to serious) thought, and a perverse preference for "inconsistency" on _this_ issue?

With all due respect, you are making claims _against_ the paedobaptism position that are indemonstrable; *and* you are making positive claims for the credobaptism(only) position that rely on the _same_ inferential hermeneutic that you denigrate on the other side.

When you say you can't plausibly stretch the text, and then you "stretch it" to allow your own conclusions, which demonstrably DO move beyond the letter of the text--while at the same time you insinuate (unintentional?) duplicity by the other side using identical methods as yourself, but who simply aren't "devoted to handling the text with honesty," that's a pretty blatant double standard.

No one really minds at all if you, in all sincerity, frankly do not understand how the other side gets to its conclusions, and you think they are totally incorrect--you are free to say so. However, when you categorize all together ("us as reformed folk") and then CHIDE your brethren while ignoring their arguments--that's problematic.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Apr 23, 2011)

Regardless of our view on baptism, we must admit that the New Testament gives very little details on exactly how baptism is to be administered. Perhaps we are making too much of something that was intended only to be a symbol. Ultimately we must worship God in the way that we understand the bible to be commanding us to do so. This is what Paul is alluding to in Romans chapter 12. If you believe that God is commanding you to baptize your infant, than by all means do so. If you believe that baptizing infants is against scripture, then do not baptize your infant. Regardless, we must not place a stumbling block before our brothers. Let us respect one another and live in harmony.


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 23, 2011)

semperreformata said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
> ...


 
All this verse says is that the Word was given to those in the house. My baptized infant gets that every night! So I am sorry I don't see your point...

Also, it isn't necessarily presenting an infant baptist view to quote this text. What is being inferred (in our opinion) is that the jailer believes, and the rest of his household (though hearing the Word) it says that the jailer only believes. His household was baptized. Infants or no infants (it makes no difference).


----------

