# Paedo-Credo Debate/Household Baptisms



## ConfederateTheocrat (Dec 14, 2004)

I believe in infant baptism as scriptural. Yet, I don't believe household baptisms are a good example of the practice. Can someone explain to me infant baptism can be taught from household baptisms in the NT?

[Edited on 12-15-2004 by ConfederateTheocrat]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 14, 2004)

God has always been a God of families..........

Act 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.

Act 16:15 And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us. 

Discipleship does not equal regeneration

I klnow that the passages do not do the doctrine justice. An excellent read is: J Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries

Threads on the issue:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=2822


http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=71


[Edited on 12-14-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 14, 2004)

Jochaim Jeremias' work against Arand is great - _The Origins of Infant Baptism_.

It explains the intricacies of Jewish "householdisms" and how the NT writer, Luke, perceived this. Jeremias is thorough and it is a very well done book actually.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Dec 14, 2004)

It would be easier to answer if perhaps you could explain why you don't think the household baptisms are good examples. Is it because they do not explicitly mention infants? Is there some exegetical reason?


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat (Dec 14, 2004)

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> It would be easier to answer if perhaps you could explain why you don't think the household baptisms are good examples. Is it because they do not explicitly mention infants? Is there some exegetical reason?



I just don't see how there is any reason to think they included infants.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Dec 14, 2004)

But the question is, would the households have HAD to include infants to prove our position true?


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat (Dec 14, 2004)

No, infant baptism is scriptural for other reasons.


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 14, 2004)

HouseHold Baptisms:
It is irrelevant whether they had infants in the Households--they could have been all 16 year old girls for what we know. What is important is that Paul and Luke viewed the members of a household as worthy of baptism on the basis of the Household Head's testimony. They were to be baptised because they were in the household.


----------



## woogiewoogie (Dec 14, 2004)

Acts 2:39 - "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

What is the "promise?"
What do children have to do with infants?

1. "Holy Spirit" is written after "baptized" in verse 38.

Acts 2:38, 39

38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

2. Verse 38 is a paranthetical. "Repent" is plurel, while "and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" is singular. "for the forgiveness of your sins" is plural. So, it reads: 

Peter said to them, "Repent, (and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 

There is a change of person from the second person plural, "you," to the third person singular "each." Water baptism is not a requirement for forgiveness or salvation, only faith in Christ is. Repentence (which is synonymous of believing in Jesus Christ) is what gives forgivness, not baptism. The Holy Spirit is the focus of this verse, not baptism. Why would a symbol be more important than God?

"promise" (v. 39) is an ellipsis to "Holy Spirit" (v. 38).

3. Is verse 39 saying that the promise of salvation (considering the focus of verse 38) is for all the Christans children? No! The last part of this passage will say otherwise, "as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." God will call as many as he wishes, and he is not expected to save all the Christians children, nor is he forced to save all the infants who have been "baptized." 

Acts 16:15 - "And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us."

Her household obviously believed before being bapitized just as in vss. 31-33.

[Edited on 12-14-2004 by woogiewoogie]


----------



## Mayflower (Dec 14, 2004)

Dear webmaster or others,

Can you tell me, where i can order :
Jochaim Jeremias - The Origins of Infant Baptism ?


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 15, 2004)

To echo what Paul is saying,
we are to presume continuity between the Covenants unless God says otherwise. (We let God change the requirements for membership; he has not yet done so)


----------



## luvroftheWord (Dec 15, 2004)

> _Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat_
> No, infant baptism is scriptural for other reasons.



Well, let me rephrase my question. Would there have to be infants in the households in Acts for us to be able to prove our point from them?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 15, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> Dear webmaster or others,
> 
> Can you tell me, where i can order :
> Jochaim Jeremias - The Origins of Infant Baptism ?



That's a tough one - its out of print. You would have to find it used. try http://www.abebooks.com They may be able to locate it. Or http://www.bibliophile.com


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 15, 2004)

I think it would be better, instead of saying "infant baptism" to say "household baptism." both would include infats, but the latter is the NT usage of the Jewish household idea.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 16, 2004)

As Craig seems to be implying, regardless of whether there were infants in the households that were baptized, the baptisms still illustrate the biblical truth and significance of the _communal_ nature of spirituality and the covenant, as opposed to the hyper-individualism that much of contemporary evangelicals have embraced.


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat (Dec 16, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> As Craig seems to be implying, regardless of whether there were infants in the households that were baptized, the baptisms still illustrate the biblical truth and significance of the _communal_ nature of spirituality and the covenant, as opposed to the hyper-individualism that much of contemporary evangelicals have embraced.



I see what you're saying, and it makes sense.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Dec 16, 2004)

Right. There doesn't need to be infants present in the households because what the passages demonstrate is that God is continuing his principle of making his covenant with households, just like he did in the OT. That in itself is one of the fundamental principles upon which infant baptism is established. God is still a God of households.


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat (Dec 18, 2004)

> _Originally posted by woogiewoogie_
> Acts 2:39 - "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."
> 
> What is the "promise?"
> ...



I'll deal with your 3rd point, since the rest is not relevant to the Reformed paedobaptist (as we don't believe in baptismal regeneration of infants or adults through water baptism).

The promise is clearly showing that believer's and their children are heirs to the promise of salvation. Baptism is a sign of faith. Nothing in the NT teaches that a confession of faith must precede baptism. Nothing.

Since believer's and their children are inheriters of the promise, they should all be baptized.

However, I think the best case for infant baptism comes from the transfer of circumcision to baptism as God's sign of entering the covenant.


----------



## Wannabee (Dec 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Jochaim Jeremias' work against Arand is great - _The Origins of Infant Baptism_.
> 
> It explains the intricacies of Jewish "householdisms" and how the NT writer, Luke, perceived this. Jeremias is thorough and it is a very well done book actually.


I haven't read his work, but found this quote interesting in light of the current thread.


> " Paul appears in 1 Corinthians 7:14 c to know nothing at all of the baptism of children born to Christian parents . "
> 
> _Die Kindertaufe in den ersten vier Jahrhunderten_ by Joachim Jeremias, page 54


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 20, 2004)

Joe,
Can you present a little more of the context.



[Edited on 12-20-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 20, 2004)

Scott has my copy of it. He'll have to check it if you don't have it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 21, 2004)

Acts 16:33, ASV 1901
And he ... was baptized, he and all his, immediately.

v.34
And he *{singular subject}* brought them up into his house, and [he] set food before them, and [he] rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God.

"having believed"=nominative singular masculine participle, agrees with 3X subject=_he_ as opposed to _they_, as if it might be governed by that last clause, in English, one Gk word (adverb): panoiki (var. -ei) (all+house)

Even if a Paedo-baptist cannot prove, by the strictest conventions, that this household baptism included anyone requiring further education in gospel truth, and lacking a true conversion, by the same rubric the Credo-baptist may not claim that ANYONE but the jailer himself accomplished anything that night. In other words, as it is inferential that this household potentially contained those too young to make profession (and yet were baptized), so it is inferential that anyone beside the jailer believed in Christ that night, whether one person or ten, whether old persons or youth, and was baptized upon profession. The text itself doesn't tell us that anyone beside the jailer believed (although I think it quite likely that there were others). It only says that everyone of *his* (ownership/authority language) without exception was baptized. 

Additional conclusions are based on one's theology of baptism. I argue that the more households we read about that are baptized (and we have 3-5), the less room one has to assume that none of them included infants and toddlers, or even older youth (or slaves!) who still needed instruction in the faith to profess Christ.

And of course, household baptisms aren't the main pillar of support for Paedo-baptism anyway. That theology goes right back to Abraham.


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat (Dec 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Acts 16:33, ASV 1901
> And he ... was baptized, he and all his, immediately.
> 
> ...



Excellent post. Well done, that hit the nail right on the head.


----------



## Ianterrell (Dec 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Acts 16:33, ASV 1901
> And he ... was baptized, he and all his, immediately.
> 
> ...



Wow.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Dec 22, 2004)

That was incredible. That insight from the Greek never hit me like that before. 

I don't mean to exaggerate my enthusiasm, but I found that greatly enlightening.


----------



## Wannabee (Dec 24, 2004)

Scott,
I apologize for not getting back to you on the context of the earlier quote. I'll have to get to the library to check it out, and won't be doing that for several days at best.



> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Acts 16:33, ASV 1901
> And he ... was baptized, he and all his, immediately.
> 
> ...


Your conclusion has a couple of snags. I think the main point is that this is not really conclusive. Obviously they all rejoiced, but it is possible for panoikei to be taken either with egalliasato or pepisteukos because, as Robertson says, "it is in an amphibolous position... coming between them"(Having a grammatical structure that allows of two interpretations; equivocal). I'll make no assertion because I simply do not know. I don't see that you can authoritatively claim this as an argument from either side of the debate. 



> The reading that separates PANOIKEI from either the ptc. or adverb is far too subtle. The narrative includes "all those in his house" in the preaching, "all his" in the sacrament of baptism, and at the very least the "whole house" in the either believing or rejoicing. To conceive that suddenly the action of one of these last two is meant to be exclusive to the jailer strikes me as quite unnatural to the depiction of things in the context.
> Pr. Tim rake
> Praise Lutheran Church
> Maryville, TN



Another consideration is that families do not rejoice when one of their members get saved, unless they too are saved. This simply is not the way of the world. To assert that the family rejoiced that the jailor believed in Jesus is quite an astounding claim, and not substantiated by the testimony of Scripture. 

Many translators will disagree with your conclusion as well; 
NKJV - and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.
NASB - having believed in God with ï»¿ï»¿his whole household.

Granted, these translators are probably making this decision based on their theology (I'm not familiar with the NKJV translators, but the NASB translators take the believer's baptism position). The ESV translates it, "And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God." However, the KJV translators, who adhered to infant baptism, translated this, "believing in God with all his house." Even the Geneva Bible of 1599 translated it, "and reioyced that he with all his houshold beleeued in God."



> And of course, household baptisms aren't the main pillar of support for Paedo-baptism anyway. That theology goes right back to Abraham.


Ummm, I'll just leave that alone for now.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 24, 2004)

Wanabee...


> I don't see that you can authoritatively claim this as an argument from either side of the debate.


Did I claim? Note what I said...


> Additional conclusions are based on one's theology of baptism.


If you read back the thread, "woogiewoogie" made the _first_ claim that this passage demonstrated believer's baptism. To quote myself again, "As it is inferential... so it is [also] inferential..."

My point is, in fact, that if one is going to apply the most stringent hermeneutical criteria against paedos, then by the same application of equally restrictive rules, the door is shut just as firmly against the credo's contention. If you allow a reasonable amount of freedom and sound judgment into your interpretation (paedo or credo), we won't necessarily agree, but then it is left up to the readers to evaluate the strength of the arguments.

As for versions, one reason I chose the 1901 ASV is because is gives a straightforward Greek rendering (and note where the commas are) that tries not to be tendentious or favoring to any, nor rearanged stylistically "for easy reading."

For what it's worth, the baptist Robertson is undoubtedly correct about the word position adding a degree of ambiguity--he was an outstanding Greek scholar, among the foremost ever. How much ambiguity is the question. One view has little, the other raises new questions, which, though their are no doubt acceptable answers, nevertheless demands a more justification, In my humble opinion.

As for others believing in his house, I think I made it clear that I thought that was highly likely, and the tenor of the passage seems to support that idea. But that is not the issue. The issue is, "What is being stated without controversy or ambiguity." The credo _inferences_ from this passage require just as much, if not more justification than the paedos.

The passage focuses entirely on the Jailer--this is indisputable. What does the interjected "panoike" modify? If it modifies the previous clause, "rejoiced greatly" (ordinary usage, straight-line reading), there are no exceptional grammatical or linguistic issues requiring resolution. If, however, it is made to modify the participle (having believed) one has then to explain the obvious anomaly between the person's designated. If that is what Luke meant to say (the possibility is there, I fully accept), yet there were _less ambiguous ways_ to say it.

In other words, the second view
"has got a lot more 'splainin' to do."

[Edited on 12-24-2004 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Wannabee (Dec 26, 2004)

Well said Bruce.

I apologize. I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

Blessings
Joe


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 26, 2004)

Joe,
Please do not forget to check for the location of that quote by Jeremias. I do want to reconcile that statement.

Thanks,
Hope you had a Merry Christmas Joe!

[Edited on 12-26-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------

