# Should An Unbelieving Spouse Be Baptized?



## NoutheticCounselor

I recently heard a Presbyterian say that the unbelieving wife is willing, she should be baptized since she is in the household of her believing husband. To my understanding, the person who said it is somewhat in the Federal Vision movement, but I do not know to what degree. 

Is that view common among Presbyterians or is it due to his Federal Vision tendencies?


----------



## bookslover

No unbelieving adult should be baptized. That's absurd.


----------



## Romans922

Question on this: Throughout Scripture we see households circumcised and baptized. One man believes and his whole household is baptized. We often use the argument the includes infants, so Christ asks a good question because doesn't the household include spouses?

To say it is absurd is somewhat absurd. It is a good question.


----------



## Edward

"IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized." WCF CHAPTER XXVIII

Q. 166. Unto whom is baptism to be administered?
A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized. WLC

He's rejected the Confessional standards. Don't rely on him for things Presbyterian.


----------



## Edward

Romans922 said:


> To say it is absurd is somewhat absurd. It is a good question.



What part of ' till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him' is ambiguous?


----------



## Romans922

What do the Scriptures say?


"Act 16:30 Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Act 16:31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." 
Act 16:32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 
Act 16:33 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."

Are we suggesting his family was baptized because of his faith? Absolutely. 
Are we suggesting his family had some infants/children in it? Absolutely for we often make that argument as Presbyterians.

Should we then suggest that the family does not include a spouse? That would seem absurd. I mean if we are being consistent. 


So again what I am saying is not for/against. I'm merely saying it is a good question to ask.


----------



## timfost

> 1 Cor. 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.



I don't have a good answer to the question, but the verse above is often used to support infant baptism. Interestingly, it places the unbelieving spouse under that same covenant, describing them as "sanctified."

My gut feeling is that the covenant applies to them and apart from repentance they will receive greater condemnation, but as an unbeliever (a noted difference from the description of the children in the passage) they should not be baptized.


----------



## arapahoepark

Romans922 said:


> What do the Scriptures say?
> 
> 
> "Act 16:30 Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Act 16:31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
> Act 16:32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
> Act 16:33 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."
> 
> Are we suggesting his family was baptized because of his faith? Absolutely.
> Are we suggesting his family had some infants/children in it? Absolutely for we often make that argument as Presbyterians.
> 
> Should we then suggest that the family does not include a spouse? That would seem absurd. I mean if we are being consistent.
> 
> 
> So again what I am saying is not for/against. I'm merely saying it is a good question to ask.



Take a closer look at verse 32.


----------



## Romans922

Guys, you don't need to defend your position to me. ALL I AM SAYING IS IT IS A GOOD QUESTION AND GOOD TO THINK THROUGH. And so I think it is absurd to call the question absurd. I'm done with the conversation.


----------



## timfost

Romans922 said:


> Guys, you don't need to defend your position to me. ALL I AM SAYING IS IT IS A GOOD QUESTION AND GOOD TO THINK THROUGH. And so I think it is absurd to call the question absurd. I'm done with the conversation.



I agree. It's a very fair question. The only absurd question is the one that wasn't asked.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

A few responses.

*1. In terms of the "willingness" of the spouse,* mentioned in the OP, I think with some degree of grace (judgment of charity) and also with prerequisite instruction, we _would_ and _should_ baptize such a spouse. Why? Because this person is *consenting* to becoming a Christian. In other words, the wife of the OP's description apparently doesn't want to be an _*unbeliever*_ any more.

As a pastor and elder, I want to have some confidence that this person is REALLY and intelligently consenting. This person is NOT an infant, nor a minor. This person IS capable of being outwardly called by the Word right this minute, and ought to be. So the willing consent that must be in view is not a sort of doltish, slavish obedience.

When we delay baptism for someone who is being led gently into the faith (as a child is), all because we are waiting for that "conversion moment" when believing "feels real" to the subject, we are NOT acting in accord with our (Presbyterian) theology. The door is opened, the spouses are holding hands, and the one is willingly accompanying the other into the faith. Only the first of the two is a step ahead, has slightly more knowledge, has more faith already. So? NEITHER of them are actually more than novices. But the eager one is encouraging the other, who is gaining an interest through an avenue opened by love-connection.

We make disciples by baptizing and teaching. Presbyterians don't have to wait until the soul has "wrestled" with God long enough, and had a definitive, describable experience. We typically spend a few hours in basic instruction with prospective members, the same as we do with covenant children coming to communicant membership. Why? Because we don't suppose that unless the conversion "moment" has happened already, the baptism is invalid.


*2. Richard's point has merit.* One problem or difficulty in addressing this matter has to do with the persistent presence of the modifier "UNBELIEVING" in the title and the description of the wife. The question is: What constitutes "belief?" I would say a spouse who says, "I believe none of this, but if you want me to be baptized, OK," is NOT a proper candidate for baptism. This willingness or consent is worthless.

But the person who says, "Yes, I am willing to be baptized with my spouse and our children, and I want to learn about this faith and what it means to know the Savior my spouse seems to know"--this person is coming through the door of discipleship! So baptize her (or him).

So there is _absurdity_ to baptizing a resistant nonbeliever, who might yet be "willing" to be baptized for reasons having nothing to do with the faith.


*3. I think Andrew's point is not at basic odds with mine.* I doubt that he would encourage a joyless spouse to be baptized with the rest.


*4. With respect to 1Cor.7:14. * The difference in the text between the description of the *unbelieving* (important word) husband or wife, and the covenant child is significant. It is the difference between a verb and an adjective. The experience of being sanctified by the believer is an effect of the Holy Spirit in one, and the union of the two humans. Instead of the power of OT uncleanness defiling the believer, the grace of God establishes control of the marriage union, and purifies it. The sanctity of the spouse is derivative, and is only "alive" (active) by virtue of the union.

However, in the case of the child, his sanctity (holiness) is considered a personal quality. It is dependent on nothing but his (permanent) relation to the believing parent. It is not _unalienable,_ it is a covenant status he could abandon. But his holiness is of a different kind than that of his non-believing parent.


*5. As far as the FederalVision goes:* the issue orthodox churches have with them has on this matter to do with their embrace of a quasi-sacerdotalism. Baptism, as they interpret it, does a work actually uniting a person to Christ existentially. It is a union that is "real" in both visible AND invisible (spiritual) senses; which spiritual reality can be LOST. Justification is bifurcated in Wrightian terms, and those who are ultimately justified are those who persevere. So some are pre-justified _in fact,_ who will still in the end be unjustified.

FV believes it is making the most of "covenant" (and way more than their detractors). What they do is _reject_ the internal/external distinctions of classic Covenant Theology. They oppose a "substance/administration" distinction. They accept the view that "signs" and "oaths," if they are not IDENTIFIED (1-to-1) with the things they signify, are therefore chargeable with a lie in the things themselves. For this reason, the FV is rightly perceived as leading their followers back to Medieval Christianity: the belief that sacraments invariably effect what they portray.

This is Rome's view of the sacraments. The Lutherans have a similar view; but they also erected barriers to prevent a slide back into Romanism. They were moving away from Rome. The FV is moving back the other direction, and yet they think it is possible to stop short of Rome's embrace. And for a variety of reasons they don't want to become Lutherans. They see themselves as running away from the Baptist view, and Zwinglianism.

The Baptist agrees with Rome that either the signs DO what they say (Rome is right), OR being signs they are utterly distinct from all spiritual effect (Baptist is right). A whole bunch of FV (probably the majority) are FORMER Baptists, which is to say they are formerly something other than Presbyterians or Reformed. This is the reason most FVers are also Paedo-communionists. They think in the same categories they did as Baptists, only they have "switched sides." They think the Reformed and Presbyterians are "inconsistent" in not communing children, since they baptize them.

*******************************

So, the position taken by the FV-leaning person in the OP is not something that can be put into a category of "FV" or "Presbyterian" without examining the basis for the position.


----------



## Pilgrim

So in a situation in which the spouse says "Yes, I am willing to be baptized with my spouse and our children, and I want to learn about this faith and what it means to know the Savior my spouse seems to know" he (or she) would be considered a non-communicant member? Based on this verbiage I am assuming this is someone who cannot in good faith affirmatively answer the 5 questions typically required for membership in conservative Presbyterian denominations. Otherwise there wouldn't be a question, would there?


----------



## Pilgrim

Contra_Mundum said:


> We typically spend a few hours in basic instruction with prospective members, the same as we do with covenant children coming to communicant membership.



One of the more frequent refrains of the paedocommunion advocates is that in many churches much more time is spent with covenant children prior to their public profession of faith than is spent with adult members joining the church. And I think this would especially be the case with those congregations that still have a strong emphasis on catechesis.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim said:


> So in a situation in which the spouse says "Yes, I am willing to be baptized with my spouse and our children, and I want to learn about this faith and what it means to know the Savior my spouse seems to know" he (or she) would be considered a non-communicant member? Based on this verbiage I am assuming this is someone who cannot affirmatively answer the 5 questions typically required for membership in conservative Presbyterian denominations. Otherwise there wouldn't be a question, would there?



As long as we're not trying to reduce every situation down to one convenient category, or two or three at most, we can probably agree that a person who speaks like this is probably not at this instant suitable for the Table of the Lord. How long will it be before she is? A day? An hour? A month? Give it the time required.

I would prefer to baptize an adult who is then and there prepared for communion. The Philippian Jailer--to say nothing of his wife and family--was catechized and baptized in one night. How much clarity was needful? How much learning, growing, and appreciation lay ahead of those guys? Lots. But they still baptized them.

I suppose the question would be more pressing if our custom was weekly communion (for most of us it is not the custom). As it is, it is more likely that, a space of several weeks being "built in" to our typical practice of communion, baptism could be arranged to happen sooner than the first Table opportunity.

But in any case, a basic comprehension of sin and salvation--enough so that intelligent promise/answers to membership questions can be expected--is not too hard for ordinary people with mature, functioning mental apparatus to achieve.


----------



## Edward

Contra_Mundum said:


> In terms of the "willingness" of the spouse, mentioned in the OP, I think with some degree of grace (judgment of charity) and also with prerequisite instruction, we would and should baptize such a spouse. Why? Because this person is consenting to becoming a Christian.



But is it a voluntary consent? How much pressure is the husband asserting on the wife. At the very least, the session should examine the wife outside of the presence of the husband. And if he has an issue with that, it's pretty good evidence that he, not she, is the one that wants this. 

I still submit that baptizing 'the unbelieving wife ' is contra-confessional.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim said:


> One of the more frequent refrains of the paedocommunion advocates is that in many churches much more time is spent with covenant children prior to their public profession of faith than is spent with adult members joining the church. And I think this would especially be the case with those congregations that still have a strong emphasis on catechesis.



We could do what the ancient church did (2nd-4th centuries), and make everyone go through a whole year of catechesis... Then baptize and commune them on the big Easterday festival.

Somewhere between two extremes of laxity and severity is the broad plain of pastoral sensitivity to particular needs. Frankly, I'm not that interested in the PC crowd's analysis and complaints. First, they should do what Lewis and Chesterton advised: and learn the real reasons for the existence of the things they find inconvenient; before undertaking their renovations.

Apparently, the OT church in Jesus' day thought 13yrs was about the right time for little boys to start attending and partaking of Passover with Dad.

PC advocates typically approach the whole matter of the Supper with a superabundance of preconceptions that no amount of hard Scriptural data can overturn. Any text can be read with a tendential slant, or dismissed as "irrelevant," before causing cracks to appear in their theory. They haven't built a theology of Communion out of the Bible from the ground up; but have a firm conviction that informs their reading of "relevant" texts.

It is reasonable to set one standard for a covenant child, and an analogous (different) one for a spontaneous convert. Let us hear the reason, and evaluate it. In the case of our congregation, we happen to use (since before my time) the same booklet for new communicants and new members. So we happen to be closer to "consistency" as some are apparently interested in counting it. Big deal. I could change our practice tomorrow, and this accusation wouldn't bother me in the least. It's worthless.

Oh, and one other thing for the PC crowd. EVERYONE present participates in our communion service. EVERYONE, at some level. They (PCers) can only think in "flattened" terms, no nuance. My own children (none of whom are communicants) ALL participate in communion. And by the time one or more are ready to participate by _*manducation*_ (bread in the mouth), they will long since have been eating and drinking the same blessings by faith: Christ in the heart.

We don't get a _different Christ_ in the Supper than we get in the other means of grace. But sometimes, we get him _*better*_.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Edward said:


> But is it a voluntary consent? How much pressure is the husband asserting on the wife.


Now you're introducing a slew of possibilities that offer gum to the works. I'd just ask that you take my comments together as a whole. I addressed the matter of _bona fide_ voluntariness, saying that's what a good session is looking for. I'm fine commending you for cautiousness. But I think we should "put cautions" on a basic attitude toward welcoming those who are good candidates for progress.

As for "pressure," we have to deal with pressure in other ways too. Pressure on a covenant child to attend classes and say the "right" answers. Pressure to conform. There can be no visible pressures at all, and good answers given by adults and children. So we may often be admitting people who seem free as can be, but who are untruthful.


I was/am not happy with the language "unbelieving wife" in the OP, in part because the description clouds the issue, and prevents a fuller discussion. I also added this language (underlined below) to my reply right after the part you quoted:


Contra_Mundum said:


> ...this person is consenting to becoming a Christian. In other words, the wife of the OP's description apparently doesn't want to be an *unbeliever *any more.


----------



## bookslover

Pilgrim said:


> "Yes, I am willing to be baptized with my spouse and our children, and I want to learn about this faith and what it means to know the Savior my spouse seems to know"



That sounds as if he or she wants to be baptized out of curiosity - be baptized and _then_ learn about the faith. That doesn't sound like a ringing profession of faith to me.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

bookslover said:


> That sounds as if he or she wants to be baptized out of curiosity - be baptized and then learn about the faith. That doesn't sound like a ringing profession of faith to me.



Mt.28:19-20; baptism is mentioned first, then teaching; just sayin'...

If you read all I wrote, and think that it's an endorsement of casual (mildly curious) baptism, then please reread. "Willing" and "want" in my sentence are evidence of disposition (the real issue), not dilettantism.

It is a session's job to evaluate candidates for baptism. They also must judge of the action in its wider context. How easy things would be if all elders had to do was rubber-stamp a preapproved page with sufficient number of the right boxes checked.

If a "ringing profession of faith," however that might be defined, is the bar set by that session over there--then that's what prospective members will need to present.

If this session over here is willing to lower the bar slightly, to admit a man (or woman) who is weak in faith--but has true faith, so far as they can judge it--and is willing to supply all the necessary shepherding; I think they do no one wrong, nor the church.


----------



## Edward

Contra_Mundum said:


> In other words, the wife of the OP's description apparently doesn't want to be an unbeliever any more.



And I can't see where you are getting that from the facts we've been given. Either she's been regenerated, or she hasn't. Her wants have nothing to do with it. And either she's able to profess Christ, or she isn't. And if she isn't a believer, she isn't able to make a profession, and under the Standards, she shouldn't be baptized.



Contra_Mundum said:


> It is a session's job to evaluate candidates for baptism. They also must judge of the action in its wider context. How easy things would be if all elders had to do was rubber-stamp a preapproved page with sufficient number of the right boxes checked.



Making a profession of faith is a box that should be checked. And if they are baptizing admitted non-believing adults, they are in error. Let her wait until she is able to take her membership vows.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Edward said:


> I can't see where you are getting that from the facts we've been given.


There is ambiguity in the OP's own description. All of us are coping with it.

Some have decided that "unbelieving wife" is an unambiguous description, and in fact this person is profoundly ignorant of the faith, uninterested in the faith, perhaps even opposed to the faith. In short, this is a cartoon figure. All the more cartoonish, because she's "willing" to be baptized. What exactly is her relationship with the husband like, under such notions? Is the husband equally cartoonish? What about the cartoon pastor who apparently functions like a mindless baptismal machine?

Well, I understand "unbelieving" to be a somewhat vague descriptor in this context. Ignorance may be more or less profound; it may even be non-hostile. So the wife of the OP isn't automatically an open enemy of the gospel, or even properly speaking a "neutral," on account of her relationship to a professing believer. She could be the wife of the Philippian Jailer. To my read, the fact she is "willing" to be baptized opens up the possibility of an immediate and huge qualification to her "unbelieving" condition. Ignorance/unbelief is the "initial" condition, which in the context of preparation for baptism is remedied.

I accept that the woman's description didn't strike everyone the same way. Perhaps "unbelieving wife" is being thought of in 1Cor.7 terms? But baptism isn't mentioned in 1Cor.7 (as some Baptists like to point out); any appeal to that text in regard to this matter is rather extrapolated. It never occurred to me to read the OP description of the wife through a 1Cor.7 lens. Calvin pointed out that we are all partly unbelievers our whole lives. Leaving unbelief is, in some sense, a lifelong effort. I'm intentionally *softening* the OP's description of the wife, using her stated "willingness" to submit to baptism, which in our churches is the same thing as willingness to be discipled.

To which I should add, that we make instruction about baptism part and parcel of our practice. So that it is entered into by responsible parties (like this wife) with knowledge. Of course she needs to affirm the questions put to her.




Edward said:


> Either she's been regenerated, or she hasn't. Her wants have nothing to do with it.


This, to me, is telling. Sounds like you may be advocating baptism on the basis of regeneration (for adults). Are you? Do we baptize infants on the basis of _presumptive_ regeneration? Let's leave "regeneration" entirely out of the discussion. Do children ever "want" to know more of the truth, to leave ignorance behind, and grow into grace and away from unbelief? "Want" or "will" are a part of the discussion, right from the OP.

I do believe that we should baptize adults on profession of faith. Some are not capable of being outwardly called by the Word, and as children of a sort this requirement is rightly set aside for them. I think this wife from the OP should have some profession of faith, however slight, when she's baptized. I have all along supported that contention. I'm trying to draw a real-world picture of a wife in this situation; and not rely on a caricature.

We live in a fairly well-educated society. Wives in our contexts are typically more than capable of forming sound judgments on par with male counterparts. The stronger in mind she is, the less likely I suppose she would _in unbelief_ go along with a casual baptism. The more "mousy" she is, the less I'm inclined to think of her described unbelief in willful, hostile terms.

Not every situation is like our ideal, not even in modern America. Some spouses can be very naive. I think we should at times be generous with what we accept as a credible profession. THAT is the pastoral judgment I've been championing here.


----------



## Edward

Contra_Mundum said:


> There is ambiguity in the OP's own description.


Our point of departure is a bit deeper. I don't see any ambiguity in 'unbeliever'. 

Why would an unbeliever wish to be baptized unless they, at some level, believe in baptismal regeneration? Social acceptance? 

The Standards say what they say. As I read them, they call for baptism of an adult after profession of faith. See Question 166 which I quoted early in the thread. And as I was taught, regeneration precedes saving faith. So the order would be regeneration - faith - baptism. So lets NOT leave regeneration out of the discussion. 

I usually find your presentations succinct and on point. But here, you seem to be leaning more toward charity and pastoral concern than toward an objective standard. 

Since we should all agree that concepts of baptismal regeneration are wrong, what is the harm in waiting until she can make a sincere profession of her faith to the session?


----------



## Ryan J. Ross

In addition to profession, do you know what else precedes baptism? Repentance (Acts 2:38) and belief (Acts 8:12; Mark 16:16). There are no federal (I'm making a semantical distinction, given the historical use of "federal") baptisms, only covenantal ones. I think this is why spouses may be excluded. They are not in the covenant or true members of the church invisible, if unbelieving, based on their husband. Nor would an unmarried 30yo virgin be baptized on the basis of her father. Baptism is not based on a principle of male headship.


----------



## MW

Edward said:


> Since we should all agree that concepts of baptismal regeneration are wrong, what is the harm in waiting until she can make a sincere profession of her faith to the session?



It is not a matter of baptismal regeneration, but of family religion. In a disjointed society, which stresses that it is every individual for himself, a member of the family with a different religion might be an easier matter to handle, especially where religion itself is regarded as nothing more than a supplement to other agendas and activities. But in a society where more emphasis is placed upon collective action, and religion is the integrated and ruling principle of life, major problems will arise where one member follows her own religion.

As females have the right to vote, and as the church must respect those things which are common to human society, it seems prudent and orderly to require an individual profession of faith. But we should realise that this practice of individual female rights is a fairly modern western development, and our reason for doing it is cultural. In other times and places women would have followed the religion of the husband. This is what gave rise to the problems discussed in First Corinthians chapter seven.


----------



## Edward

MW said:


> But we should realise that this practice of individual female rights is a fairly modern western development, and our reason for doing it is cultural. In other times and places women would have followed the religion of the husband. This is what gave rise to the problems discussed in First Corinthians chapter seven.



So the WCF and WLC should be read in the light of that social construct? Treating women as infants would seem to be contrary to the clear statement that the child of a believing mother can be baptized. Wouldn't the logical conclusion to saying that the non-believing wife of a believing husband could be baptized be to also say that only the child of a believing male can be baptized, and leave out the fatherless children of a single, believing, mother?


----------



## MW

Edward said:


> So the WCF and WLC should be read in the light of that social construct? Treating women as infants would seem to be contrary to the clear statement that the child of a believing mother can be baptized. Wouldn't the logical conclusion to saying that the non-believing wife of a believing husband could be baptized be to also say that only the child of a believing male can be baptized, and leave out the fatherless children of a single, believing, mother?



There are a number of assumptions in these questions which need to be examined. The Confession and Catechisms are only speaking in light of the controversy with the Anabaptists. While other principles might be inferred from these statements in the light of other issues, the statements themselves are only related to the privileges of infants born in the church.

As for logical conclusions, the rules of logic need to be followed, so that exclusive conclusions can only be drawn from exclusive premises. Lydia's example, acknowledged to be a case of household baptism from the paedobaptist view, indicates male headship is not an exclusive rule. As with Gentile inclusion, this would be a case where the New Testament manifests itself as a broader economy of grace.

Women are not "under" men the way they have been in other times and places. It is a tribute to the grace of Jesus Christ that the means of grace are able to minister effectively in the changing circumstances of life in a fallen world.


----------



## NoutheticCounselor

Thank you. This has been an interesting discussion. To clarify, the unbelieving spouse in my question would be willing to be baptized to make her husband happy, and not because she has any real interest or desire to become a believer.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

NoutheticCounselor said:


> To clarify, the unbelieving spouse in my question would be willing to be baptized to make her husband happy, and not because she has any real interest or desire to become a believer.


With that stipulation, and in our context where we have specific questions being put to this wife, she could not honestly answer them affirmatively thus swearing in truth.

Ergo, she should not be baptized. Her consent is fairly trivial.


----------



## MW

NoutheticCounselor said:


> Thank you. This has been an interesting discussion. To clarify, the unbelieving spouse in my question would be willing to be baptized to make her husband happy, and not because she has any real interest or desire to become a believer.



There is no reason why pleasing the husband and being a believer cannot co-exist. Just as children are able to honour their parents and honour the Lord in one and the same action, likewise wives are able to submit to their husbands and submit to the Lord in one and the same action. Since making the husband happy is important to the wife, and since the believing husband will desire his wife to have a real interest in the faith, the wife will really make him happy if she desires to be a believer.


----------



## R Harris

MW said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since we should all agree that concepts of baptismal regeneration are wrong, what is the harm in waiting until she can make a sincere profession of her faith to the session?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a matter of baptismal regeneration, but of family religion. In a disjointed society, which stresses that it is every individual for himself, a member of the family with a different religion might be an easier matter to handle, especially where religion itself is regarded as nothing more than a supplement to other agendas and activities. But in a society where more emphasis is placed upon collective action, and religion is the integrated and ruling principle of life, major problems will arise where one member follows her own religion.
> 
> As females have the right to vote, and as the church must respect those things which are common to human society, it seems prudent and orderly to require an individual profession of faith. But we should realise that this practice of individual female rights is a fairly modern western development, and our reason for doing it is cultural. In other times and places women would have followed the religion of the husband. This is what gave rise to the problems discussed in First Corinthians chapter seven.
Click to expand...


I think this is the real gist of things. People read Acts 16:30-34 and force modern culture upon it, when in no way that should be done. Today if a man went home to his pagan family and announced his profession of faith in Christ, the reaction might not be so positive. As an example, the teenager playing a video game would say "gee, dad, did you go and join some weird cult or something?" 

A very crucial key here, which paedobaptists gladly point to in support of the position, is that the Greek in verse 34 makes it abundantly clear that ONLY the jailer made the profession of faith - the other members of the household rejoiced with him, yet were still baptized, but only he made the profession. Even the late professor Paul Jewitt, in his credobaptistic book _Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace_, readily admits that only the jailer made a profession, noting that the participle phrase "having believed" is masculine singular and references the jailer.

Of course, Professor Jewitt attempts to get out of his pickle by saying "well, then how does the household rejoice with him?" Simple. The jailer almost killed himself, was miraculously rescued, and Paul and Silas explained everything to them. That and the jailer's profession would be adequate reasons for them to rejoice.

I too have struggled with the implications of the entire households being baptized. The WCF and Catechism explanations of this strangely neglect the fact the entire household of males received circumcision in the OT, yet there is zero evidence of their conversions (see Abraham's household in Genesis 17). So in the OT we have entire household circumcisions, and in the NT we have entire household baptisms.


----------



## Edward

R Harris said:


> I too have struggled with the implications of the entire households being baptized. The WCF and Catechism explanations of this strangely neglect the fact the entire household of males received circumcision in the OT, yet there is zero evidence of their conversions (see Abraham's household in Genesis 17). So in the OT we have entire household circumcisions, and in the NT we have entire household baptisms.



I'm not disposed to argue against the Standards on this point.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

R Harris said:


> entire household of males received circumcision in the OT, yet there is zero evidence of their conversions


Depends on what counts as evidence. Does Gen.24:12 carry any weight?

2Pet.2:7 indicates Lot was a believer. He left Abram in Gen.13. We can safely attribute his faith to the preaching of Abram, who took his father and Lot and many others out of Ur of the Chaldees, the man of God being supernaturally and directly called by grace out of a life and culture of idolatry, Josh.24:2. If Lot became a believer, then it stands to reason that God blessed the witness of his servant Abram, and in general those who followed him bodily also followed his faith.

Abram's, like the Philippian Jailer's, was a _believing house._ And in Abram's house, the little ones were marked as belonging to the faithful, who belonged to God.

I'm not sure what you wished the West.Stds. said. Do you wish they said something explicitly about this connection? In 28:4, _Of Baptism_, the prooftexts of the Confession and Catechisms of the OPC refer to Gen.17 among other texts. In 27:1&2, _Of the Sacraments,_ the same ch. is adduced among other texts. Q95 of the Shorter Cat. proves the correctness of infant baptism by appeal to Gen.17 among other texts. The Larger Cat. reflects the same procedure.

All that to mean: that unless you simply wish they had spoken in a distinctive way, the appeal to the Word as the basis for what they DO say depends (so far as the OPC is concerned) in no small part on Gen.17, and the command to apply the covenant sign to the whole house. I am quite sure the original West. divines felt something similar.


----------



## bookslover

NoutheticCounselor said:


> Thank you. This has been an interesting discussion. To clarify, the unbelieving spouse in my question would be willing to be baptized to make her husband happy, and not because she has any real interest or desire to become a believer.



Thus, justifying my answer in post #2.


----------

