Non-elect infants in the CoG - Christ as mediator
- Thread starter daveb
- Start date
- Status
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
Well, I do actually know that the W.C.F. is not a Baptist document. 
However LC. Q.31 is there, like the proverbial pork pie at a Bar Mitzvah, and I note that you haven't managed to reconcile it with the extract that you quoted.
Moreover, that point was a very minor one in the argument I presented.
Do you have nothing to say on the rest of it?
Grace & Peace,
Martin
However LC. Q.31 is there, like the proverbial pork pie at a Bar Mitzvah, and I note that you haven't managed to reconcile it with the extract that you quoted.
Moreover, that point was a very minor one in the argument I presented.
Do you have nothing to say on the rest of it?
Grace & Peace,
Martin
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Well, I do actually know that the W.C.F. is not a Baptist document.
That's because it is based on Scripture.
There is nothing to reconcile. Q. 31 of the WLC states a truth that does not contradict the WCF in any way. Q. 31 was penned by men who unanimously agreed on the inclusion of infants in the covenant of grace, so your assertion that Q. 31 says otherwise is nonsense.
Q. 31 correctly says that the covenant of grace was made with the elect. I don't know of any Presbyterian who would disagree. However, was that covenant made only with the elect, or are others also included? Q. 31 is silent on this question. But thankfully, chapter 28 of the WCF answers it.
As for your way of dealing with Genesis 17, I am debating whether to bother responding. You openly admit that you won't accept the text as it stands regarding infant inclusion in the covenant & the spiritual nature of the covenant, you reject the clear teaching of the passage that Ishmael is a covenant member, and you import numerous fallacious baptistic presuppositions into the discussion, in order to try to force the text into your baptistic box.
If you are determined to start with your baptistic presuppositions, rather than simply with the text that is before you, I don't know how productive discussion is going to be. After all, if your presuppositions are baptistic, then your conclusions will necessarily lead to credobaptism, regardless of what Scripture says.
[Edited on 9-15-2005 by biblelighthouse]
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Oh well, I tried.
Joseph I read your article. Very eye opening and noble to take that approach.
Joseph I read your article. Very eye opening and noble to take that approach.
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
I'm sorry, but I just can't stand to let this one go . . .
You said, "The true Israelite, the child of the promise . . . needs no physical circumcision . . ."
That comment is such nonsense that I can't stand to let it pass without comment.
Just read Ezekiel 44:9. God required (and still requires) the outward sign, as well as the inward sign.
In the OT, the outward sign was circumcision, and in the NT, the outward sign is water baptism.
The true Israelite in the OT most certainly needed physical circumcision. Without it, he would have been rejecting God, and would have been rejected by God.
The true Israelite in the NT doesn't need physical circumcision, because he has a different covenant sign that points to the same reality of heart circumcision. That different sign is water baptism.
In Colossians 2:11-12, Paul cannot be putting down OT circumcision. To do that would be to contradict God Himself. Rather, Paul puts down the NT continuation of circumcision, since there is to be no more spilling of blood since Christ's death and resurrection, and since NT water baptism has now fully replaced circumcision.
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Larry Hughes
Oh well, I tried.
Joseph I read your article. Very eye opening and noble to take that approach.
Thank you, Larry!
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
Well, if you think that Chapter XXX (not XXVIII as you stated) of the WCF is compatible with LCF. 31, then you are very easily satisfied. If you have no response to my post, in which I dealt with Gen 17 as requested, then doubtless you are well advised to keep silent (Prov 17:28 ). However, perhaps you would like to look at the text below, especially vs 18-21, and tell me how you work out that Ishmael and Isaac are in the same covenant, especially in the light of Gal 4:21ff.
Gen 17:17-23
The Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, "Shall a child be born to a man who is 100 years old? And shall Sarah, who is 90 years old bear a child?" And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!" Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time next year."
Then He finished talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.
So Abraham took Ishmael his son, all who were bought in his house with money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very same day, as God had commanded him.
However, if you are determined to start with your paedo-baptistic presuppositions, rather than simply with the text that is before you, I don't know how productive discussion is going to be. After all, if your presuppositions are paedo-baptistic, then your conclusions will necessarily lead to paedo-baptism.
Grace & Peace,
Martin
[Edited on 9-15-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
[Edited on 9-15-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
Gen 17:17-23
The Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, "Shall a child be born to a man who is 100 years old? And shall Sarah, who is 90 years old bear a child?" And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!" Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time next year."
Then He finished talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.
So Abraham took Ishmael his son, all who were bought in his house with money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very same day, as God had commanded him.
However, if you are determined to start with your paedo-baptistic presuppositions, rather than simply with the text that is before you, I don't know how productive discussion is going to be. After all, if your presuppositions are paedo-baptistic, then your conclusions will necessarily lead to paedo-baptism.
Grace & Peace,
Martin
[Edited on 9-15-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
[Edited on 9-15-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Martin,
Suppose you make this statement:
"American women are brilliant!"
Does it therefore follow that American men are stupid?
Or, does it follow that British women are dumb?
of course not!!!
Talking about group "A" without mentioning group "B" is NOT equivalent to saying something negative about group "B". If I say that you are a good preacher, and don't mention anyone else, is does not therefore follow that all other preachers are "not good".
You are consistently making the same simple error in every case:
Just because God established his covenant with Isaac, doesn't mean that Ishmael was excluded.
Just because Q.31 of the WLC mentions the elect, doesn't mean that all others are excluded.
Just because faith-confessors are explicitly said to be baptized in Acts 2, doesn't mean that infants were left out.
etc., etc., etc.
In every case, you are taking pure silence, and then reading your baptistic presuppositions into it. But God never said Ishmael was a non-covenant-member, Q.31 of the WCF does not say that the non-elect are always non-covenant-members, and Acts 2 does not say that infants weren't baptized.
Please quit playing fast and loose with silent texts. You assume that silence proves far too much.
Suppose you make this statement:
"American women are brilliant!"
Does it therefore follow that American men are stupid?
Or, does it follow that British women are dumb?
of course not!!!
Talking about group "A" without mentioning group "B" is NOT equivalent to saying something negative about group "B". If I say that you are a good preacher, and don't mention anyone else, is does not therefore follow that all other preachers are "not good".
You are consistently making the same simple error in every case:
Just because God established his covenant with Isaac, doesn't mean that Ishmael was excluded.
Just because Q.31 of the WLC mentions the elect, doesn't mean that all others are excluded.
Just because faith-confessors are explicitly said to be baptized in Acts 2, doesn't mean that infants were left out.
etc., etc., etc.
In every case, you are taking pure silence, and then reading your baptistic presuppositions into it. But God never said Ishmael was a non-covenant-member, Q.31 of the WCF does not say that the non-elect are always non-covenant-members, and Acts 2 does not say that infants weren't baptized.
Please quit playing fast and loose with silent texts. You assume that silence proves far too much.
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
Joseph, if I say, "American women are brilliant", it does not entitle you to make any assumptions about American men or British women, save that, if I thought that they too were brilliant, I would have said, "Americans are brilliant," or "women are brilliant" which I did not say. Therefore you may reasonably deduce that I do not think American men and/or British women are brilliant, though it would be wrong to suppose that I therefore think they are 'dumb.'
So when the Larger Catechism says:-
I make the reasonable assumption that if the divines had thought that the C of G was made with anybody else, they would have said so. Since they asked themselves a straight and simple question, they had a duty to tell the whole truth by way of answer. If they wilfully kept back important knowledge from the catechumens, then they have sinned grievously.
Moreover, I say that if a Covenant of Grace were made with the vessels of wrath, prepared for destruction, then grace is no more grace.
You continue:-
Oh yes it does! First of all, you are ignoring the Regulative Principle of Scripture, established by the very reformers you claim to be following. Secondly, God specifically says that Ishmael is excluded. 'And Abraham said, "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!" Then God said, "No!"
How much clearer do you need it?
Wrong again. Luke tells us exactly who were baptized. Those who 'gladly received his words.' If another bunch of people were baptized as well, he would have told us. Anyway, how did these mythical infants 'continue steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and in prayers'(v42 ). Did the apostles allow infants to take the Lord's Supper?
Come on, Joseph! Please think about these things. Your presuppositions are leading you into a cul-de-sac.
Martin
[Edited on 9-15-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Joseph,
What he conveniently calls presuppositions are in fact reading forward from the whole council of God. When in fact it is just as easy to call the individualistic rendering of "Those who 'gladly received his words.'" as infant exclusive a presup & even rationalistic at that because it rests in the same text itself. Esp. in light of the OT. As a matter of fact the way it has been tossed out would qualify it as ad hom. & as such can be flung right back.
It is the same rationalization that goes to "going down into the water & then back up again as immersion support. I'm a geologist & a hydrogeologist at that. I've written class papers in which me and a team where out gathering stream measurement data. (tue event) I took the measurements while Glenn & James stayed on the bank recording the data I shouted from in the stream (standing mind you not immersed). We reported that we "went down into the stream" since physics & experience proves yhat water flows down hill/grad. Then we came up from the stream to gather other data. Now a listener could rationalize this to the piont of absurdity & ask, "why did you immerse yourselves in the water". Of course that would merely get a laugh from the crowd.
Also, to clarify it is illogical to argue from what is to what is not. That alone is a problem.
His whole paradigm renders every text in Acts individualistic & while to be fair our paradigm reads the same covenantally. He will rationalize "household" away as individual to support the paradigm and we would render it based upon the OT as the same - covenantal paradigm.
L
What he conveniently calls presuppositions are in fact reading forward from the whole council of God. When in fact it is just as easy to call the individualistic rendering of "Those who 'gladly received his words.'" as infant exclusive a presup & even rationalistic at that because it rests in the same text itself. Esp. in light of the OT. As a matter of fact the way it has been tossed out would qualify it as ad hom. & as such can be flung right back.
It is the same rationalization that goes to "going down into the water & then back up again as immersion support. I'm a geologist & a hydrogeologist at that. I've written class papers in which me and a team where out gathering stream measurement data. (tue event) I took the measurements while Glenn & James stayed on the bank recording the data I shouted from in the stream (standing mind you not immersed). We reported that we "went down into the stream" since physics & experience proves yhat water flows down hill/grad. Then we came up from the stream to gather other data. Now a listener could rationalize this to the piont of absurdity & ask, "why did you immerse yourselves in the water". Of course that would merely get a laugh from the crowd.
Also, to clarify it is illogical to argue from what is to what is not. That alone is a problem.
His whole paradigm renders every text in Acts individualistic & while to be fair our paradigm reads the same covenantally. He will rationalize "household" away as individual to support the paradigm and we would render it based upon the OT as the same - covenantal paradigm.
L
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Amen, Larry!
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Martin,
This is complete nonsense. I believe you are missing out on one of the simplest rules of logic.
The foundational statement of your post is illogical. Thus, the rest of your post is moot, as well.
It is very common in the Bible, in literature, and in everyday speech to make a statement about one group while omitting the other group, without implying anything negative whatsoever about the group that is left out.
You are wrong to disagree with this. Therefore, the rest of the assumptions made in your post are wrong as well.
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Just to show how ubiquitous this simple logic is, I will demonstrate my case by pointing out a saying used by Jif peanut butter:
So, what can we deduce from the statement that "choosy moms choose Jif"?
Should we conclude that choosy dads do not choose Jif?
Should we assume that choosy women who are not parents do not choose Jif?
Should we deduce that choosy moms don't choose any other kind of food than Jif peanut butter?
Give me a break, Martin. Speaking about group "A" while omitting group "B" proves NOTHING about group "B". --- You assume that silence proves far too much.
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
Oh boy! This is hard work!
Joseph, look at what the Scripture says,
Every word of God is pure........Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar (Prov 30:5-6 ).
How you interpret an advertizement is up to you. It is a matter of no importance. But when you read, 'Choosy mums choose Jif', it is a statement solely about choosy mums. Dads, choosy or otherwise, may also choose Jif, but you may not reasonably deduce that from the statement. It was open to the advertizers to say, 'Choosy parents choose Jif', but they didn't. However, it doesn't actually matter a hoot because no one believes what advertizers say anyway.
As for the WCF, though doubtless more important than an ad, it is man's word and not God's and I suppose you can interpret it how you like. I, however, would sooner discuss what is in the text than what isn't.
When you come to the word of God, things become infinitely more important. That is why the Reformers put forward the Regulative Principle. The general rule on this is that we must have positive Biblical warrant for what is done in the Church of God. Listen to John Hooper, who deserves to be heard since he gave his life for the Reformation in England.
Now it is superfluous to note that their is no command to baptize infants in the word of God. But when you, Joseph, take Acts 2:41, which tells us who was baptized on the day of Pentecost, ignore the qualification in v42, and add the words, 'and their infant children' in your own mind, then you are both adding to and taking away from the word of God. Think about it, Joseph, and meditate on Rev 22:18-19 while you're at it.
Martin
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Martin, I was arguing from the lesser to the greater . . . if even a layman writing a silly advertisement understands that silence proves nothing, then so should a respectable preacher with decades of experience.
However, it is not at all difficult to demonstrate the same truth from Scripture itself, from creeds, from confessions, from scientific writings, from literature, etc. In other words, you are missing out on a point of logic that is ubiquitous.
And yet, ironically, you are the one quibbling over what isn't in the text of WLC Q.31! And then when I demonstrate that the truth is more fully expounded in the WCF, in chapter 28, you dismiss the evidence and have the audacity to suggest that the Westminster divines were blatantly contradicting themselves!
If your logic is true, then by your own admission, you engage in sin any time you permit a woman to partake of the Lord's Supper, because there is no command to give communion to women in the Word of God.
Again, as I have already pointed out regarding the Lord's Supper, Scripture itself does not explicitly tell us to give it to women, and yet witholding it from them would break the regulative principle, rather than keep it.
I do not add to the Word of God; neither do it take away from it. I endeavor to study the whole council of Scripture. And when I do so, I clearly see covenant baptism, not individualistic baptism. When you read Deut. 30:6 and mentally remove "and your descendants", you take away from the Word of God. When you ignore the plain statement in Luke 18:15-17 that the kingdom of God belongs to infants, you take away from the Word of God. When you see that children were included in the church from Abraham until Christ, and that there is no Scriptural statement removing them from the Church, you break the regulative principle by removing them yourself.
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
Joseph wrote:-
1. Is it correct, therefore, that you think it is in order to add the words 'and their children' to the text of Acts 2:41? Yes or no.
2. I had the question about the Lord's Supper when I first came on this board. Why are people so obsessed with it? I answered it then. If you want me to answer it again, I am perfectly happy to do so, but please start another thread. This is the Baptism forum, not the Lord's Supper forum.
Well, answer my first question above then.
I too see covenant baptism, just not your sort. If I mentally removed those words from Deut 30:6, I would indeed be taking away from the word of God. But I don't do that. Why don't you start a new thread on Deut 30:6 instead of ducking the issue here.
I do not do so. I exegete it correctly and do not insert baptism when it is not even remotely mentioned. Why don't you start a thread on that instead of throwing out red herrings on this thread?
Again, why don't you start a thread on that as well, and stick to the point here instead of constantly running for cover?
I spent a long time at your request dealing with the texts you quoted in Gen 17. You have never dealt with my post, but instead have brought up one red herring after another. I don't know if there are any unbiased people reading these exchanges, but I hope they draw the logical conclusions.
1. Is it correct, therefore, that you think it is in order to add the words 'and their children' to the text of Acts 2:41? Yes or no.
2. I had the question about the Lord's Supper when I first came on this board. Why are people so obsessed with it? I answered it then. If you want me to answer it again, I am perfectly happy to do so, but please start another thread. This is the Baptism forum, not the Lord's Supper forum.
Well, answer my first question above then.
I too see covenant baptism, just not your sort. If I mentally removed those words from Deut 30:6, I would indeed be taking away from the word of God. But I don't do that. Why don't you start a new thread on Deut 30:6 instead of ducking the issue here.
I do not do so. I exegete it correctly and do not insert baptism when it is not even remotely mentioned. Why don't you start a thread on that instead of throwing out red herrings on this thread?
Acts 7:38 is the only place in Scripture where the Israelites are described as an ekklesia: 'The congregation in the wilderness'. Interestingly, the time descibed there was the only time when Israelite infants were not circumcised (Josh 5:5 ).
Again, why don't you start a thread on that as well, and stick to the point here instead of constantly running for cover?I spent a long time at your request dealing with the texts you quoted in Gen 17. You have never dealt with my post, but instead have brought up one red herring after another. I don't know if there are any unbiased people reading these exchanges, but I hope they draw the logical conclusions.
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Exellent point. They were not circumcised because they had just been baptized (1 Cor. 10:2).
I hope they draw logical conclusions as well. I have introduced no red herrings. Rather, I have gone to great pains to show that you are both Biblically and logically way off base. But you just continuously dismiss my arguments out of hand.
You are the one who charged me with adding to Scripture. I simply responded by pointing out that you are doing the same thing by permitting women in the Lord's Supper. My point was that neither of us are adding to Scripture . . . rather, we just use good and necessary inferences based on Scripture. We both rightfully infer that women should partake of communion. Likewise, I rightfully infer that infants should partake of baptism.
But here is the root of my issue with you right now:
I would be happy to talk more with you regarding Genesis 17, Acts 2, etc. But your lack of understanding regarding elementary logic makes fruitful communication impossible. If I say that "American women are smart", it does NOT follow that American men are therefore dumb. Silence proves nothing. It is no different in Scripture. If the Bible says that believers were baptized, it does NOT follow that infants were not baptized. Silence proves nothing. You are the one adding to Scripture when you import your anti-covenantal presuppositions into the text.
[Edited on 9-16-2005 by biblelighthouse]
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
Proverbs 26:12.
Martin
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
Into whom were they baptized, Joseph?
Here is proof positive that you never read my posts! Go back and look at my post on this and actually see what it says. Better yet, here it is:-
Where do I say that anybody is dumb?
But then again, if you are an example of American manhood.........:bigsmile:
Martin
Paul,
Just to jump in on this conversation as well, Jesus commands us to give the sign to disciples, as you have noted. He has also told us that there are false disciples, as you have noted. Inevitably, the church will end up baptizing false disciples who are not elect; and so yes, when God commands us to baptize disciples, this will include the non-elect. As a Baptist, I have absolutly no problem with this. Indeed, I´ll join you in refuting an argument for believer´s baptism that does have a problem with it.
So, where does that leave me as a Baptist? It leaves me with a clear command to baptize disciples, and, yet still, the lack of a command to baptize non-disciples. . . .
I´ve already responded to this. It is not my hermeneutic.
In 1 Cor 5, Paul didn´t "œtotally flip Moses´ words on their heads." Again, we look at both the OT context AND the NT context so as to determine how the HT writer utilizes the OT passage in his quotation. We do this passage by passage, context by context.
What, then, is the context of 1 Cor. 5? Paul is commanding the local church to engage in the practice of church discipline. That is, to remove the unrepentant sinner from the fellowship of the church. He is calling for holiness amongst the church community.
In support of his call for church purity, he quotes several OT passages: "œREMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES." Each instance the quote appears in the OT, it does indeed refer to a command for Israel to remove sinful individuals from the covenant community. I´m happy to grant that, because that is the OT context. But where in 1 Cor. 5 does Paul draw the conclusion you draw? Where does Paul say anything about the New Covenant in 1 Cor 5? Where does Paul draw an analogy between expulsion from the old covenant and expulsion from the new coveant? His analogy goes, just as the wicked man was expelled from Israel, so also the wicked man is to be expelled from the local church. Indeed. Paul says, "œDo you not judge those who are within the church?" (1 Cor. 5:12). He is addressing the local church, not the New Covenant. There is nothing in 1 Cor. 5 that equates the local church with the New Covenant. This is something you have read into the text.
So, even here in 1 Cor. 5, Paul does indeed keep the context of the OT quote. He applies it analogously to the issue facing the church at Corinth. Just because he applies the principle found in the OT context to the local church doesn´t mean the OT context is "œflipped;" not at all. In fact, it would be your hermeneutic you apply to Heb. 10 that would create a train wreck of 1 Cor. 5. Let´s try taking the 180 degree opposite meaning of the OT context and apply it here in Paul´s exhortation. We would, then, NOT remove the wicked man from among ourselves. Obviously, this is not the case.
Again, since it´s an unargued assumption that Paul is referring to the "œvisable covenant" in 1 Cor. 5, you´re objection has no foundation. You would have to prove that local church = New Covenant for the objectoin to carry weight. 1 Cor. 5 doesn´t argue or assume such.
I hope this demonstrates just how much you are assuming when you approach these apostate passages. Your presumption that the New Covenant contains non-elect is absolutely foundational to your interpretation of apostate passages. However, when it comes time for you to argue that the New Covenant contains non-elect, you appeal to your interpretation of the apostate passages. The circularity at this point should be obvious.
If my argument for the author´s flow of thought it unintelligible, then demonstrate it. Quote me and point out the unintelligibility of the author´s flow of thought according to my exegesis. Is it unintelligible, or is it simply contrary to what you think it should mean?
As far as my original argument, is Christ the High Priest for each and every member of the New Covenant or not? If so, on your account of things, why didn´t Christ make an offering for each member of His covenant?
Martin,
I'm curious, in your opinion, who is considered part of a household?
Are infants included in a persons household or not?
Again it appears you are assuming there were no infants in any of these households, while many of us assume there were at least some infants in these households, and thus assume as part of those households they were also baptised.
1Cr 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought [us], saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide [there]. And she constrained us.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/choice/1127231393-7316.html
A-1 Noun Strong's Number: 3624 Greek: oikos
is translated "household" in Act 16:15; 1Cr 1:16; in the AV of 2Ti 4:19 (RV, "house"). See HOUSE, No. 1.
1) a house
a) an inhabited house, home
b) any building whatever
1) of a palace
2) the house of God, the tabernacle
c) any dwelling place
1) of the human body as the abode of demons that possess it
2) of tents, and huts, and later, of the nests, stalls, lairs, of animals
3) the place where one has fixed his residence, one's settled abode, domicile
2) the inmates of a house, all the persons forming one family, a household
a) the family of God, of the Christian Church, of the church of the Old and New Testaments
3) stock, family, descendants of one
For Synonyms see entry 5867
I'm curious, in your opinion, who is considered part of a household?
Are infants included in a persons household or not?
Again it appears you are assuming there were no infants in any of these households, while many of us assume there were at least some infants in these households, and thus assume as part of those households they were also baptised.
1Cr 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought [us], saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide [there]. And she constrained us.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/choice/1127231393-7316.html
A-1 Noun Strong's Number: 3624 Greek: oikos
is translated "household" in Act 16:15; 1Cr 1:16; in the AV of 2Ti 4:19 (RV, "house"). See HOUSE, No. 1.
1) a house
a) an inhabited house, home
b) any building whatever
1) of a palace
2) the house of God, the tabernacle
c) any dwelling place
1) of the human body as the abode of demons that possess it
2) of tents, and huts, and later, of the nests, stalls, lairs, of animals
3) the place where one has fixed his residence, one's settled abode, domicile
2) the inmates of a house, all the persons forming one family, a household
a) the family of God, of the Christian Church, of the church of the Old and New Testaments
3) stock, family, descendants of one
For Synonyms see entry 5867
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello Bobbi,
Thank you for listing all the possible meanings of oikos. It is important to note that it doesn't always have to mean 'household.' However, when we read:-
1Cor 1:16. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
There can be little doubt that it means Stephanas's household or family. Did Stephanas have any infant children? Was he even married? We don't know. What I do know is that there is no example of infant baptism or any instruction to baptize infants in the NT, so it would be very foolish to make the assumption that any infant children he might hypothetically have had would have been baptized. However, in the case of Stephanas, we are given additional information which is helpful to us:-
1Cor 16:15-16. 'I urge you, brethren- you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints- that you also submit to such, and to everyone who works and labours with us.'
Since it is unlikely that Stephanas's infant children had devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints, or that Paul would have urged the Corinthians to submit to babies, I think we may take it as read that Stephanas did not have infant children.
With regard to Lydia, there is no mention of her husband. "Come into my house" she says. I think we may assume that she was single or widowed, and in all events, she would have been most unlikely to cart babies all round 1st Century Greece as she pursued her trade. Her household probably consisted of a couple of house slaves who were by the river with her, heard Paul preach, and were converted and baptized with her.
In times of revival, it is not unusual for whole families of adults to be converted together, and to be baptized together in Baptist churches. My wife and I were converted at almost the same time and baptized together, so that on that day you could say that salvation had come to the Marprelate household. However, our small children were not converted and therefore not baptized.
Grace & Peace,
Martin
Thank you for listing all the possible meanings of oikos. It is important to note that it doesn't always have to mean 'household.' However, when we read:-
1Cor 1:16. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
There can be little doubt that it means Stephanas's household or family. Did Stephanas have any infant children? Was he even married? We don't know. What I do know is that there is no example of infant baptism or any instruction to baptize infants in the NT, so it would be very foolish to make the assumption that any infant children he might hypothetically have had would have been baptized. However, in the case of Stephanas, we are given additional information which is helpful to us:-
1Cor 16:15-16. 'I urge you, brethren- you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints- that you also submit to such, and to everyone who works and labours with us.'
Since it is unlikely that Stephanas's infant children had devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints, or that Paul would have urged the Corinthians to submit to babies, I think we may take it as read that Stephanas did not have infant children.
With regard to Lydia, there is no mention of her husband. "Come into my house" she says. I think we may assume that she was single or widowed, and in all events, she would have been most unlikely to cart babies all round 1st Century Greece as she pursued her trade. Her household probably consisted of a couple of house slaves who were by the river with her, heard Paul preach, and were converted and baptized with her.
In times of revival, it is not unusual for whole families of adults to be converted together, and to be baptized together in Baptist churches. My wife and I were converted at almost the same time and baptized together, so that on that day you could say that salvation had come to the Marprelate household. However, our small children were not converted and therefore not baptized.
Grace & Peace,
Martin
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Arguments from silence should be banned from this board.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
The whole Paedo-baptist case is an argument from silence, the oikos argument in particular. :bigsmile:Martin
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
You often suffer from delusions.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Martin
The whole debate (both sides) can be portrayed as an argument from silence.
Credo's argue that if God had wanted us to baptize the children of believers then He would have said exactly that.
Paedo's argue that God has revealed that the children of covenant members are to be admitted to the Covenant of Grace by the covenant sign and He has never said anything different, so we should continue to do the same.
So the argument is who can justify their argument from silence.
CT
- Status
