Paedo-Baptism Answers Philippian Jailer: who believes?

Status
Not open for further replies.

De Jager

Puritan Board Sophomore
In the case of Lydia, there is absolutely no indication of a profession of faith by anyone other than Lydia herself. The text states that her household was baptized.

In the case of the Philippian jailer, there is some debate. From what I have read, it seems unclear whether the verb "pepisteukos" (having believed) in vs. 34 is referring to the jailer or the household. The verb is in the masculine singular - however I have seen reformed persons on both side. Is there a way of resolving this?

A second question is this: do you think there is any plausible way to argue that the account of the Philippian jailer gives an indication that there was a discrimination in the administration of baptism between those who confessed faith and those who didn't?

I look forward to your answers.

Izaak
 

RobertPGH1981

Puritan Board Sophomore
In the case of the Philippian jailer, there is some debate. From what I have read, it seems unclear whether the verb "pepisteukos" (having believed) in vs. 34 is referring to the jailer or the household. The verb is in the masculine singular - however I have seen reformed persons on both side. Is there a way of resolving this?

I have wrestled with this extensively over the past couple of years. If you want to collectively look at all Household Baptism mentions then you will notice most others include they believed. I think the number comes out to be 4 out of 5 or 3 out of 5. Using the logical deduction it would only force you to conclude they believed. But that takes these passages in isolation from the covenantal continuity that can be observed between testaments. Most credobaptist proponents wants to eliminate any discussion of the OT covenants. This is the crux of the issue in my opinion. Trying to provide Paedobaptist in solely the NT without the OLD results in reviewing only half the story. Its like reading the LOTR by starting with the Return of the King and ignoring THe Fellowship and Two Towers.

A second question is this: do you think there is any plausible way to argue that the account of the Philippian jailer gives an indication that there was a discrimination in the administration of baptism between those who confessed faith and those who didn't?

I think its best to look at everything collectively. Although why mention that a household was baptized in the first place? It doesn't seem to fit the Credo narrative even if all believed. If there were infants how could they believe, or is it more they assumed belief?
 

De Jager

Puritan Board Sophomore
I have wrestled with this extensively over the past couple of years. If you want to collectively look at all Household Baptism mentions then you will notice most others include they believed. I think the number comes out to be 4 out of 5 or 3 out of 5. Using the logical deduction it would only force you to conclude they believed. But that takes these passages in isolation from the covenantal continuity that can be observed between testaments. Most credobaptist proponents wants to eliminate any discussion of the OT covenants. This is the crux of the issue in my opinion. Trying to provide Paedobaptist in solely the NT without the OLD results in reviewing only half the story. Its like reading the LOTR by starting with the Return of the King and ignoring THe Fellowship and Two Towers.



I think its best to look at everything collectively. Although why mention that a household was baptized in the first place? It doesn't seem to fit the Credo narrative even if all believed. If there were infants how could they believe, or is it more they assumed belief?
Thanks. I agree that the continuity of the covenant is paramount. How I see it:

My position is that we should apply the sign of baptism just like that of circumcision unless the NT tells us differently. There is no explicit command "do not baptize the children", also there is no explicit example of the children being excluded. The only thing we are left with is a "good and necessary consequence" as a possibility. To me, the only place where we could possibly see that is in the household baptisms. Hence the thrust of my question, whether it is at all possible to reason from the text that there was a discrimination in the text which might enlighten us as to who exactly believed, and who exactly was baptized.
 

RobertPGH1981

Puritan Board Sophomore
The household baptism offers no definitive information either way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top