To what extent is the head his household responsible for the faith of the household?

[Solparvus]

Hey everyone!
I come from a Reformed (Paedobapist) background and have been defending that front against a growing number of friends from the same background who have become Baptist. Recently, however, the implications of my theology have hit home rather hard and I am considerably less convinced of my stance on this point. My questions relate to the understanding of infant baptism being carried over from circumcision in the OT. My current biggest concern is: To what extent is the head of a household responsible for the faith of the people within that household?
Is he responsible for all the people in his house (including adult children, adopted children and domestic workers) to the point where they will be baptised too? Or are only biological children who are still infants baptised? Why?
Is he primarily responsible for the teaching of those under him (Can the church/other believers teach them contrary to the head of that household)?
What are the implications of this on evangelism? Should one only evangelise heads of households? Can one evangelise children apart from their parents? What about young adults still in the same household?
I am really battling with these questions at the moment and would really appreciate some strong, scripturally based answers. I am not currently finding my previous reading (à Brakel, Three Forms of Unity, Zwingly, etc) strong enough to answer these questions without contradicting what I find in scripture, or not seeming to say anything at all on the subject.

Your views on the subject would be much apreciated.

Sister,

Maybe I can give you some thoughts that will help you.

First of all, I hold to absolutely no conception that I can having saving faith on behalf of my children. If they will be saved, they will be saved only by the grace of God, received by faith alone. I do not hold to any form of presumptive regeneration or baptismal regeneration, and I utterly detest both. It's by no means an implication of the doctrine, especially considering that Ishmael was circumcised and for a time a member of the church. Case closed at that.

For circumcision, the mistake that's made is saying that there needs to be an example of an infant being baptized. But that's not the principle. I think paedobaptist is a poor term when stating the doctrine positively. I prefer "Household Baptist." A Household Baptist doesn't baptize infants because he sees infants baptized in the New Testament, but he baptizes households because he sees households baptized in the New Testament. Following Abraham's pattern: as Abraham believed and then was circumcised, him and his household (males anyway), thus after his pattern a proselyte in the New Testament is baptized himself/herself, along with their household.

But a bigger issue... you are now at a theological crisis point, and this will impact your whole Christian life. So, I hope to speak somewhat to this intersection. My encouragement to you, especially if you have not been instructed much on baptism: Get alone with your Bible, pray much, examine all the passages on baptism, all the passages on the church, examine the passages on covenants, both Old and New, all the doctrines that are brought to bear on the subject, and become persuaded what is the true doctrine. And don't come to any conclusion hastily. Take time. Face the Scriptures, pray, analyze, read commentaries, challenge the ideas on both sides honestly, even like a devil's advocate until you are clearly against all substantial arguments in one camp or the other. I suggest this, because for myself and my wife it's had an extraordinary good impact. And I argue, an excellent one. At the least, in this process you will discover extraordinary riches in the Word, and I pray too a new level of communion with God.

Also, I encourage you not to start your study out with what you fear are the practical ramifications. As Jonathan Edwards says, "Christ is the best judge as to the tendency of his ordinances," and so our first duty is to ascertain what God has commanded, and trust that whatever we think of it, it is best. Otherwise, I would never be a Calvinist because people would presume on election. We are not sound judges until we know what the true practice is. As Christ says, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself" (Jn 7:17).

It's been said or implied here that the credobaptist position is plain enough and clear cut. It'll be said that you only need to examine the passage pertaining to baptism and you'll have your answer easily enough without having to dive into covenants et al. This argument sounds wonderful... until you examine it. I am a former Reformed Baptist, who at one period hated paedobaptist doctrine. Some on this board are former RBs as well. There are godly and serious Christians in my church too who are former Baptists as well, one of them a Reformed Baptist. Many men in history who were frightened to veer away from "thus sayeth the Lord" have held to this. Does that make the doctrine right in itself? No. But it should make one think twice about ascribing adherence to the doctrine as based on carnal motives, a willing ignorance, or determination to justify the practice at whatever cost.

The Baptists are wonderful and sincere people. The ones on this board are true treasures to the rest of us. They have some of the very best and most gifts preachers I think, and one Reformed Baptist name--Albert Martin--will be known in future ages for publishing the gold standard on pastoral theology. I will believe and trust (unless it is utterly clear otherwise) that they have done their homework and they are convinced from Scripture. There is something to learn from the fact that despite being a minority in the Reformed world they hold fast to what they believe the truth. May God grant me such a spirit! And such steadfastness is a spiritual grace which I believe God to reward, even if it's ended in a wrong conclusion.

Nevertheless, despite all the credobaptist arguments, I'm fully convinced. Others here who have gone from Baptist to Paedo will state the same. Ask questions here of credos and paedos, though I would think you want to do them in the "Credo Only" or "Paedo Only" forums. Otherwise, let's say, it gets interesting.

God bless you in your study.

EDIT: Biggest of all, get your pastor involved. He is appointed by Christ as a teacher.

 

[Amy Green]

I just want to thank everyone so much for the advice and answers.
I'm still not completely sure what to think, but at least I now know more of the places to look for the answers and have more of a plan to get out of the confusion.

It is a real blessing for me to know I have brothers and sisters in the Lord that are so willing to help. - thank you very much!

 

[a mere housewife]

Amy I scrolled through the thread to see if someone had addressed it and I can't see that it was addressed head on: so I wanted to add that the idea of the 'sovereign sphere of the family' over against the church is not really a paedobaptist view.

When Christ could say this:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me." Matthew 10:34-37​

and this (in context of not 'obeying' his family who were sending for him, rather than coming and listening to His word):

...they said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You.”
But He answered them, saying, “Who is My mother, or My brothers?” And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.” Mark 3:32-35​

-- it's very clear that the church and the mutual tie to Christ among its members is more important than the natural family. You spoke above about us being your 'brothers and sisters in Christ': the church is the family of God, His blood 'tie', of which the natural family is an image.

The church has a duty to teach and to hold accountable all its individual members, just as Jesus died for every individual one of them, and every individual one of them must repent of their sins and believe in Jesus (I say this as a paedobaptist).

As you think through this you may find yourself rightly jettisoning some ideas which you thought were 'paedobaptist' views but that really don't have much historical or theological relationship to paedobaptist views -- they've just been associated with those views in how we grew up, etc. That happened to me. But even in the verses above it's reassuringly clear that personally repenting and believing in Jesus, listening to His word, are far more important than having all these positions worked out. & on those basic things Credos and Paedos are wholly on the same page.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

In comparison to the above I also love this passage.


Mal 4:4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
Mal 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
Mal 4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

 

[a mere housewife]

I love that one too, Randy. I pray that for our world. The number of children aborted and in foster care or in abusive homes is too hard to think about. And the elderly who live alone and without much care are equally heartrending.

I don't think they contradict either (I don't think you do!). God's love and forgiveness in our hearts will be expressed toward others and that should begin and be steadfast in families. It should swallow up the sin that tends to have most impact on those closest to us. God cares about family units: He made them. But allegiance to Christ has often cut across those bonds, and when it does there is a deep comfort that the natural family is the image of God's, of the church.

What I was more particularly trying to emphasise is that the church has an obligation to share the news of Jesus with every creature, and to disciple every member. The father isn't some sort of unofficial unelected pastor or elder in the church over his own family. He's a member of the church, his wife is a member of the church, his children are members of the church. They are each creatures of God. They each need (and have equal right to) the gospel news, pastor and elder care and accountability.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The father isn't some sort of unofficial unelected pastor or elder in the church over his own family. He's a member of the church, his wife is a member of the church, his children are members of the church. They are each creatures of God. They each need (and have equal right to) the gospel news, pastor and elder care and accountability.

I agree with you hun. I have only seen this to be biblically true in a Reformed theological setting as I have tried to portray here. I sincerely believe the Gospel is about reconciling the whole Bible to our lives. I have only seen this to be most effectual in the full Reformed camp. Even in the situation of abuse. And I have had to deal with a lot of those situations from an ignorance stance. Even in my own life. I thank God for my Eldership in both the Reformed Baptist and Reformed Camp in that.