Household Baptisms in the New Testament

Status
Not open for further replies.
Semper Fidelis said:
The question is not what Luke might have recorded but what he recorded.
Click to expand...

For sure. But even knowing the actual words in themselves still leaves the matter of rightly determining their proper significance, in context.

Semper Fidelis said:
The issue is where the adverbial idea "along with his household" is modifying rejoiced or believed.
Click to expand...

Again, I agree. But as I've also been saying, I think most translations get it right in their determination that, per the given context of all in the household having heard, it almost certainly pertains to "believed." The other option creates all kinds of sticky issues, as I argue in the OP.
 
Romans922 said:
So someone has to have full assurance of faith in order to be baptized? That makes no sense from a baptist perspective and denies the Scriptures itself (e.g. 1 John).
Click to expand...
Not full assurance, but believe in their hearts Jesus is Lord, and confess with their mouths, how can infants do that?
 
Last edited:
Dachaser said:
Not full assurance, but believe in their hearts Jesus is Lord, and confess with their months, how can infants do that?
Click to expand...


David,
Could you please point me to the scripture that says one must “believe in their hearts Jesus is Lord, and confess with their months (sic)” to be baptized?
 
JennyGeddes said:
Brother, please directly answer the question I asked.
Click to expand...
Apostle Pa u l, when he stated that we go down in the water and identify with his death, and are raised up from the water to identify with His resurrection. Infants cannot do that personal identification with Jesus when baptized.
 
Dachaser said:
Apostle Pa u l, when he stated that we go down in the water and identify with his death, and are raised up from the water to identify with His resurrection. Infants cannot do that personal identification with Jesus when baptized.
Click to expand...


I’m sorry, David. I admit I was being catty. I would have told you this sooner, but I just got back from church.
I knew you were referring to Romans 10:9 when you said “believe with your heart and confess with your mouth”...but you said be baptized instead of saved. I think you’re doing some violence to the text because there isn’t a drop of water in it. I really was just trying to bring that to your attention.
 
Dachaser said:
Apostle Pa u l, when he stated that we go down in the water and identify with his death, and are raised up from the water to identify with His resurrection. Infants cannot do that personal identification with Jesus when baptized.
Click to expand...


And for serious, can you tell me what verse you are quoting here?
 
Scott Bushey said:
According to your post (post 65), the deaf and dumb have 'mental means' to 'trust in Jesus as their Lord'? Did u say that?
Click to expand...
They can still receive the Gospel and receive Jesus through faith. They both would have fully functioning minds to that, correct?
 
Dachaser said:
They can still receive the Gospel and receive Jesus through faith. They both would have fully functioning minds to that, correct?
Click to expand...


Is this consistent with your confession (1689), chapter 10, paragraph 3?

Paragraph 3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit;10 who works when, and where, and how He pleases;11 so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
10 John 3:3, 5, 6
11 John 3:8
 
Dachaser said:
They can still receive the Gospel and receive Jesus through faith. They both would have fully functioning minds to that, correct?
Click to expand...

But the above contradicts what u previously have said?

post 73:
Dachaser said:
Infants have no mental means to trust in Jesus as their Lord.
Click to expand...

1) infants cannot trust nor have faith-no mental means (per you).

Dachaser said:
They can still receive the Gospel and receive Jesus through faith. They both would have fully functioning minds to that, correct?
Click to expand...

2) The deaf and dumb, in contrast to the infant, do have mental means.

Finally, u now say both can:

Dachaser said:
They can still receive the Gospel and receive Jesus through faith. They both would have fully functioning minds to that, correct?
Click to expand...

Are u confused, brother? Do u even know what u are arguing for or against any longer???
 
David, do you affirm the following 2 points:

1. People should be baptized upon a credible profession of faith. This state is distinct from knowing for sure that someone is actually saved.

2. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who works when, and where, and how He pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.​

If so, then I think we can put this whole roller-coaster thread to rest.
 
Phil D. said:
David, do you affirm the following 2 points:

1. People should be baptized upon a credible profession of faith. This state is distinct from knowing for sure that someone is actually saved.

2. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who works when, and where, and how He pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.​

If so, then I think we can put this whole roller-coaster thread to rest.
Click to expand...
I affirm both points!
 
Phil D. said:
Again, I agree. But as I've also been saying, I think most translations get it right in their determination that, per the given context of all in the household having heard, it almost certainly pertains to "believed." The other option creates all kinds of sticky issues, as I argue in the OP.
Click to expand...
You keep referring to your OP as if your observations settle the exegetical issues (both syntactically and contextually) but the reason we're interacting is that your observations are just that and informed as much by the context of theology derived outside the narrative sources that you then read into them.

You want to insist that all who heard professed faith, not because the text states this but because the theology with which you come to the text demands this assumption if all are to be baptized.

The adverbial expression, as far as I'm concerned, can modify either verb. It's most closely aligned to the rejoicing of the jailer. The passage "works" for me whether all are of "appropriate Baptist age" or even if he has younger kids. It works for me even if there are still teenage kids who haven't quite sorted out everything their Dad is "signing them up for".

My younger and older children "rejoice along with me" all the time regarding things that happen in my life that they don't quite understand.

Just to point out that the jailer is promised by Paul, before Paul has spoken to the household, that if *he* believes that he will be saved along with his household. Your theology forces you to have a monochromatic way of understanding this that it can *only* mean that Paul is saying (in effect) "...by that I mean that if they hear and believe like you do..." and then you continue to read through the narrative with this monochromatic understanding that your theology (and not the syntax or the context) is forcing you to take.

As I wrote above, the cumulative evidence of these texts in the narratives does not poing to a Reformed Baptist perspective of careful examination, baptism only of true professors, etc. You are not, as you claim arriving at these views of household baptism or baptism in general from the narrative portions of the Gospels and Acts because they are both non-conclusive and there are several indications that such "care" (that a Reformed Baptist insists upon) was not taken and that some were baptized who were not as firmly established in their understanding as one might expect.
 
Semper Fidelis said:
You keep referring to your OP as if your observations settle the exegetical issues
Click to expand...
Not at all, Rich. I was merely pointing to my initial position as already stated rather than keep on responding every time someone makes a statement without apparent regard to it. Thanks for your points, some of them are good ones. Pax.
 
Phil D. said:
Not at all, Rich. I was merely pointing to my initial position as already stated rather than keep on responding every time someone makes a statement without apparent regard to it. Thanks for your points, some of them are good ones. Pax.
Click to expand...
Seems that both sides on this issue come to the scriptures with preconceived notions that force us to understand it as we do!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top