Thoughts about the Jailor and his Household

[blhowes]

It's funny how, when you're studying one thing in the scriptures, you often see other things along the way in a way you had never seen it before. I started doing a study about household baptisms a couple of days ago, and thought I'd share some observations I made.

I started my study in Acts 16, the story about the jailor asking the famous question, "What must I do to be saved?" In thinking about the story, here are some questions I thought about, and some answers I came up with:

- Why did the jailor bring Paul and Silas to his house?
- Where was Paul when the jailor asked him the question?
- Who heard the answer to the jailor's question?
- What did Paul mean when he said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house(hold)"?

Why did the jailor bring Paul and Silas to his house?
I had always assumed that the reason the jailor brought Paul to his house was so that his family could hear about and believe in Jesus so they could get saved. I don't think this is the main reason, though it became one of the reasons. I think initially, he brought Paul and Silas to his house because God had changed the jailor's heart and given him, in addition to a regenerated heart, a compassionate heart as well. If God had not changed the jailor's heart, after verse 28, the jailor would have just closed all the jail cell doors and gone about his business.

Act 16:28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.

But he had compassion on them because they had wounds that needed to be tended to (16:33) and because they hadn't eaten and were hungry (16:34). I think this was his initial reason for going to his house.

Act 16:29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

I had never noticed the phrase "And brought them out" in verse 30 before. In verse 29, the jailor gets a light, runs into the cell, and fell down before Paul and Silas. In verse 30, as he's bringing them out, or sometime after they leave the cell, he asks the question about salvation. Paul's response I think may have made the jailor want to go to his house even more so his family could hear the good news, but I don't think that was the initial reason for going to the house.

Where was Paul when the jailor asked him the question?
Because I had never noticed the above phrase, I had always assumed that the jailor asked Paul the question when he was in the cell, when he fell down before Paul and Silas. Since the question comes after the phrase "And brought them out", it seems that the question could have been asked anywhere along the way to the house or even inside the house.

In trying to figure out where the question may have been asked, I took a look at where we know Paul was for sure.

Acts 16:23-29 In prison
Acts 16:34 In the house
Acts 16:35-39 In prison
Acts 16:40 Lydia's house

But where were they in verses 30 to 33. At first glance, it seems like they arrive at the house in verse 34 because it says "And when he had brought them into his house". They were probably at the house in verses 32 and 33 as well. In verse 32, it says that they preached the word to the jailor and all that were in the house. Since it was just a little after midnight, his family would have been asleep in the house and would have needed to be woken up before they could be presented with the gospel. In verse 33, when he washed their stripes and the household was baptized, it says it was the "same hour of the night" (as when all the house heard the word of God, verse 32)

So, the only verses I wasn't sure about are verses 30 and 31. Verse 30 begins the transition from the jail to the house, but I'm still uncertain exactly where the jailor asked his question. Any thoughts?

Who heard the answer to the jailor's question?
I initially started thinking that, since the jailor asked his question after he left the jail, that perhaps he had asked the question while he was in the house, with all of his family present. In which case, when Paul answered the jailor's question "What must I do to be saved?", Paul answered the jailor's question and at the same time made it clear to the rest of those in his house that salvation was available to them as well. That's a possibility, but as I mentioned earlier, I'm still uncertain
exactly where the jailor was when he asked his question.

Though I don't know where Paul and the jailor were when the question was asked, I'm fairly certain I know who it was that heard the answer to his question (or at least part of the answer). I think both the jailor and his family heard the same words, regardless of where they were when the question was asked. Let's assume that the jailor asked his question just after they left the jail and had stepped into the street on the way to the house. The jailor heard Paul say, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house(hold)" This is the same thing, minus "and thy house(hold)", that his family would have heard too. In verse 32, it says that they spoke the word of the Lord to the jailor and to all that were in his house. I doubt it very much if, when Paul and Silas spoke the word of the Lord to them, that they would have left out "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" from their discourse.

What did Paul mean when he said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house(hold)"?
This was actually the first question I started thinking about when I first started studying the Acts 16 passage. As baptists, we tend to think of it this way "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be save, and whoever in your household believes will also be saved. Presbyterians think of it more as a promise to cling to regarding the salvation of their children. Which is right? I'm still pondering the question.

At this point, the baptist interpretation makes more sense to me. In my view, the promise seems 'emptyish' unless you can take the promise at face value. Here's what I mean.

In response to the jailor's question, "What must I do to be saved?", Paul answers "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and they house(hold)". We know that there's definitely a direct promise to the jailor - believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. There's no doubt about that. If he believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, he'd be saved. Its a promise you can 'take to the bank' for the jailor, and its a promise for us as individuals as well. If we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved.

But taking that next step with regard to the household is a little slippery, and in my view not on as solid ground. Since some children of believers end up not being of the elect, it doesn't make sense to me to think that the words "thou shalt be saved, and thy house(hold)" are a promise that if a person gets saved, their children will get saved. Since it depends on God's election, at best the 'promise' would be "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and maybe (if God elects them) thy children. Since God could (but graciously, generally chooses not to) choose to elect none of a believer's children, the promise doesn't really seem to be a promise. A hope, definitely, but not a promise (not in the same sense and with the same strength that it was a promise to the jailor).

Continuing to study,
Bob

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by blhowes
At this point, the baptist interpretation makes more sense to me. In my view, the promise seems 'emptyish' unless you can take the promise at face value. Here's what I mean.

In response to the jailor's question, "What must I do to be saved?", Paul answers "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and they house(hold)". We know that there's definitely a direct promise to the jailor - believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. There's no doubt about that. If he believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, he'd be saved. Its a promise you can 'take to the bank' for the jailor, and its a promise for us as individuals as well. If we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved.

But taking that next step with regard to the household is a little slippery, and in my view not on as solid ground. Since some children of believers end up not being of the elect, it doesn't make sense to me to think that the words "thou shalt be saved, and thy house(hold)" are a promise that if a person gets saved, their children will get saved. Since it depends on God's election, at best the 'promise' would be "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and maybe (if God elects them) thy children. Since God could (but graciously, generally chooses not to) choose to elect none of a believer's children, the promise doesn't really seem to be a promise. A hope, definitely, but not a promise (not in the same sense and with the same strength that it was a promise to the jailor).

How do you reconcile this viewpoint, that the saying "saved" does not equal a promise but an absolute reality, with a passage such as this?:

Luke 19:8 And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, "œBehold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold." 9 And Jesus said to him, "œToday salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
How do you reconcile this viewpoint, that the saying "saved" does not equal a promise but an absolute reality, with a passage such as this?:

Luke 19:8 And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, "œBehold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold." 9 And Jesus said to him, "œToday salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."

Gabe,
You raise a good point. I can't reconcile it yet, but I'll have to give it some thought. Thanks.

Just so I understand, you're not saying that its an unconditional promise that, when a person gets saved, all in his house will be saved too, are you? I must be reading your statement wrong, cause it sounds like you're saying that what Paul said to the jailor about the salvation of his household applies to all believers absolutely. If that's what you're saying, how do you reconcile a promise to unconditionally save children of believers, when some of the children prove themselves to be (to the best of our knowledge) unsaved?

Am I misunderstanding you?

 

[Steve Owen]

Luke 19:8 And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, "œBehold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold." 9 And Jesus said to him, "œToday salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."

Salvation certainly came to Zacchaeus's house, because it came to Zacchaeus and he lived there. But it is rather a stretch to say that it came to his family, since there is no indication in the text that he had a family. For all we know he may have been a batchelor.

And once again, who is a son of Abraham? Gal 3:7 tells us.

Martin

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

Luke 19:8 And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, "œBehold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold." 9 And Jesus said to him, "œToday salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."

Salvation certainly came to Zacchaeus's house, because it came to Zacchaeus and he lived there. But it is rather a stretch to say that it came to his family, since there is no indication in the text that he had a family. For all we know he may have been a batchelor.

And once again, who is a son of Abraham? Gal 3:7 tells us.

Martin

Does the Greek clearly differentiate between the word "house" (place people live) and "household" (members of a family)? Can the house in Luke 19:9 also be translated household? If so, does that then imply that he wasn't a bachelor, but had at least a wife and maybe some kids?

 

[Steve Owen]

Hi Bob,

Does the Greek clearly differentiate between the word "house" (place people live) and "household" (members of a family)? Can the house in Luke 19:9 also be translated household? If so, does that then imply that he wasn't a bachelor, but had at least a wife and maybe some kids?

No, the Greek does not distinguish. The usual words are 'oikia' and 'oikos' and they can mean the place people live (Mark 1:29; Matt 9:6; 1Cor 11:22 ), the Temple (Matt 21:13 ), the "household" (John 4:53; Acts 11:14 ) or the Nation of Israel (Matt 23:38; Heb 8:8 ).

BTW, even if Zacchaeus was a batchelor, it is unlikely that he lived alone. He would have had some household slaves. But are we therefore saying that if Prince Charles were to be saved, salvation would also come to his secretary, butler, footmen, gardeners etc?

Martin

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
BTW, even if Zacchaeus was a batchelor, it is unlikely that he lived alone. He would have had some household slaves. But are we therefore saying that if Prince Charles were to be saved, salvation would also come to his secretary, butler, footmen, gardeners etc?

As a baptist, I'd say no.

If I were a paedobaptist, it would seem that I'd have to answer yes, if I were being consistent. If that's how it was in the OT, then I would think that's how it should be in the NT. I don't see why that would change.

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by blhowes
It's funny how, when you're studying one thing in the scriptures, you often see other things along the way in a way you had never seen it before.

Yeah, I kind of see the jailer as being a believer's baptism adherent.

[Edited on 9-8-2005 by Puritanhead]

 

[Steve Owen]

Originally posted by blhowes

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
BTW, even if Zacchaeus was a batchelor, it is unlikely that he lived alone. He would have had some household slaves. But are we therefore saying that if Prince Charles were to be saved, salvation would also come to his secretary, butler, footmen, gardeners etc?

As a baptist, I'd say no.

If I were a paedobaptist, it would seem that I'd have to answer yes, if I were being consistent. If that's how it was in the OT, then I would think that's how it should be in the NT. I don't see why that would change.

If you were a paedo-baptist, that is how you would have to think. But of course we know that the New Covenant is 'not like' the Old Covenant, don't we? Which is why the Lord Jesus baptized only disciples (John 4:1 ).

Martin

 

[kceaster]

Bob...

Are the following, promises?

Whosoever will may come.

Come unto me all you who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest.

Of course these are invitations to discipleship. And, of course we would say that disciples truly take hold of the promise only if they were chosen in Christ from the foundation of the world.

But I don't think we can prohibit anyone from coming. Nor, do I think that God wants us to discourage anyone from believing that God will save them, especially if they believe.

But in the final analysis, we may hold out salvation to everyone knowing that only those who are elect will take hold of it. It is perfectly fine to say to someone that if they believe they will be saved and their whole household. It's a biblical thing to say. But you need to analyze what Paul meant by that. Did it mean that they would be saved if HE HEARD THEIR PROFESSION? Did it mean that they would be saved if upon hearing their profession HE BAPTIZED THEM? Paul knew his limitations, he also had faith in the gospel of Christ as the power unto salvation for all who believe. He wasn't keeping anything from anyone. Whosoever will may come, but those who come and are true are also chosen in Christ from the foundation of the world.

We can't get too wrapped up in analyzing the promise of salvation. We are not the ones who promised it. We aren't the ones who extend it (we're second causes). We aren't the ones who keep it from some and give it to others. The promise of God is to all, but it is fulfilled in only the elect, which is why Peter adds, "as many as the Lord our God will call."

Did the jailer believe in credo-baptism? Absolutely. But if he had children, and if his heart had been changed, and if He truly believed that God would save he and his household, then he would have been paedobaptistic as well. Because he was not depending upon a profession, but a promise. That promise came from God and there is no person on this planet living or dead that can make that promise void, nor can they fulfill it. Salvation is of God. He will have mercy on whom He has mercy. Therefore, it is perfectly fine for Paul to tell the jailer that his family will be saved. Whether they make a profession or not has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is, "What must I do to be saved?" Believe on God. Why should he believe on God for his own salvation, but believe God not for his wife and children?

The jailer believed God. Are we going to assume that his faith only went so far, but no further? God can do immeasurably more than anything we ask or think. Why should the jailer not believe God for his family's salvation? Can God do it only if they profess? Is God bound by the words of someone's mouth? Is God bound by a minister who refuses to baptize someone because they need more proof? Is God bound by a child who seems to live riotously like the prodigal, but whose life is not yet over?

Some think that it is dangerous to assume that their child will be saved. I think it is dangerous not to assume that. Because if I assume that a child is not going to be saved, then I must be waiting for the child to do something in order to ease my conscience. I must be having no faith in God that He will bring it about in His time. I must be thinking that God is powerless to save.

Rather, I choose to believe like the jailer. Salvation has come to my house. And by God's grace, I'll live like I believe the promise, not like I'm waiting for proof.

It's not far out of the realm that the apostles had hope in salvation for their hearers. They hoped not with the knowledge of their profession or baptism alone. They hoped in God who has all the power to save. Doubt is wrong no matter how it's packaged. We need to quit doubting God and doubting our families. If God is merciful, they will be saved. We believe in the promise as delivered, "Whosoever will may come," while still affirming that God will save them if He is pleased to do so.

In Christ,

KC

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by blhowes

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
How do you reconcile this viewpoint, that the saying "saved" does not equal a promise but an absolute reality, with a passage such as this?:

Luke 19:8 And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, "œBehold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold." 9 And Jesus said to him, "œToday salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."

Gabe,
You raise a good point. I can't reconcile it yet, but I'll have to give it some thought. Thanks.

Just so I understand, you're not saying that its an unconditional promise that, when a person gets saved, all in his house will be saved too, are you? I must be reading your statement wrong, cause it sounds like you're saying that what Paul said to the jailor about the salvation of his household applies to all believers absolutely. If that's what you're saying, how do you reconcile a promise to unconditionally save children of believers, when some of the children prove themselves to be (to the best of our knowledge) unsaved?

Am I misunderstanding you?

A little bit.

Salvation came to his house, once Zach believed. In other words, the Abrahamic promise was brought into his house as a result of his profession of faith. Salvation was now a very significant reality and possibility and promise for all those of his house, since he, as covenant head, had believed.

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by kceaster
Rather, I choose to believe like the jailer. Salvation has come to my house. And by God's grace, I'll live like I believe the promise, not like I'm waiting for proof.

It's not far out of the realm that the apostles had hope in salvation for their hearers. They hoped not with the knowledge of their profession or baptism alone. They hoped in God who has all the power to save. Doubt is wrong no matter how it's packaged. We need to quit doubting God and doubting our families. If God is merciful, they will be saved. We believe in the promise as delivered, "Whosoever will may come," while still affirming that God will save them if He is pleased to do so.

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Salvation came to his house, once Zach believed. In other words, the Abrahamic promise was brought into his house as a result of his profession of faith. Salvation was now a very significant reality and possibility and promise for all those of his house, since he, as covenant head, had believed.

KC and Gabe,
I appreciate your helpful responses. Definitely food for thought.
Thanks,
Bob

 

[Steve Owen]

Kevin wrote:-

Salvation is of God. He will have mercy on whom He has mercy. Therefore, it is perfectly fine for Paul to tell the jailer that his family will be saved.

What? Apart from being the wierdest sort of logic, this is the doctrine of the Church of Rome, baptismal regeneration. It is sending folk to hell with a pocket-full of promises in their hands. The Lord Jesus promises, "All that the Father gives me will come to Me , and the one who comes to Me I will by no means turn away." Therefore it is in order for Paul to tell the jailor that if he believes on Jesus Christ, he will be saved. And of course, the promise holds good for his family too; if they believe, they will be saved. But not otherwise.

The idea that because I am a believer, I may presume that my children will be saved wasn't even true in Old Testament times. Nor is it true today.

Martin

 

[Herald]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by blhowes
At this point, the baptist interpretation makes more sense to me. In my view, the promise seems 'emptyish' unless you can take the promise at face value. Here's what I mean.

In response to the jailor's question, "What must I do to be saved?", Paul answers "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and they house(hold)". We know that there's definitely a direct promise to the jailor - believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. There's no doubt about that. If he believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, he'd be saved. Its a promise you can 'take to the bank' for the jailor, and its a promise for us as individuals as well. If we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved.

But taking that next step with regard to the household is a little slippery, and in my view not on as solid ground. Since some children of believers end up not being of the elect, it doesn't make sense to me to think that the words "thou shalt be saved, and thy house(hold)" are a promise that if a person gets saved, their children will get saved. Since it depends on God's election, at best the 'promise' would be "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and maybe (if God elects them) thy children. Since God could (but graciously, generally chooses not to) choose to elect none of a believer's children, the promise doesn't really seem to be a promise. A hope, definitely, but not a promise (not in the same sense and with the same strength that it was a promise to the jailor).

How do you reconcile this viewpoint, that the saying "saved" does not equal a promise but an absolute reality, with a passage such as this?:

Luke 19:8 And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, "œBehold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold." 9 And Jesus said to him, "œToday salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."

Salvation did come to the house of Zacchaeus. Zacchaeus believed. Since Jesus said, "Today salvation has come" indicates that Zacchaeus' belief was saving faith. It is not stretching it to assume that Zacchaeus was probably the first person in his household to believe. If that was so, then what Jesus said was technically correct, "Today salvation has come to this house..." Salvation came to Zacchaeus' house upon the regeneration of Zacchaeus himself. No where does it indicate that the other members of Zacchaeus' household were saved because of Zacchaeus' regeneration. I am not sure this was what you were getting at. If not, then I am just waxing polemic.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
The idea that because I am a believer, I may presume that my children will be saved wasn't even true in Old Testament times. Nor is it true today.

Martin

Care to back up this contention?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Martin,
I guess Abraham doubted God, huh?

 

[kceaster]

Martin...

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Kevin wrote:-

Salvation is of God. He will have mercy on whom He has mercy. Therefore, it is perfectly fine for Paul to tell the jailer that his family will be saved.

What? Apart from being the wierdest sort of logic, this is the doctrine of the Church of Rome, baptismal regeneration. It is sending folk to hell with a pocket-full of promises in their hands. The Lord Jesus promises, "All that the Father gives me will come to Me , and the one who comes to Me I will by no means turn away." Therefore it is in order for Paul to tell the jailor that if he believes on Jesus Christ, he will be saved. And of course, the promise holds good for his family too; if they believe, they will be saved. But not otherwise.

The idea that because I am a believer, I may presume that my children will be saved wasn't even true in Old Testament times. Nor is it true today.

Martin

I must say we are not speaking the same language. Paul already told the jailer what he must do to be saved. Why would the jailer not hope in the Lord for His family.

Allow me to put it like this. The man who sells all for the pearl of Great Price, is He to believe that no one else will find a pearl like his? Is he to horde it? Is he to die with it clutched in his cold dead fingers?

Not at all. He must hope that everyone could have a pearl like his. I want God to save everyone I see. I hope that they will believe on Christ, too.

You need to see that "will" carries with it possibilty not emphatic inevitability like "shall", which is why "if" could be inserted. "If you believe" is used many times by our Lord and the apostles.

The door that we enter into when we come at the invitation of God has on one side, whosoever will. On the other side is printed, "chosen in Christ from the foundation of the world." The Bible affirms both. The free offer of the gospel is just that, free. There is a possibility on the one hand, and a surety on the other. But to say that all who come will be saved has to be qualified by the election of God.

And it isn't baptismal regeneration because we're not saying that people are saved by their baptism. We're saying that we baptize all those who should be baptized, ie. disciples, and these have the hope of salvation. But in the end, God saves them if it is His will to do so.

Your presuppositions about baptism make it impossible for you to see our side without thinking baptismal regeneration, because to your thinking, everyone is saved who has made a profession and is therefore baptized. We do not believe that everyone who has made a profession and is baptized is saved. This is the main difference you've been arguing.

In Christ,

KC

 

[Herald]

And it isn't baptismal regeneration because we're not saying that people are saved by their baptism. We're saying that we baptize all those who should be baptized, ie. disciples, and these have the hope of salvation. But in the end, God saves them if it is His will to do so.

The word for disciple (mathntns) means a learner or student. Is an infant a disciple? Are we to conclude that a disciple of Jesus Christ may not be a believer? (And lets skip the Judas thing. He was elected to be the 'son of perdition.')

But there is also a practical aspect to paedobaptism that is often overlooked. Theologically no one is saying that baptism saves. But practically speaking, I can see where a family may trust that their child will come to faith because they were baptized into a covenant family. To be fair, I have seen this same attitude among Baptist families whose children are "dedicated to the Lord." Except for the element of water, the parallels are striking. "My child was dedicated to Christ, eventually he/she will come to faith." In my book that is a dangerous assumption. Are the odds greater that a child born into a believing household will come to faith in Christ? Certainly. But there is no garantee.

I don't want to segway this thread, but I do have a question: if paedobaptism is nothing more than symbolic, what is the purpose? The symbolism? Or is it more than symbolic to those who practice it? Thanks in advance for the replies.

[Edited on 9-9-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]

[Edited on 9-9-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]

 

[kceaster]

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis

And it isn't baptismal regeneration because we're not saying that people are saved by their baptism. We're saying that we baptize all those who should be baptized, ie. disciples, and these have the hope of salvation. But in the end, God saves them if it is His will to do so.

The word for disciple (mathntns) means a learner or student. Is an infant a disciple? Are we to conclude that a disciple of Jesus Christ may not be a believer? (And lets skip the Judas thing. He was elected to be the 'son of perdition.')

Psalm 78:1 ¶ <<A Contemplation of Asaph.>> Give ear, O my people, to my law; Incline your ears to the words of my mouth.
2 I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old,
3 Which we have heard and known, And our fathers have told us.
4 We will not hide them from their children, Telling to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, And His strength and His wonderful works that He has done.
5 For He established a testimony in Jacob, And appointed a law in Israel, Which He commanded our fathers, That they should make them known to their children;
6 That the generation to come might know them, The children who would be born, That they may arise and declare them to their children,
7 That they may set their hope in God, And not forget the works of God, But keep His commandments;
8 And may not be like their fathers, A stubborn and rebellious generation, A generation that did not set its heart aright, And whose spirit was not faithful to God.

Has something changed? Doesn't this seem like children are disciples?

But there is also a practical aspect to paedobaptism that is often overlooked. Theologically no one is saying that baptism saves. But practically speaking, I can see where a family may trust that their child will come to faith because they were baptized into a covenant family. To be fair, I have seen this same attitude among Baptist families whose children are "dedicated to the Lord." Except for the element of water, the parallels are striking. "My child was dedicated to Christ, eventually he/she will come to faith." In my book that is a dangerous assumption. Are the odds greater that a child born into a believing household will come to faith in Christ? Certainly.

The Bible is pretty explicit that we are to put our faith in Christ and teach our children. As a parent, I know the absolute necessity of both. I can't think what my life would be like without having hope in Jesus Christ for my children. Because of that hope, I do everything I can to be poured out as a drink offering in hopes that the relationship between Paul and Timothy will in some small way be duplicated with my boys. If you think for a moment that Paul put trust in Timothy only because Timothy exuded the properties of a disciple, you're mistaken. Paul knew that there was power in the gospel and in the Scriptures and in the doctrine. Timothy was a receiver of all of this and did take it in, but Paul didn't have faith in Timothy's profession, but in the promise of the Savior.

I don't want to segway this thread, but I do have a question: if paedobaptism is nothing more than symbolic, what is the purpose? The symbolism? Or is it more than symbolic to those who practice it? Thanks in advance for the replies.

We baptize disciples because we are commanded to do so. And baptism is already a sign, so by nature it is symbolic. It signifies the ingrafting into Christ, into the one olive tree. The baptism doesn't place the child there, Christ does. Baptism doesn't keep the child there, Christ does. Salvation is all of Christ. But child rearing is commanded whether we think the child will be saved or not. Teaching our kids the ways of the Lord is not an option.

In Christ,

KC

 

[Herald]

Has something changed? Doesn't this seem like children are disciples?

Well, it is an issue of how disciple is defined. If you are defining a disciple as anyone who learns from another, I suppose you are right. An infant develops cognitive skills by mimicking his parents. That certainly is learning. But the word disciple, especially in the New Testament, carries with it a far greater weight. It seems always to refer to mature learners.

Let me back up a bit before I continue. I certainly am not condemning my brothers and sisters in Christ who practice paedobaptism. I am intrigued at the practice and I am discussing this from a sincere desire to understand it. I may never agree with...then again...who knows? If you asked me 20 years ago if I would have become a Calvinist, I would have laughed at you. So hopefully my skepticism and questioning is taken in the right vein.

The Bible is pretty explicit that we are to put our faith in Christ and teach our children. As a parent, I know the absolute necessity of both. I can't think what my life would be like without having hope in Jesus Christ for my children. Because of that hope, I do everything I can to be poured out as a drink offering in hopes that the relationship between Paul and Timothy will in some small way be duplicated with my boys. If you think for a moment that Paul put trust in Timothy only because Timothy exuded the properties of a disciple, you're mistaken. Paul knew that there was power in the gospel and in the Scriptures and in the doctrine. Timothy was a receiver of all of this and did take it in, but Paul didn't have faith in Timothy's profession, but in the promise of the Savior.

I think you took my comments personal. They were not intended to be so. I was shooting with the shotgun approach and was being critical of both groups (those who advocate paedobaptism and those who don't). I would hope that the majority of those who baptize their children would also raise them up in the nuture and admonition of the Lord. But there are many who don't. They rest on a sacrament when they should be taking nothing for granted.

We baptize disciples because we are commanded to do so. And baptism is already a sign, so by nature it is symbolic. It signifies the ingrafting into Christ, into the one olive tree. The baptism doesn't place the child there, Christ does. Baptism doesn't keep the child there, Christ does. Salvation is all of Christ. But child rearing is commanded whether we think the child will be saved or not. Teaching our kids the ways of the Lord is not an option.

I suppose the only disagreement we have is over the definition of a disciple. The rest of your last quote I concur with. One of the reasons I currently hold to believers-only baptism is because it is for...well...believers only. You infer that it is for disciples. I agree. But I define a disciple as a believer.

In the final analysis, I do not see this practice nearly as contenious between us as those who argue over tongues. But then again, "we" (baptists) practice child dedication. How similar is that to paedobaptism?

[Edited on 9-9-2005 by BaptistInCrisis]

 

[kceaster]

Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis
Well, it is an issue of how disciple is defined. If you are defining a disciple as anyone who learns from another, I suppose you are right. An infant develops cognitive skills by mimicking his parents. That certainly is learning. But the word disciple, especially in the New Testament, carries with it a far greater weight. It seems always to refer to mature learners.

Let me back up a bit before I continue. I certainly am not condemning my brothers and sisters in Christ who practice paedobaptism. I am intrigued at the practice and I am discussing this from a sincere desire to understand it. I may never agree with...then again...who knows? If you asked me 20 years ago if I would have become a Calvinist, I would have laughed at you. So hopefully my skepticism and questioning is taken in the right vein.

No worries, Bill. I'm not taking it personal. I did an extensive study earlier this year and I found that the Hebrew concept of learning is very closely tied to Christian discipleship. But the thing that really put it over the goal line for me is that God is all the time telling His people to learn to fear Him. He is telling this to His children. Metaphorically, we are much like infants when we first start to learn to fear the Lord. So I don't so much look at it as an adult only enterprise.

The pattern of Timothy is also a good example. It would seem that from a very young age, certainly younger than one exercising his own volition, he was taught the Scriptures.

Now, I will agree that teaching is limited in those early years. And sometimes one wonders how much is learned. But the Hebrew word for learn is derived from the word "oxgoad". A young ox must be taught with patience and much prodding, but eventually they learn how to plow straight. The correction we do for these young ones is very much in the same vein.

Another indication to me that children are proper candidates for discipleship is the fact that Jesus took them and blessed them. As children of Adam, they were at emnity with God, yet Jesus calls to them, invites them, and blesses them. I am in no wise saying that Jesus has a "special" place in His heart for children, but I would suggest that children in the people of God are different than heathen children. I don't think that Jesus would have invited the little Roman children to come to Him.

In the final analysis for me, I see that all are to learn to fear God. This begins from the first breath. As such, our children are disciples. They may be like the young ox who needs much patience and prodding, but with God's grace and Holy Spirit who will bless as He wills, they may yet learn to plow straight.

In Christ,

KC