Peter addresses CorneliusI had another conversation recently with some folks regarding "infant baptism." Those of us who belong to churches that baptize infants need to quit using that term. It gives the "Baptists" - to use a generic term - a foot in the door. To begin with, arguments for baptizing infants are usually pitiful: "Jesus said to not forbid the children and surely there were infants in the household baptisms in Acts." Such arguments do not prove the position. The Baptists are correct that the Bible does not anywhere state expressly that infants of believing parents are to be baptized. What they cannot deny is that it does speak of Christian households that are baptized. When we point that out to them, then they are on the defensive and argue from silence ("they must have all professed the faith"), not us.
One cannot understand the doctrine of baptism without understanding accompanying doctrines, such as the doctrine of the Church and the nature of the covenants, especially the Abrahamic covenant. Once one understands those things, and then refers to Colossians 2 and the book of Acts, the issue is not whether a particular class of people is to be baptized or not. The evidence is that households are to be baptized. This was the case with Abraham and this is the case in Acts. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether there were babies in the households mentioned in Acts or not. Anyone, including babies or slaves or whoever, was to receive the sign of the covenant.
The term household baptism helps the paedobaptism position and it is a more biblical expression. Let's use it.
Image: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Image:Peter-teaches-Cornelius%27-household.jpg#file
Comments
Dear Anonymous:
1) The whole point of "household baptism" is that it is covenantal. See Gen. 17.
3) My complaint is with paedobaptist arguments which argue from absence of evidence. "There must have been babies there." Not necessarily. It's a very weak position to take. If one is going to use Acts 2:39 and household passages in Acts AND argue in a weak manner from them, then, of course, they should not be used, that is, in that fashion. But to completely ignore them is not helpful. They need to be properly understood.
I agree that the issue of paedobaptism is more a systemic issue than one of proof-texts. However, what I am saying is that the household passages fit into the systemic arguments because a right understanding of those passages relates them to the covenant instead of isolating them from covenantal considerations and using them as proof texts.
(BTW Baptists do not need to rely on silence in the case of household baptisms regarding their belief. In most of the examples of household baptism, particuarly where the details are given, it is said that they were all preached to, all believed, and all baptized:
Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. Act 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
Act 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
I appreciate your reference to the cases found in those passages in Acts. My main response is that I wish I had been there; it would have been wonderful. I wish I saw such things now. With regard to how they touch on my argument, we must always recognize that mature members of a household are going to, at some point in some manner, be dealt with as being responsible for their own souls. Would they have baptized a 20 year old slave who refused to believe in one of those households? I would think not. From that point on you get into case-by-case issues.
But as for your point about argument for silence, you make a pretty good point, I must say. :-)