Skip to main content

Stein: " infant baptism was not practiced in the New Testament Churches"

By



Household Baptisms In Acts

Within Acts there are several instances in which households are described as being baptized. The one in which this is described in most detail involves the conversion of Cornelius. The key verses involved are:

  10:2 Cornelius is described as “a devout man who feared God with all his household.”
  10:24 “Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends.”
Image result for Baptism in acts  10:44, 46–48 “While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.… For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, ‘Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?’ And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”
  11:14 Cornelius is told that Peter “ ‘will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning” (see also 1 Cor 1:16; 16:15).

The assumption that infants were part of Cornelius’s household and that they were also baptized is often put forward by advocates of infant baptism. However, it should be noted that the “them” who are baptized in 10:48 and 11:17 are described as: having heard the word (10:44); having received the Holy Spirit (10:44–47; 11:15–17); having spoken in tongues (10:46) as at Pentecost (11:15); as believers (implied in 11:17); and having repented (11:18). One cannot exclude from the description of those who were baptized in 10:48 these other descriptions given by Luke. Thus, since infants cannot hear the word, speak in tongues, believe, and repent, it is evident that Luke does not intend for his readers to assume that infants were involved in the baptism described in 10:48.

The examples of Lydia (“And after she was baptized, and her household as well” [16:15a]) and Crispus (“Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household” [18:8]) are also examples of household baptisms. The brevity with which Luke describes them is frustrating and warns against building a large theological practice of paedobaptism on them. Frequently paedobaptists make no distinction between the terms “children” and “infants/babies.” To have children in one’s family, however, does not mean that one has infants! Thus the argument that the households of Lydia and Crispus must have included children and that their baptism is an example of “infant” baptism is a non sequitur. Furthermore, concerning the baptism of the household of Crispus, Luke specifically mentions that not only Crispus but his household became believers (18:8) and that many others heard, believed, and were baptized (18:8). There is no hint in the account that Luke intends for his readers to include infants with those who were baptized and, at the same time, to exclude infants from hearing and believing.

The final example of household baptism found in Acts involves the Philippian jailor and his family. In Acts 16:32–33 we read, “And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house … and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.” Once again it is assumed by proponents of infant baptism that the jailor’s family included not only children but infants and these infants were baptized as well. Yet we need to remind ourselves that the terms “children” and “infants” are not synonyms, and Luke furthermore points out that the “word” was spoken to the entire household (16:32) and that the jailor (“he”) and his entire household (panoikei) rejoiced in their new-found faith in God (16:34)! It is highly selective, on the one hand, to include infants in the baptism of the “entire family” of the jailor and then, on the other hand, to exclude them from the “entire family” that believes and rejoices in their new faith (16:34). This would be a clear case of special pleading. When one looks critically at the alleged evidence for infant baptism in the examples of household baptisms in Acts, there is good reason that as Wright notes, “among New Testament scholars the view is increasingly widespread that infant baptism was not practiced in the New Testament Churches.”


Schreiner, T. R., & Wright, S. D. (2006). Believer’s baptism: sign of the new covenant in Christ (pp. 61–63). Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group.

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

John Stott on the "old man" and the "body ruled by sin" in Rom 6 v 6

By
  There are, in fact, two quite distinct ways in which the New Testament speaks of crucifixion in relation to holiness. The first is our death to sin through identification with Christ; the second is our death to self through imitation of Christ.  On the one hand, we have been crucified with Christ. But on the other we have crucified (decisively repudiated) our sinful nature with all its desires, so that every day we renew this attitude by taking up our cross and following Christ to crucifixion.  The first is a legal death, a death to the penalty of sin; the second is a moral death, a death to the power of sin.  The first belongs to the past, and is unique and unrepeatable; the second belongs to the present, and is repeatable, even continuous. I died to sin (in Christ) once; I die to self (like Christ) daily. It is with the first of these two deaths that Romans 6 is chiefly concerned, although the first is with a view to the second, and the second cannot take place w...
Post a Comment
Read more

Berkoff: "The law was not substituted for the promise; neither was faith supplanted by works. "

By
  The giving of the law did not effect a fundamental change in the religion of Israel, but merely introduced a change in its external form.  The law was not substituted for the promise; neither was faith supplanted by works.  Many of the Israelites, indeed, looked upon the law in a purely legalistic spirit and sought to base their claim to salvation on a scrupulous fulfillment of it as a body of external precepts.  But in the case of those who understood its real nature, who felt the inwardness and spirituality of the law, it served to deepen the sense of sin and to sharpen the conviction that salvation could be expected only from the grace of God . L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co., 1938), 498–499.
Post a Comment
Read more

F.F. Bruce: ...know their father's will...

By
The NT does not contain a detailed code of rules for the Christian. Codes of rules, as Paul explains elsewhere, are suited to the period of immaturity when the children of God are still under guardians; but children who have come to years of responsibility know their father’s will without having to be provided with a long list of “Do’s” and “Don’t’s.” What the NT does provide is those basic principles of Christian living which may be applied to varying situations of life as they arise. So, after answering the Corinthian Christians’ question about the eating of food that has been offered to idols, Paul sums up his advice in the words: “whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31). Phrases current in worship, like “to the glory of God” or (as here) “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” were given a practical relevance by being applied to the concerns of ordinary life. Bruce, F. F. (1984). The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the...
Post a Comment
Read more