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:

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 without the first. J
Post a Comment
Read more

Boice: “... the federal way of dealing with us was actually the fairest and kindest of all the ways God could have operated. ”

By
  Adam had been appointed by God to be the representative of the race so that if he stood, we too would stand, and if he fell, we would fall with him. Adam did fall, as we know.  So death passed upon everyone. “But isn’t that terribly unfair?” someone protests. “Isn’t it cruel for God to act in this fashion?” ... the federal way of dealing with us was actually the fairest and kindest of all the ways God could have operated.  Besides, it was the only way it would later be possible for God to save us once we had sinned. In other words, federalism is actually a proof of God’s grace, which is the point the passage comes to (vv. 15 ff.). It was gracious to Adam first of all. Why? Because it was a deterrent to his sin. God must have explained to Adam that he was to represent his posterity. That might have restrained him from sinning. A father who might be tempted to steal his employer’s funds (and would if only he himself were involved), might well decide not to do it if he knew that his cri
Post a Comment
Read more

Repackaging the gospel? It's more like obscuring the gospel!

By
Preface : I recognize this post may make me unpopular with some, but I think it is an important issue to blog about here.  I’ve had time to reflect on this video and in my opinion, I think what is in this video raises some questions.  This gentleman featured below is slotted to speak at the SBC's 2020 Pastors' Conference and it prompted me to think more about this illustration.  I want to note that I don't know him and I have no personal issue with him.   I assume he is a brother in the LORD.  Having said that, I see some significant issues here that relate to this type of preaching being clear on the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, it appears to be obscuring it in my observation. Concern:  Should the SBC or churches, in general, be in the habit of holding this up as a  good and healthy example?  Let's think about it some together.  (Watch this clip below here first.) Context:  The clip was posted to stand on its own as if it were wise and sound on it
2 comments
Read more