Rev. Winzer helped me with this in another thread. I asked if a wife could or should be baptized on a husband's profession of faith. The answer was "Yes, if she is willing." This made sense to me initially because I thought, "If she is willing, she probably believes."

So my question after further thought is: If an unbelieving wife submits to baptism solely out submission to her husband and not because of her belief ... is it proper?

Thanks

__________________
Dan
Member, Soaring Oaks Presbyterian (PCA)
www.soaringoaks.org
Northern California
The duty of a theologian is, not to please the ear with empty sounds, but to confirm the conscience by teaching things which are true, certain and profitable.
John Calvin, 1559

As with the case of household servants, there may be something of a disconnect here, in that the civil liberties now afforded to women make them responsible for their own decisions on such matters. Hence it is a thorny question, and not easily resolved simply on the basis of NT practice. Wealthy women in Roman times would have enjoyed some degree of liberty, but we are not told how this impacted ecclesiastical structures. I would say, that if the wife of a believing husband is willing to attend on the ministry (as Lydia did), learn the Christian faith, and be submissive to her husband in bringing up the children in the Lord, then there is no reasonable objection to be made against baptising her.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

If one Sacrament then another? Should she be allowed communion?

__________________
Tim Vaughan
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
Santa Maria
California

That's a antipaedobaptist sibboleth; but we are in a paedobaptist forum now, so you will have to pronounce it shibboleth, and permit the distinct nature of the sacraments for the sake of the argument. On that basis, no, she shouldn't be allowed communion until she can examine herself of her faith to feed on Christ.

Pastor Winzer, is there evidence in church history outside of the NT of unbelieving wives being baptized? I would be very surprised if it has happened or was practiced.

__________________
Bryan Wiley
Layman
Reformed Baptist Church
Louisville, Kentucky

"Seek the Kingdom of God first."

Roman women had nearly the same (in some instances more) civil liberties than American women.

__________________
Fred Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

The answer depends on what is meant by "unbelieving." Submitting to baptism might be considered an act of faith. But church history moves in the direction of adding requirements as well as increasing the significance of baptism, so that by the fourth century you have various examples of postponed baptism because of the superstitious belief that it washed away one's sins.

So the answer is no?

As stated, the answer depends on the definition of unbelieving. According to the Didache one was to fast before being baptised, so "believing" included submission to fasting rules. According to Justin's Apology, baptism was given to "as many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly," and one was to pray and fast for the remission of their sins before they were baptised (but no mention of subjective faith). And as church history proceeds the requirements become more detailed.

So she wouldn't be an unbelieving wife if she believes that what they teach and say is true.

No; but "believing" in today's language is generally described as a subjective appropriation of Christ as Lord and Saviour.

Thanks again Rev. Winzer! As usual you've been very helpful.