Lydia's Baptism: Originally a Response in a Requested Paedobaptist Only Thread

[armourbearer]

Admin Note: This was originally a response to a question in a thread that was requested paedobaptist participation only. However, there were questions in response. Thus, the creation of this thread.

I observe that in the one clear example of female baptism -- Lydia -- the representative principle is still operative in the baptism of her household. In keeping with the fulness of New Testament administration, this demonstrates that federalism has not been curtailed, but rather expanded so as to include women where there is no believing male presence.

[Houston E.]

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I observe that in the one clear example of female baptism -- Lydia -- the representative principle is still operative in the baptism of her household. In keeping with the fulness of New Testament administration, this demonstrates that federalism has not been curtailed, but rather expanded so as to include women where there is no believing male presence.

Please correct if wrong here...so does this mean that if the wife is believing but not the husband, then the wife is the federal head of the household?

[armourbearer]

Originally Posted by Houston E.

Please correct if wrong here...so does this mean that if the wife is believing but not the husband, then the wife is the federal head of the household?

Not socially, 1 Pet. 3:1, but ceremonially, 1 Cor. 7:14.

[danmpem]

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Yes, the household baptism is understood to include all within that household under the authority of the head thereof. But there is a disconnect here with modern practice due to the fact that servants today are not considered a part of the household.

I'm wondering if an unbelieving servant would be baptized out of obedience to the head of the household.

[armourbearer]

Originally Posted by danmpem

I'm wondering if an unbelieving servant would be baptized out of obedience to the head of the household.

It is difficult to imagine anything other than compliance in a situation where life and death is in the power of the master. We need to be careful to divest our thoughts of the ideas of civil liberty and toleration when examining facts relative to the old world.

[Contra_Mundum]

Not all cultural moments are alike. There is the nuclear family, a normative situation. Then there are cultures where servants are household members. It would be unthinkable, it would cause them to pale in horror or grow queasy if you suggested that there were other ways of "doing society." Why? Because people are creatures of habit. Culture is habit writ large.

Servants are but a form of employee in our day. The live-in domestic is an oddity, and still typically considered an employee, especially for Social Security purposes. Anything else would legally be considered slavery. Our legal codes have changed with social mores. But in another culture than American?

We need to answer these questions in something other than a parochial fashion. We need to realize that our application of biblical principle (over against a rule) may look slightly different in one place than another, one time or another. We don't "greet each other with a holy kiss" the same way, either.

[Semper Fidelis]

da wabbit is da man!

[reformedcop]

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Not socially, 1 Pet. 3:1, but ceremonially, 1 Cor. 7:14.

In the case of a marriage where the wife is a believer and the husband is not, is the covenant husband baptized provided he is not an outright scoffer?

[armourbearer]

Originally Posted by reformedcop

In the case of a marriage where the wife is a believer and the husband is not, is the covenant husband baptized provided he is not an outright scoffer?

That would overturn the natural order.

[reformedcop]

Originally Posted by armourbearer

That would overturn the natural order.

Because the husband is still the social head of the household ... he should not be baptized?

[armourbearer]

Originally Posted by reformedcop

Because the husband is still the social head of the household ... he should not be baptized?

On his own profession, yes he should be baptised; but not on the basis of his wife's profession, for that would make her the head of the home.

[reformedcop]

Originally Posted by armourbearer

On his own profession, yes he should be baptised; but not on the basis of his wife's profession, for that would make her the head of the home.

Thank you Rev. Winzer. I think I may have been confused by the mention of Ceremonial Head above.

Now if the situation was reversed, the female spouse would be baptized on the husband's profession?

[armourbearer]

Originally Posted by reformedcop

Now if the situation was reversed, the female spouse would be baptized on the husband's profession?

Yes, if she is willing.

[armourbearer]

Originally Posted by reformedcop

Thank you Rev. Winzer. I think I may have been confused by the mention of Ceremonial Head above.

Sorry about the confusion; she is not spiritual head of the unbelieving husband, only over her children in the absence of a husband who believes.

[reformedcop]

Rev. Winzer thank you for your time yesterday clearing up my confusion. If I may, I would like to ask you another question. I would welcome anyone else's imput as well.

Regarding Lydia's household ... The Scriptures show her as the head of the household and the household being baptized upon her profession. Is it safe to assume that there was no adult male, non-servant presence in her household? If, for argument sake, there was an adult believing male that was not a servant that was part of the household, would he assume spirtual leadership?

Dan

[R Harris]

The difficulty with the household baptisms in Acts 16 (Lydia and the Jailer) is that Luke provides us with no information regarding the other members of the household, regarding age, sex, or whether they made a profession or not.

Lydia believes, and is baptized along with her household. The Jailer believes, and is baptized along with his household. Luke makes no mention whether the other members of the household made a "valid" profession of faith. So, the credo-baptist must make an inference/assumption here.

But for the covenantal baptist, who believes that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant (cf. Colossians 2:11), and that we see corresponding household circumcisions in the OT (Genesis 17), this is the natural occurrence that we would expect to see.

Speaking of adults not believing but still being baptized, we do see that clear example of Abraham's servants being circumcised, but we get no hint whatsoever that they had the faith that Abraham had (Genesis 17; Romans 4:11). So the issue is not just with 8 day old Isaac and infant circumcision/ baptism; the matter does indeed affect the entire household, with servants included. Even reformed paedobaptists often miss this point, which leads to the confusion and difficulty of the discussion.

[toddpedlar]

Originally Posted by R Harris

The difficulty with the household baptisms in Acts 16 (Lydia and the Jailer) is that Luke provides us with no information regarding the other members of the household, regarding age, sex, or whether they made a profession or not.

Lydia believes, and is baptized along with her household. The Jailer believes, and is baptized along with his household. Luke makes no mention whether the other members of the household made a "valid" profession of faith. So, the credo-baptist must make an inference/assumption here.

But for the covenantal baptist, who believes that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant (cf. Colossians 2:11), and that we see corresponding household circumcisions in the OT (Genesis 17), this is the natural occurrence that we would expect to see.

Speaking of adults not believing but still being baptized, we do see that clear example of Abraham's servants being circumcised, but we get no hint whatsoever that they had the faith that Abraham had (Genesis 17; Romans 4:11). So the issue is not just with 8 day old Isaac and infant circumcision/ baptism; the matter does indeed affect the entire household, with servants included. Even reformed paedobaptists often miss this point, which leads to the confusion and difficulty of the discussion.

...and in fact the command is given that the whole house (including servants) be circumcized if the head of the house is to be welcome (Ex. 12:48). All the males of his house had to be, if he wanted to partake of the passover.