Baptist vs Presbyterian perspectives on "household&quot

Status
Not open for further replies.

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
To those who are in the CT camp, the use of the word "household" in some of the baptism passages in the NT speaks strongly to them of covenantal language.

I was wondering what the term "household" means to those of you who are baptists? Does the word have any special significance? Does the word speak to you in any way that reminds you of how God worked in the OT?

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by blhowes]

Title edited by puritansailor
 

Canadian Baptist

Puritan Board Freshman
The word household is precious. How about these verses.

Matthew 10:35-36
For I have come to "set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'; and "a man's enemies will be those of his own household."
Jesus is sending out the 12 to preach and tells them that the gospel will sometimes sever earthly bonds, and often divide families. However, the New Covenant adoption papers are all signed in the blood of Christ for the elect, and they are brought into a new family.

Ephesians 2:19
Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.

Galatians 6:10
Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.

Hebrews 8:10-11
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, "Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.

1 Peter 2:5
you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

These verses tell us who the covenant has as members and that they all know the Lord. As for many other "household" passages, the context is important.

Acts 16:31
So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." This is not a promise for all Christians. It was a prophetic declaration and promise to this man specifically.

Soli Deo Gloria.
 

TheonomyNZ

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:9a99391798][i:9a99391798]Originally posted by blhowes[/i:9a99391798]
I was wondering what the term "household" means to those of you who are baptists? Does the word have any special significance? Does the word speak to you in any way that reminds you of how God worked in the OT? [/quote:9a99391798]From memory, all of the household baptism bar one actually specify that the household believed prior to baptism (or at leats make it appear that way). The one exception is Lydia in Acts 16:13-15.

Now, do we take this single example to include infant baptism? It seems to me that our covenant theology will inevitably control what we make of this silence. This woman who was apparently the head of her house could well have been a widow, and her household could easily have been adult. Of course, it is possible she was a solo parent with babies, who travelled around the country selling fabric (the passage says this was her job). There's nothing definitive in the text itself, and I've never fully understood why paedobaptists seem to think they can demonstrate so much from silence.
 

jfschultz

Puritan Board Junior
[quote:14b5caec7a][i:14b5caec7a]Originally posted by blhowes[/i:14b5caec7a]
To those who are in the CT camp, the use of the word "household" in some of the baptism passages in the NT speaks strongly to them of covenantal language.

I was wondering what the term "household" means to those of you who are baptists? Does the word have any special significance? Does the word speak to you in any way that reminds you of how God worked in the OT? [/quote:14b5caec7a]

A friend, who attendes Adrian Rogers church gave me a CD of a converted muslim who spoke there recently. He goes through Acts 16 about Lydia and the maid to their being thrown into prison. He stated that to this point only two people in Phillipi had been saved. It struck me that a Baptist could not make that statement. :shocked:

He calls me "Dr. John" because "I am so theologically deep." I challenged him to think through this over the weekend as an excersize in thinking theologially. Now to see what he has as an answer on Monday. :puzzled:
 

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
[b:5342cfbc59]Canadian Baptist wrote:[/b:5342cfbc59]
The word household is precious. How about these verses...

It sure is a precious word when you take into account the verses you quoted. I especially like Ephesians 2:19.

When you read the word household in the verses that talk about baptism, do you think God chose to use the word to connect us with the "household of God", as in the verses you mentioned, or was he connecting us to the OT usage? (family certainly is a prevalent theme in the OT)

Or, was it just kind of a short-hand way of saying that everybody in the house believed or was baptized (instead of listing all the children, etc., by name)?

[b:5342cfbc59]TheonomyNZ,[/b:5342cfbc59]
As much as possible, I'd like to stay away from the debate about infant baptism in this thread and just focus on the word household (from the baptist perspective).

[just wondering]
From your understanding, though, do the two necessarily go hand-in-hand? If a baptist comes to understand the word from the CT perspective, does a belief in infant baptism naturally follow?
[/just wondering]

Anyway, do you think there's any special reason why God chose to use the word household in those verses? He could have listed everybody in the house by name instead. Or, he could have done it similarly to how he lists the family members in Luke 14:26:

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Do you think there's any special reason why God chose to use the word household, as opposed to listing everybody by name or as in Luke 14:26?

[b:5342cfbc59]Dr. John wrote:[/b:5342cfbc59]
He stated that to this point only two people in Phillipi had been saved. It struck me that a Baptist could not make that statement. :shocked:

I'm not sure why you say that a Baptist couldn't make that statement any more than a non-baptist? Its clearly the first person who's mentioned by name, but I don't know if there's enough scriptural support one way or the other to dogmatically say that they were the only ones saved up until that point.

I would tend to think that there's a good chance that she may not have been the first person saved in Philippi. In Acts 16:12, it says that they were in that city abiding certain days. Then, in Acts 16:13, on the Sabbath, they went out by the river where they met Lydia. While in the city, before the Sabbath came, I'm sure they didn't take a break from preaching the gospel, but fervently preached the gospel while in the city and, I presume (in a non-dogmatic manner) that some people there got saved...perhaps...perhaps not.

Anyway, Dr. John, please forgive me, but I can't remember if you're a baptist or not. Regardless, what do you think of when you read the word household in the NT verses related to baptism?

Bob
 

Canadian Baptist

Puritan Board Freshman
blhowes said:
When you read the word household in the verses that talk about baptism, do you think God chose to use the word to connect us with the "household of God", as in the verses you mentioned, or was he connecting us to the OT usage? (family certainly is a prevalent theme in the OT)

Neither. The reference is to that specific household. This is not a spiritual principle but a direct reference to a certain home or household. He is talking about family for sure; THAT SPECIFIC FAMILY that was referred to. That is why bad hermeneutics will come up with household salvation etc. I do not believe that infant baptism is at all inferred in those texts.
Soli Deo Gloria.
 

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
[b:8ad2f16f1c]Canadian Baptist wrote:[/b:8ad2f16f1c]
Neither. The reference is to that specific household ... a direct reference to a certain home or household. He is talking about family for sure; THAT SPECIFIC FAMILY that was referred to.

That certainly makes sense. I think everybody would agree about it referring to a specific household.

[b:8ad2f16f1c]Canadian Baptist wrote:[/b:8ad2f16f1c]
This is not a spiritual principle ... That is why bad hermeneutics will come up with household salvation etc.

How do we determine if it means more? According the hermeneutic that you use, would we take it at face value unless God told us that the word has additional importance or meaning?

Bob
 

Canadian Baptist

Puritan Board Freshman
We must be careful to avoid eisegis or reading into the text. Some important principles must be in our mind at all times... the New Testament sheds light on the purpose and intent of the Old Testament--NOT VICE VERSA! This is crucial because literal interpretation alone of the Old Testament can lead to some problems. (dispensational view of Israel for example.) The New Testament shows how the Apostles interpreted those Old Testament texts. So default to the New. In the New Testament, go with what is the consensus of clearly explained texts about a topic and avoid assuming what an ambiguous or puzzling text or two seems to imply. How many times have we all been told by our "Christian" brethren..."we are not supposed to judge!" or "yes, but God is love." They have reduced hermeneutics to finding the best verse that gives them the best feeling about what is best to them.
There is no hermeneutical law that will clear every problem we face in the text, but if we cleave to Sola Scriptura and rely on the indwelling Spirit to illuminate the scripture in its immediate context and also the period of redemptive history that it is in, we would avoid a lot of confusion. Remember, that all scripture is ultimately about the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Soli Deo Gloria.
 

jfschultz

Puritan Board Junior
[quote:d54c1acef5][i:d54c1acef5]Originally posted by blhowes[/i:d54c1acef5]
[b:d54c1acef5]Dr. John wrote:[/b:d54c1acef5]
He stated that to this point only two people in Phillipi had been saved. It struck me that a Baptist could not make that statement. :shocked:

I'm not sure why you say that a Baptist couldn't make that statement any more than a non-baptist? Its clearly the first person who's mentioned by name, but I don't know if there's enough scriptural support one way or the other to dogmatically say that they were the only ones saved up until that point.

I would tend to think that there's a good chance that she may not have been the first person saved in Philippi. In Acts 16:12, it says that they were in that city abiding certain days. Then, in Acts 16:13, on the Sabbath, they went out by the river where they met Lydia. While in the city, before the Sabbath came, I'm sure they didn't take a break from preaching the gospel, but fervently preached the gospel while in the city and, I presume (in a non-dogmatic manner) that some people there got saved...perhaps...perhaps not.

Anyway, Dr. John, please forgive me, but I can't remember if you're a baptist or not. Regardless, what do you think of when you read the word household in the NT verses related to baptism?

Bob [/quote:d54c1acef5]

The problem is with Lydia's baptism. With a household baptism some number of other people were also baptized. A Baptist would maintain that they had to also be saved as a requirement to be baptized. To make the statement this person made would imply that these others were baptized on the basis of being members of Lydia's household and not because they were saved. A Presbyterian would have no problem with this statement, but a Baptist would (should).

As a pedo-baptist (PCA) I would see household baptisms as an evidence of sacramental continuity between the Old and New Testaments.
 

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
[b:d2c5e56957]John wrote:[/b:d2c5e56957]
The problem is with Lydia's baptism. With a household baptism some number of other people were also baptized. A Baptist would maintain that they had to also be saved as a requirement to be baptized. To make the statement this person made would imply that these others were baptized on the basis of being members of Lydia's household and not because they were saved. A Presbyterian would have no problem with this statement, but a Baptist would (should).

Oh, that makes sense.

[b:d2c5e56957]John wrote:[/b:d2c5e56957]
As a paedo-baptist (PCA)...

Thanks for refreshing my memory. They say that there are two things that are usually lost as we get older. The first one is our memory... can't remember what the second one is.
 

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
Canadian Baptist,
Sorry it took so long to respond to your post. You had some excellent thoughts that caused me to go into "think mode". I also apologize for the length of my response. Usually I like to keep my responses short and sweet, interspersed with a joke or two. But, your response got those old wheels inside my head turning, so the delay and length of the response is all your fault. :lol:

[b:4295cd213a]Canadian Baptist wrote:[/b:4295cd213a]
The New Testament shows how the Apostles interpreted those Old Testament texts. So default to the New.

Most definitely. Whenever we're studying a passage that we don't understand, go to the commentaries. There's no better commentary that we can use than the inspired comments of the NT writers.

[b:4295cd213a]Canadian Baptist wrote:[/b:4295cd213a]
We must be careful to avoid eisegis or reading into the text. Some important principles must be in our mind at all times... the New Testament sheds light on the purpose and intent of the Old Testament--NOT VICE VERSA!

Determining one's hermeneutical approach to the scriptures can be most challenging. I'm not a lawyer or anything, but sometimes I think that coming to a verdict on the meaning of scripture passages is like a judge trying to decide a case. The immediate evidence is considered and weighed carefully. They also look at what precidents have been established historically related to the case. Considering the immediate evidence against the backdrop of historical precident, the judge makes [pc] his/her [/pc] decision. (pc=politically correct)

I agree with your warning about avoiding eisegis. I'm starting to think that the best way to do that is to allow the NT to interpret the OT, while tempering my conclusions with what I read in the OT. I'm 2000 years removed from the times and culture of what was written in the NT and our times and cultures are very different. If I only interpret the OT with the NT without putting the NT in context with the earlier revealed revelation, I run the risk of reading into the text thoughts and ideas from my culture that are irrelevant to the text at hand.

[b:4295cd213a]Canadian Baptist wrote:[/b:4295cd213a]
... but if we cleave to Sola Scriptura and rely on the indwelling Spirit to illuminate the scripture in its immediate context and also the period of redemptive history that it is in, we would avoid a lot of confusion.

Again, determining one's hermeneutical approach to the scriptures can be most challenging. I know that we have to be organized and systematic when we study the scriptures, so please don't take this the wrong way. When I read this statement, it reminded me of the teachings I received when I attended dispensational churches. Different words, but the principles are still the same.

Basically, whenever anything outside of the "church age" was studied, the groundwork had to first be layed. "In order to come to the correct conclusions, we need to keep certain things in mind":

  • [*:4295cd213a]Israel is Israel and the church is the church. The two are completely separate.
    [*:4295cd213a]Remember which dispensation the passage is talking about.
    [*:4295cd213a]The church is a parenthesis in God's plan. You cannot find the church in the OT.
    [/list:eek::4295cd213a]
    After starting with those and other presuppositions, we then began our "bible study"...and I always thought "Well of course we're going to come to dispensational conclusions when we start with those unquestioned criteria". With that groundwork laid, how could a person possibly answer questions like "What does the Bible say about the relationship between the church and Israel?" or "What does the OT say about the church?". You can't do it. The presuppositions blind the person to whatever truths the scriptures may teach about the topics.

    I agree with you that we need to allow the Holy Spirit to illuminate the scripture in its immediate context and also the period of redemptive history that it is in. However, I also think that we shouldn't restrict the illumination to just the period of redemptive history that the passage is found in, but to illuminate it in the context of the totality of redemptive history. Gather all the facts, if you will.

    I think sometimes we're almost forced to consider what the OT has to say about a passage. I didn't want this thread to really get into a discussion about baptism (that's been discussed at least once or twice elsewhere), but I'll break my "rule" to make a point.

    When I study the scriptures, sometimes I like to imagine that I'm the person in the story to see how I would react or what I would do in a given situation with the information that they had available. There is information about baptism covered in the NT epistles, but what if I put myself in the shoes (sandals) of John the Baptist. God had told him to preach repentance and to baptize those who repented. At that point in history, none of the books in the NT were written yet. If we were in John's sandals when God gave the command, how would we know what to do? I would want to obey God's command, but how would I know what to do and how to do it? I suppose we could assume that God told John what to do, but it just wasn't recorded in the scriptures..."I want you to put some water into a cup and pour it onto the repentent person's head, etc". God may very well have given him these instructions, but, if not, how would we know the proper way to baptize? Well, since John was a priest, we'd look into the OT to see if there's anything that talked about a priest baptizing someone. If we don't find anything about a priest baptizing somebody, we look elsewhere in OT to see if anything at all is said about how to baptize somebody. If all else fails, we come to the puritanboard for the correct answer (just kidding).

    Somehow or other John the baptist knew what to do and the messengers sent to John from the Pharisees recognized that John was baptizing the people. Their understanding had to come from somewhere, and in this case it wasn't from the NT scriptures.

    [b:4295cd213a]Canadian Baptist wrote:[/b:4295cd213a]
    This is crucial because literal interpretation alone of the Old Testament can lead to some problems. (dispensational view of Israel for example.)

    I agree. Forcing a literal interpretation alone on the OT is not the correct way to go. However, I think we're on safe ground if we consider what the OT has to say literally and spiritually. I'm not in the CT camp, but it makes sense to try and understand all scriptures, as best we can, from God's vantage point. From eternity past, God planned to save His elect (call it the covenant of redemption, or whatever you want). Man sinned and God promised and eventually sent Jesus to redeem His elect. The non-elect will spend an eternity in hell and the elect will spend and eternity in God's presence.

    With that always in the back of our minds, I think it makes sense to ask ourselves how the verse or passage we're studying not only relates to the immediate plan and that portion of redemptive history that its found in, but also how it relates to that high-level plan.

    [b:4295cd213a]Canadian Baptist wrote:[/b:4295cd213a]
    Remember, that all scripture is ultimately about the person and work of Jesus Christ.

    We are in agreement.

    Bob


    [Edited on 2-21-2004 by blhowes]
 

TheonomyNZ

Puritan Board Freshman
[b:3124f20ae7]TheonomyNZ,[/b:3124f20ae7]
As much as possible, I'd like to stay away from the debate about infant baptism in this thread and just focus on the word household (from the baptist perspective).[/quote]Fair enough
[quote:3124f20ae7][just wondering]
From your understanding, though, do the two necessarily go hand-in-hand? If a baptist comes to understand the word from the CT perspective, does a belief in infant baptism naturally follow?
[/just wondering][/quote:3124f20ae7]No, not at all. I mean, sure, one would be swallowing the camel by seeing it from the CT perspective, but beyond that, belief in such a covenant consisting of the entire household regardless of whether the individuals love or hate God (or neither) does not automatically lead to support for infant baptism, no. If you combine the above view with the view that baptism functions in exactly the same way as circumcision, then nfant baptism would follow. But those two camels would have to be swallowed, not just the first.
[quote:3124f20ae7]Anyway, do you think there's any special reason why God chose to use the word household in those verses? He could have listed everybody in the house by name instead.[/quote:3124f20ae7]Sure, he could have. Or he could have said "household." i just think the word houseold was used because the entire household was baptised. On each of those occasions bar one (Lydia, apparently a single woman and her household), we are told that the people being baptised were in fact believers.
[quote:3124f20ae7]Do you think there's any special reason why God chose to use the word household, as opposed to listing everybody by name or as in Luke 14:26?[/quote:3124f20ae7]No, no special reason seems to be required. It is, of course, quite probably that Luke did not know the names of all the members of the household, nor exactly how many there were.

But the short answer is - no. There's nothing here that requires us to go digging for a deep theological reason for why Luke refers to each of these households as a "household" ([i:3124f20ae7]oikos[/i:3124f20ae7]).
 

Canadian Baptist

Puritan Board Freshman
[b:73eedb4032]blhowes said:[/b:73eedb4032]
When I read this statement, it reminded me of the teachings I received when I attended dispensational churches. Different words, but the principles are still the same.

I am not Dispensational or CT. However, I will use an example of what I mean of a verse claimed without warrant because it is not applicable to the period of redemptive history we are in.
2 Chronicles 7:14
If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

This verse is not to be claimed by the Canadian or American Church for today! We can use it up to the point where it says "and heal their land." The Church is the nation of God now, no land is associated with it as we are in every nation of the earth. God has made no promises to our nations to heal them if we repent etc. Verse 19 and 20 make it clear that He is referring to Israel and it can't be applied to us.

19"But if you turn away and forsake My statutes and My commandments which I have set before you, and go and serve other gods, and worship them, 20then I will uproot them from My land which I have given them;
Soli Deo Gloria.
 

TheonomyNZ

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:f04ffa2caf][i:f04ffa2caf]Originally posted by Canadian Baptist[/i:f04ffa2caf]
I am not Dispensational or CT. However, I will use an example of what I mean of a verse claimed without warrant because it is not applicable to the period of redemptive history we are in.
2 Chronicles 7:14
If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

This verse is not to be claimed by the Canadian or American Church for today! We can use it up to the point where it says "and heal their land." The Church is the nation of God now, no land is associated with it as we are in every nation of the earth. God has made no promises to our nations to heal them if we repent etc.[/quote:f04ffa2caf]I don't think it follows that this involves no promise to heal our nations. What is "the land" for us if not the kingdom of God? If God blesses - not a patch of land, but His kingdom being built on earth, what will be the outcome but an increase in righteousness in our land?
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
TheonomyNZ writes:

But the short answer is - no. There's nothing here that requires us to go digging for a deep theological reason for why Luke refers to each of these households as a "household" (oikos).

If one approaches the scripture w/ a proper hermeneutic, there is no question as to what is meant when the term [i:a65b920e6c]oikos[/i:a65b920e6c] is used. In all these cases, the hearers were Jews; they were well aware of what the idea was in regards to their familes. To assume, based upon the silence is ludicrous. The implicit is there.

I assume in regards to John the (paedo)baptist that when the scripture states that "all" came out to him to be baptised, only adults came and were baptised? The message that spread about John was, 'Leave you kids at home as they are NOW excluded from any of this'.
 

TheonomyNZ

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:93c6c0bd09][i:93c6c0bd09]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:93c6c0bd09]
If one approaches the scripture w/ a proper hermeneutic, there is no question as to what is meant when the term [i:93c6c0bd09]oikos[/i:93c6c0bd09] is used. In all these cases, the hearers were Jews; they were well aware of what the idea was in regards to their familes. To assume, based upon the silence is ludicrous. The implicit is there.[/quote:93c6c0bd09]Firstly, I'm not assuming anything based on silence (I am utterly confused as to what you meant by that). In fact, as I noted earlier, both sides are observing a silence, and drawing conclusions nonetheless. Secondly, I'm not sure how this is a response. I accept that household means the whole household, so what did you mean?[quote:93c6c0bd09]I assume in regards to John the (paedo)baptist that when the scripture states that "all" came out to him to be baptised, only adults came and were baptised? The message that spread about John was, 'Leave you kids at home as they are NOW excluded from any of this'. [/quote:93c6c0bd09]No, the message was "repent, and be baptised."
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Glenn,
To possibly clearify and lift some of the fog: You previosuly wrote:

Now, do we take this single example to include infant baptism? It seems to me that our covenant theology will inevitably control what we make of this silence. This woman who was apparently the head of her house could well have been a widow, and her household could easily have been adult. Of course, it is possible she was a solo parent with babies, who travelled around the country selling fabric (the passage says this was her job). There's nothing definitive in the text itself, and I've never fully understood why paedobaptists seem to think they can demonstrate so much from silence.

My response was in regards to your premise of the silence. It is not CT per se where one gleens the support for the implicit, but from a (in my opinion) a more throrough hermeneutic.

For the record, it is beyond me, and mind you I was a credo-baptist up until this last year, that the credo misses the implicit, which is sufficient in demonstrating the paedo baptist view.

[Edited on 2-22-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 

TheonomyNZ

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:9dbd49ba9d][i:9dbd49ba9d]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:9dbd49ba9d]
So, we have NT proof that the word household can/does include infants.[/quote:9dbd49ba9d]Who denies this? The question is not whether or not the term is linguistically capable of including infants. The question is whether it [b:9dbd49ba9d]DOES[/b:9dbd49ba9d] in the case of NT household baptisms. In each case we read that the whole household believed, except the case of Lydia, a single woman.
 

TheonomyNZ

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:b32ea66120][i:b32ea66120]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:b32ea66120]
My response was in regards to your premise of the silence. It is not CT per se where one gleens the support for the implicit, but from a (in my opinion) a more throrough hermeneutic.[/quote:b32ea66120]On the absolute contrary. It IS from the implicit, since the text doesn;t say anything about the gae of the household. The only way to take these texts as evidence that infant baptism took place is to assume in the face of silence that infants were present. Granted, the texts here do not specifically forbid this interpretation, but it is nonetheless impliucit, arising from silence.
[quote:b32ea66120]For the record, it is beyond me, and mind you I was a credo-baptist up until this last year, that the credo misses the implicit, which is sufficient in demonstrating the paedo baptist view.[/quote:b32ea66120]Why? Were infants baptised here? If you say yes, why do you say it?

[Edited on 2-22-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote]
 

Canadian Baptist

Puritan Board Freshman
[b:dfe33a0257]TheonomyNZ said:[/b:dfe33a0257]
The only way to take these texts as evidence that infant baptism took place is to assume in the face of silence that infants were present. Granted, the texts here do not specifically forbid this interpretation, but it is nonetheless impliucit, arising from silence.

I agree! :thumbup:
It is in places like this where we need to cleave strongly to Sola Scriptura! Often we hold to something which is only assumed in the text because there is a tradition that we have received that takes precedent over the declaration of scripture. Do we not chastise the Catholics for this and yet will do it ourselves?
Soli Deo Gloria.
 

kceaster

Puritan Board Junior
CB....

[quote:62504de384]I agree! It is in places like this where we need to cleave strongly to Sola Scriptura! Often we hold to something which is only assumed in the text because there is a tradition that we have received that takes precedent over the declaration of scripture. Do we not chastise the Catholics for this and yet will do it ourselves?
Soli Deo Gloria. [/quote:62504de384]

Actually, we all have traditions and there is nothing wrong with them, so long as they are not outside of the pale of Scripture. Having traditions is not the same thing as traditionalism.

But think about it for a moment, would paedos still baptize infants if it were not for the fact that baptism (in the interpretation of the reformation) is linked with circumcision in Col 2; and the fact that the infants were included in circumcision in the OT?

If you want Sola Scriptura, there it is. From the Bible alone we can gather that infants were included in the church of the OT and that there is nothing whatsoever to annul that in the NT.

In Christ,

KC
 

Canadian Baptist

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:f6bb36049c][i:f6bb36049c]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:f6bb36049c]


But think about it for a moment, would paedos still baptize infants if it were not for the fact that baptism (in the interpretation of the reformation) is linked with circumcision in Col 2; and the fact that the infants were included in circumcision in the OT?

If you want Sola Scriptura, there it is.

In Christ,

KC [/quote:f6bb36049c]

The New Covenant does not replace baptism in place of old Covenant circumcision. The New Covenant's counterpart to circumcision is still circumcision, but it is circumcision of the heart. And this does not happen at baptism but is strictly a monergistic act of God on the heart.

Romans 2:28
For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

Collosians 2:11
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins[3] of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ
Soli Deo Gloria
 

kceaster

Puritan Board Junior
CB....

[quote:e2f8878a90]The New Covenant does not replace baptism in place of old Covenant circumcision. The New Covenant's counterpart to circumcision is still circumcision, but it is circumcision of the heart. And this does not happen at baptism but is strictly a monergistic act of God on the heart.

Romans 2:28
For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

Collosians 2:11
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins[3] of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ
Soli Deo Gloria [/quote:e2f8878a90]

Unfortunately, you stopped in mid sentence. 12 goes on to say, "buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." Verse 12 follows the same thought as 11. You may not divorce the two.

I will grant that baptism is not a replacement of circumcision in what it signifies (for they both point to circumcision of the heart), but it is a transition of sign. Verse 12 proves that transition.

How do we know this? Because Moses told the people the same thing Paul is saying. Be circumcised of heart. And, I would also tell you that if you think circumcision of heart is only in the NC, you are surely mistaken. Many in the OC were circumcised of heart, and through their own covenant in shadows.

In Christ,

KC
 

TheonomyNZ

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:dd7d941d5c][i:dd7d941d5c]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:dd7d941d5c]
this is my point. In Titus we read that the households are being destroyed by TEACHING. Now if we read a verse that said, "Whole households were baptized when they heard the teaching of the word" a baptist would say, "oh, see, it says TEACH, now infants cannot be taught.[/quote:dd7d941d5c]You've misquoted. The household baptisms in Acts do not merely say that the household was "taught," but that they actually "believed."[quote:dd7d941d5c]Thus Titus serves as a powerful argument against ALL the baptist attempts to interpret the household passages within baptistic presuppositions. If consistant they would need to interpret Titus this way to. But who wants to say that infants/children were not involved in(1) circumcision, (2) household circumcision? The parrellel is to close! Thus Titus gives us, I think, an excellent argument for the inclusion of infants/children/"believing language" when used of households.[/quote:dd7d941d5c]This appears wholly contrived. Nobody denies that infants were circumcised when households were circumcised - if infants were present. And that's the key. Were infants invovled in the household baptisms? Apparently not, since the households were not merely taught - they believed.

Additionally, Titus offers you nothing here. A household can easily be destroyed with false teaching. As soon as the head of the house is infected with false teaching, he will raise his children on false teaching. Why you think this is a "powerful" argument that infants were involved in the household baptisms of Acts is a mystery. It certainly does not follow nbecessarily or obviously, in fact there appears to be no connection. Undersand, I haven't been sayoing in this thread that infant baptism is wrong (regardless of my own convictions). I'm just pointing out that you can't establish that they occured from the silence of Acts. Arguments from silence are notoriously unreliable. WIthout appaling to "presuppositions," the facts are as follows: In all but one case, the households that were baptised also "believed." Forget whether I'm a bapotist, a presbyterian or whatever, that's just the raw data of Scripture. Int he one exception, the head of the house is a single woman, Lydia. Again, don;t try to dissect motive or claim anyone is being blindly driven by presupposition - this is nothing more than the raw, visible data of Scripture. To infer a theology of baptism from this is simply wrong.

Glenn
 

TheonomyNZ

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:1395b2ad1a][i:1395b2ad1a]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:1395b2ad1a]
Not missquote, said, "IF." Now, IF a verse said, "The whole household was baptized after they heard the teaching of the word" what would you say to that verse? As a baptist? [/quote:1395b2ad1a]
Paul, the point is this: You can't fight something with nothing. We will read this tects AS a baptist or AS a paedo, but to argue that they ESTABLISH or DEMONSTRATE or serve as EVIDENCE for wither view is no more or less than a fallacious argument from silence. OK, on that one example it says that the whole household rejoiced, not "believed." On other occasions it does say the whole household believed. On another occasion the head of the house was a single woman. My point is, these are not proofs of anything with regard to a theology of baptism, since they could conceiveably have been written that way [i:1395b2ad1a]whichever[/i:1395b2ad1a] view is correct. narratives will be interpreted in light of a developed theology, and that is precisely what is happening here.

edit:
[quote:1395b2ad1a]Again, if we used your hermeneutic, we would have to conclude that no children were at the Titusian epistle households. Alll the ingreediants are there. Titus is proof that "believing type" language is used even when referring to infants/children, thus I need not be scratched by the other household verses as well. Therefore, we are back at the original dilema. I have thousands of years of corporate noun usage in the Bible on my side, and what was on your side, i.e., "It says they beleived" has now been shown to be doubted-upon good grounds.[/quote:1395b2ad1a]I just checked my previous post to make sure - and I did address this fully. What eslse would you like me to add to it? I explaind how a whole household (including infants, or otherwise) could be affected by false teaching. I thought my reponse was quite adequate.

[Edited on 25/2/2004 by TheonomyNZ]
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
Acts 16

NKJV
31So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." 32[u:52935de583]Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house[/u:52935de583]. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and [u:52935de583]he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household[/u:52935de583].

NASB
32 And they spoke the word of the Lord [u:52935de583]to him together with all who were in his house[/u:52935de583]. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, [u:52935de583]having believed in God with his whole household[/u:52935de583].

Even the NIV
32Then they spoke the word of the Lord [u:52935de583]to him and to all the others in his house[/u:52935de583]. 33At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because [u:52935de583]he had come to believe in God--he and his whole family[/u:52935de583].
 

TheonomyNZ

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:76607c8d89][i:76607c8d89]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:76607c8d89]
Now were getting somewhere. Tell me how you as a baptist interpret the jailor household to be referring to ADULTS only. You did this with Lydia and the argument from single, wroking, traveling mother with an infant breast feesing would be a stretch (though i am a single father and you would be surprised what we can do:D). So, why do you interpret THIS (jailor) household to be referring ONLY to adults?
Again, I am trying to show that "household" in the NT can use language that presupposes (apparently) some epistemic activity but be applied to infants.[/quote:76607c8d89]
Well first (although you didn;t specifically say this), I want to be clear that I would never say "household" does not include infants. It only includes them if they are present. Second, as pastorway showed (he beat me to it), the jailor example is explicit that the household members heard the word, believed, and were baptised. You've got to concede that there is at least a reasonable case there that these were believers, not infants.

But even then, it would be a slim argument for believers only baptism if it were used that way. these are narratives, which will be read in light of a person's existing theology.

[quote:76607c8d89]
The point was that those baptists who use: "Spoke the Word" and 'rejoiced" as proof that there were no infants would need to apply that to the Titus passage as well. Do you agree?[/quote:76607c8d89]Not in the least. This Titus passage speaks about the effect of false teaching on an entire passage. It doesn;t say everyone in the household "did" anything like rejoice or believe etc., so the cases aren't as similar as you might suppose. A household may indeed be destroyed/harmed when the head of the house accepts false teaching.
[quote:76607c8d89]When I deal with this on the CT page one day we can get into "believing." My only point is that the arguments that baptists use with respects to the jailor would work against Titus, and I am glad you agreed that teaching can be used when speaking of infants, just like "spoke the word" can be used of infants in the jailors house as well.[/quote:76607c8d89]What did I agree to? I agreed that bad teaching will affect a household that includes infants, not because the infants are the immediate recipients of the teaching, but because it will affect the things that those infants will be taught. this is manifestly different from saying that a whole household "rejoiced" or "believed," so it is still clear that Titus does not do anything for you here.

Teaching cannot be used of infants, if you mean to say "I have just taught this infant the Gospel." I agreed that the teaching in a household will shape the infant, which no baptist will deny.
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
Paul,
between you and me, I believe this is meeting the credo on credo grounds. I know you know this, but I will say it for the sake of this conversation. Unless one approaches the oikos formula from an understanding of orthodox CT, you will always end up in the credo camp.
 

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
[b:e37e72799c]Paul wrote:[/b:e37e72799c]
....my hands are tied more on this thread as well because I don't want to make it a CT post on a TH page.

The thread is getting interesting. If only we could talk Scott or one of the other moderators into moving the thread to the CT forum - your hands would be loosed and you could let her rip!
 

wsw201

Puritan Board Senior
Fortunately, we do not hang our hats on "household" passages to make the biblical case of infant baptism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top