Baptizing heads of state

[SRoper]

In scripture it seems that when the head of a household is baptized his entire household is baptized as well. If this is true, does this principle extend to chieftains, princes, and kings that are baptized? Should their subjects also be baptized? In either case, I am not talking about forcibly baptizing those who are opposed to it, but baptizing those who give their consent without giving explicit evidence of faith and those too young to articulate their faith.

This question is really for fellow paedobaptists as I don't expect any credobaptists to share the same the same understanding of household baptisms, but everyone is free to participate.

 

[MW]

It is quite difficult to answer this in an atmosphere which takes for granted the individual's right to choose his own religion. Regrettably, the fact that such a right is itself a part of a broader religion into which the general populace is baptised from birth seems to escape people's notice.

Everyone is practising religion of some sort or another. The important question is, Is it the true religion?

Is Christianity the true religion? Is baptism the initiatory rite into this religion? Then there is no moral reason why people shouldn't be baptised into the Christian religion. The only alternative is to leave them unbaptised and thereby initiated into a false religion.

In a more communal atmosphere where it is blatantly obvious that no human being chooses the religion into which he is born, and where the chieftain is in fact acting as the head of his tribe/household, it is difficult to see why the principle of household baptism could not be extended in this way. Having said that, modern concepts of freedom and spirituality are bound to throw up all kinds of objections.

 

[Peairtach]

In either case, I am not talking about forcibly baptizing those who are opposed to it, but baptizing those who give their consent without giving explicit evidence of faith

Admission for baptism in the NT was a quite simple matter, on an uncontradicted profession of faith.

E.g. would the Apostles have been able to interview each adult candidate for baptism on the Day of Pentecost? Would they be able to test the reality of their faith, since they had only just heard and received the message of the Gospel?

Access to the Lord's Supper, was, and is, a different matter.


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[sevenzedek]

What constitutes a household? The thread titles suggests more while the OP suggests less.

Apparently, Abraham's household included more than his progeny. It included his servants and farmhands.

I would not include subjects of the state in the covenant of grace because their sphere of influence does not always reach to every home. Therefore I don't see a need to baptize everyone who is the subject of a christian head of state, but I can conceive of how a chief or tribe leader could be considered the head of a household.

What constitutes a household? That is the question. Defining this would then make it much easier to know who should be included in the covenant of grace and its sign. For this question I have no exact answer, but it would seem allowable to include others who are not blood and adoptive relatives as Abraham did.

Carefulness in formulating an answer should be taken. Is a grandpa the proper head of ALL his household? If so, then who knows how many covenant members exist in this society; and moving toward the implications of this idea seems too far to suppose; especially in this fragmented society in which we live. That is why I think our definition of a household should be limited to a narrow sphere of influence.