Paedo-Baptism Answers Household Baptisms

[Stephen L Smith]

I was recently having a conversation on Household Baptisms with some Reformed Baptist friends. They told me that most of the Household Baptisms were either done in a Gentile context and/or recorded by Gentiles. Therefore (they argued) you cannot convincingly link NT Household Baptisms to the OT Hebraic context.

I have not heard that argument before so I was a little caught off guard. I would be interested in any responses to it.

 

[Solparvus]

Romans 11. Gentiles ingrafted into Jewish tree.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Romans 11. Gentiles ingrafted into Jewish tree.

Yes. And Eph 3:4-6 says the same thing. "When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel."

To make my question more pointed - are you able to clearly make the link between OT and NT household baptisms; that NT household baptisms clearly have a Hebraic background.

 

[Solparvus]

Yes. And Eph 3:4-6 says the same thing. "When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel."

To make my question more pointed - are you able to clearly make the link between OT and NT household baptisms; that NT household baptisms clearly have a Hebraic background.

I am persuaded so. What's happening in the household baptisms is virtually the same thing as what happened with Abraham. He believed and professed, the sign and seal of righteousness by faith was given to him, and then it was given to his sons.

I anticipate the objection that says that faith and repentance were not required for Jewish proselytes, but the example of Abraham for me is enough to say that the same pattern should apply to every proselyte in the Old Testament days. If Abraham came into fellowship in this covenant by faith and repentance, then it follows that every proselyte ought to do the same thing. After all, they are not greater than Abraham and cannot expect different terms of communion with God than he did.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Jake, thank you for your patience with me. I put this in the paedobaptist answers forum because I am genuinely asking questions.

You said:

What's happening in the household baptisms is virtually the same thing as what happened with Abraham. He believed and professed, the sign and seal of righteousness by faith was given to him, and then it was given to his sons.

I recently read an article written by the Founders Ministries that argued paedobaptists are inconsistent because they appeal to the 'Abraham and his seed' principle of the Old Covenant, but they cannot consistently apply this principle to the New Covenant. That is, under the Old Covenant someone could claim the rite of circumcision (and thus be part of Israel) because he was an offspring of Abraham's physical seed.

But under the New Covenant this physical link does not exist. Gal 3 :29 makes it clear "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

This brings me back to my original argument. The NT household baptism argument makes good sense if you can link it to the physical seed of Abraham. But Gal 3:29 seems to refute the idea of a physical seed in the New Covenant.

Just for the record, I can see the flaws in a number areas of Baptist argument, especially in the yet/not yet aspect of the New Covenant. I'm trying to get my head around this argument.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

I was recently having a conversation on Household Baptisms with some Reformed Baptist friends. They told me that most of the Household Baptisms were either done in a Gentile context and/or recorded by Gentiles. Therefore (they argued) you cannot convincingly link NT Household Baptisms to the OT Hebraic context.

I have not heard that argument before so I was a little caught off guard. I would be interested in any responses to it.

Message me your e-mail.

 

[timfost]

The NT household baptism argument makes good sense if you can link it to the physical seed of Abraham.

I always appreciate the spirit in which you speak about this. Consider the emphasis you're placing on the physical seed against what Gen. 17 says:

"No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you."

My question for your consideration: was it ever his physical seed primarily in focus or are you more closely associating the covenant sign with the Mosaic economy having to do with national Israel?

Paul does not spiritualize the Genesis account but rather literally applies these words to the Gentiles in Romans 4:

"For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith."

And,

"Therefore it is if faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”)..."

 

[Solparvus]

Jake, thank you for your patience with me. I put this in the paedobaptist answers forum because I am genuinely asking questions.

You said:

I recently read an article written by the Founders Ministries that argued paedobaptists are inconsistent because they appeal to the 'Abraham and his seed' principle of the Old Covenant, but they cannot consistently apply this principle to the New Covenant. That is, under the Old Covenant someone could claim the rite of circumcision (and thus be part of Israel) because he was an offspring of Abraham's physical seed.

But under the New Covenant this physical link does not exist. Gal 3 :29 makes it clear "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

This brings me back to my original argument. The NT household baptism argument makes good sense if you can link it to the physical seed of Abraham. But Gal 3:29 seems to refute the idea of a physical seed in the New Covenant.

Just for the record, I can see the flaws in a number areas of Baptist argument, especially in the yet/not yet aspect of the New Covenant. I'm trying to get my head around this argument.

No question at all about your genuineness

The assumption of the Baptist argument you presented is that the Abrahamic Covenant is temporal in substance while the New Covenant is spiritual. That's a proposition that the New Testament doesn't substantiate. Once that argument is gone, the burden to link a spiritual covenant with a temporal one vanishes.

I won't belabor Romans 4:11 at the moment. If I must link household baptisms to the Abrahamic Covenant aside from the strong parallel to the circumcision of Abraham and his household, Romans 11 is a great New Testament passage.

There is a Jewish tree, which has a sap. In NC times the Jewish tree is not uprooted and replaced, but New Covenant Gentiles are grafted into the same Jewish tree, and share the same sap.

A few questions to ask:
- What is the sap? If the NC church is spiritual, we know the sap must be Christ. But Abraham's Covenant has the same sap. Who's feeding the Abrahamic Covenant?
- If the New Covenant is of different covenant and substance than Abraham's, why are we put into a tree which is obsolete and ready to fade away (Heb 8)? Especially if physical Israel would be permanently scattered within approx. 20 years?
- Was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD a lopping off of branches from the tree in Romans 11, or was it uprooting the tree altogether?

I think the clear answer is that the sap is Christ in both cases. We joined the Jewish tree. The believing Jews did not join ours. The NC is the AC in full blossom.

Then the household/seed principle:
- If Christ is the sap, how does that coincide with a covenant which, in respect to immediate parties, transcends no higher than to give temporary land and temporary promises?
- Does it make sense with the character of God that he is content to be a national god to a people on earth but not their salvific God?
- Did Abraham himself understand and accept circumcision as a sign and seal of righteousness by faith?
- If there is no dichotomy of substance between the Abrahamic and the New, then how can the spirituality of the New Covenant be an argument against the continued use of the household principle, or that the basic membership structure of the church has changed?
- If the substance of the Abrahamic Covenant is spiritual, then what might be God's purposes in including entire households in church membership before New Covenant times, beyond providing a physical people from whom Christ would come?

Also, how might these things change your reading of Galatians?

Forgive me for throwing out a bunch of questions. Sometimes questions are the best way to help you dig through and sort out matters.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

My question for your consideration: was it ever his physical seed primarily in focus or are you more closely associating the covenant sign with the Mosaic economy having to do with national Israel?

The assumption of the Baptist argument you presented is that the Abrahamic Covenant is temporal in substance while the New Covenant is spiritual. That's a proposition that the New Testament doesn't substantiate. Once that argument is gone, the burden to link a spiritual covenant with a temporal one vanishes.

Thank you friends for your thoughtful interaction. After giving it some thought I thought the best way to proceed may be to discuss/critique an essay Dr Sam Renihan and his brother Micah presented a few years ago at the Westminster Seminary (Cal). It is unique because it links Covenant Theology, Biblical (Historic-Redemptive) Theology together with the Abrahamic covenant etc and basically follows the argument of the 1689 Baptist Confession 7:2 and 7:3. However because it is like a new topic I will set up a new thread very soon with a link to the essay.

 

[Andrew35]

Jake, thank you for your patience with me. I put this in the paedobaptist answers forum because I am genuinely asking questions.

You said:

I recently read an article written by the Founders Ministries that argued paedobaptists are inconsistent because they appeal to the 'Abraham and his seed' principle of the Old Covenant, but they cannot consistently apply this principle to the New Covenant. That is, under the Old Covenant someone could claim the rite of circumcision (and thus be part of Israel) because he was an offspring of Abraham's physical seed....

I don't really understand this argument, tbh.

For one, circumcision was incumbent on the whole household, right? I mean, that is the argument here. So that would include slaves, servants, adopted kids, etc. Some of whom might not be physically descended from Abraham?

So clearly there's already a broader principle than merely physical descent already built into the ritual from the beginning.

Another thought: were Edomites eligible to be under the Old Covenant merely b/c they were descended from Abraham? Were they welcomed into the Assembly? My understanding is that Edomites could become Jews on the same basis as anybody else: by accepting YHWH worship and circumcision: the spiritual + the physical sign.

If someone were descended from Abraham--either Edomite, or perhaps even Moabite or Ammonite-- and wanted to join the Israelite nation/become a Jew, it might be seen as a better "fit" by some ethnocentric, prejudiced Israelites/Jews; but surely the requirements would be the same.

Unless I'm overlooking something, it seems to me the physical descent factor is getting a bit overplayed here.

 

[Andrew35]

I am persuaded so. What's happening in the household baptisms is virtually the same thing as what happened with Abraham. He believed and professed, the sign and seal of righteousness by faith was given to him, and then it was given to his sons.

I anticipate the objection that says that faith and repentance were not required for Jewish proselytes, but the example of Abraham for me is enough to say that the same pattern should apply to every proselyte in the Old Testament days. If Abraham came into fellowship in this covenant by faith and repentance, then it follows that every proselyte ought to do the same thing. After all, they are not greater than Abraham and cannot expect different terms of communion with God than he did.

But wouldn't repentance from idolatry and faith in YHWH be presupposed by the very proselyte experience?

 

[Solparvus]

But wouldn't repentance from idolatry and faith in YHWH be presupposed by the very proselyte experience?

Yes. That is one of my main points. Some argue against the Paedo view ("Fatal Flaw") by saying nothing but circimcision was required to become an Israelite. I find that too difficult to sustain. What man who loves his idols and his mistress would want to join a society that stones idolaters and adulterers? Or what man who loves his sin wants to join a society whose holy and righteous God demands the allegiance of the whole heart, body and mind in Deiteronomy 6?

As for the household slaves, the faith and repentance due from Abraham is due from the slaves. If Abraham must "be perfect", ie. sincere and wholehearted, and this is inseparable from covenant establishment ("without holiness no one will see the Lord"), and Ishmael gets expelled for his hatred of righteousness, the slaves and servants are certainly not exempt from a mandate of obedience. And Israel's history is quite plain that God tolerated neither heart sins nor outward sins in His people, and that disobedience effectively made their circumcision to be uncircumcision.

 

[GermanReformedHeidelberg]

There is a God-given context, that we are one fold (Joh 10,16), have one heavenly nationality (Eph 2,12; Eph 2,19), are branches of one holy tree (Rom 11,17),...

I only know one kind of doctrine, that does divide the fold and the nation and does set the two parts in two very different contexts:

Darbyism.

And i only know one Darbyist, a lot of reformed circles have opened their doors wide open for. I think we all know him and that this is his bitter fruit.

[I am from Germany, i am sorry when my text has some bad English or at worse is even suspicious]

All praise to the Lord!

 

[De Jager]

Jake, thank you for your patience with me. I put this in the paedobaptist answers forum because I am genuinely asking questions.

You said:

I recently read an article written by the Founders Ministries that argued paedobaptists are inconsistent because they appeal to the 'Abraham and his seed' principle of the Old Covenant, but they cannot consistently apply this principle to the New Covenant. That is, under the Old Covenant someone could claim the rite of circumcision (and thus be part of Israel) because he was an offspring of Abraham's physical seed.

But under the New Covenant this physical link does not exist. Gal 3 :29 makes it clear "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

This brings me back to my original argument. The NT household baptism argument makes good sense if you can link it to the physical seed of Abraham. But Gal 3:29 seems to refute the idea of a physical seed in the New Covenant.

Just for the record, I can see the flaws in a number areas of Baptist argument, especially in the yet/not yet aspect of the New Covenant. I'm trying to get my head around this argument.

Actually, you couldn't simply claim circumcision by being a physical offspring of Abraham. The condition was the faith of Abraham. That is why in Exodus 12 there are provisions made for foreigners to take part in the passover, provided they are circumcised. It has always been about belief. Furthermore if a person was disobedient and sinful and refused to repent they were to be cut off. If they were cut off from the community, their children were also cut off. Repentance would bring them back, demonstrating faith. And if they had this faith, they were then entitled to put the sign on their children.

What happened to Israel is what happened to many mainline churches in our day. Church discipline is not administered, so sinful unrepentant members corrupt the church. These people then give the sign of the covenant to their children but the sign doesn't mean what it should because the parents don't actually believe. The baptist movement is really an understandable reaction to this. Look at baptists and you will see that it is all about a personal faith, they reject any notion of covenant union to the church through another.

 

[De Jager]

If you want an excellent (and I mean truly excellent) sermon about circumcision and baptism, I heartily recommend the following link by Rev. Kenneth Stewart, from the RP church in Glascow, Scotland.

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1129161419391