Question of historical argument for paedobabtism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Paedobaptists and Credobaptists alike treat their children in the same manner. They teach them the ways of God, they expect them to behave in a Christian manner, they take them to church to worship God, they do private devotions as a family, they teach their children to read the Bible and pray, they catechize them, etc. This type of treatment of children is covenantal treatment. The only difference between paedo and credo is that paedo acknowledges what we are doing and we give them the sign of that covenant. God never intended for families to be separated having some inside the covenant and others outside the covenant. That would be disjointed and chaotic. To the Jew, it was second nature to have covenant children. The only change they needed to learn was how the sign changed from circumcision to baptism. Credobaptism is a form of dispensationalism.
 
Good point but that's an extraordinary kind of silence. We know he was having trouble with judeizers and they most certainly would have pitched a fit. But nothing.
It's only "extraordinary" silence if your frame of reference leads you to think it would be as certain as the sunrise, that failed to come. Sherlock's non-barking dog only serves his interest because of its standard behavior evidenced to all. Furthermore, any other cause for the dog's silence must be rigorously excluded. But in the end, the silence is still not dispositive. It merely serves as a stimulus to focus on one area of investigation to the exclusion of others.

Acts 15 also has a huge extraordinary kind of "silence" that is harmful to your case.

Nowhere does Paul or anyone else oppose the demands for Gentiles to be circumcised by explaining that baptism has replaced circumcision (in the manner in which Covenant Paedobaptists argue that it is). That's a very glaring omission. That's the one place in all of the New Testament where I would expect such an argument to be made, but it is not.

However, that is (as Rev. Buchanan said above) an argument from silence and also apropos of nothing.
This post quoted above is (correctly) demonstrative of a parallel case. A Baptist frame of reference is often taken as a firm basis for doubting the reasonableness of NT-baptism-in-place-of-OT-circumcision. But once again, it is merely a case built on an expectation, not evidence. There are other reasons that can be offered as to why baptism does not appear in the Acts record of the Jerusalem Council.

************************
Because I am deliberately undermining confidence in arguments from silence, now let me offer an argument from silence. This argument has the advantage of not being Scriptural but historical. It is an advantage, in the sense that we can skip debates about exegesis. It is still an argument from silence, and as such nothing may properly be deduced from it. The best it can do is call on our own minds to suggest explanations for it.

Where are the historical debates and outrage from the early centuries over the (supposed) late-invention of "infant" baptism? Where is the counter-claim to Tertullian's (or some other) allegation that IB is "apostolic" in origin? There is record of arguments over the date Easter should be celebrated, and other petty matters, to go along with more serious and weighty doctrinal and practical concerns. The church fought against the introduction of images, even if the correct iconoclastic side lost. How much more would we expect a freak out over the introduction of so curious a practice as IB?

I don't happen to think there's a better explanation for this lacuna than that the practice was, in fact, apostolic as claimed. However, I do not doubt that from an alternate frame of reference the silence of the father's record can be reasonably explained to another's satisfaction.

Do I think the Apostles *would have* done more or differently if they meant to put the NT church on a different footing (as to membership) than the OT church? Yes, inasmuch as my frame of reference promotes that theory. But I don't expect a Baptist (or a RomanCatholic for that matter) to grant my primary assumptions.
 
The first explicit mention of infant baptism comes from Tertullian in the early 3rd century. He opposed it and treats it as an innovation.
Is this the quotation you are thinking of? This is from the 18th chapter of Tertullian's On Baptism (found here).

And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children.

There is nothing in the surrounding context to suggest any "innovation" of infant baptism.

In the same work, Tertullian treats baptism as literally sin-remitting, and he also names the most suitable times for being baptized (Passover taking first place).

As an aside, I'd recommend that anyone be cautious reading Tertullian. He has his idiosyncrasies.
 
How would you tie together water baptism and making disciples of the Lord Jedus, or do you see them totally separate?
Asking as Jesus at end of Gospel of Matthaw seems to apply them together as to whom should Receive water baptism under the NC .
The short answer is that Mt.28:19-20 (the institution of Christian baptism) gives me a very clear mandate as to how disciples are made. "Make disciples" is the fundamental action of the sentence, the essential command. "Baptizing" and "teaching" are accompanying participles, which I take to be participles of means; i.e. they are the procedure for the production of disciples. They help answer the question, "HOW do we go about making those disciples?"

The order of the participles is a rational order: the first proper step is baptism, bringing the one baptized into recognized membership of the church, separating him visibly from the world and putting God's mark of ownership or claim on him. The second, ongoing step is teaching the fullness of Jesus' doctrine. Disciples are (or ought to be) embarked on a lifetime of learning the truth as it is in Jesus (Eph.4:21).

In this interpretation of Mt.28:19-20, age is simply not determinative of who is a disciple, only affecting the manner (age appropriate) of instruction. Discipling begins immediately, concurrent with every other form of instruction for a person at any stage of life. I don't believe "make disciples" stands alone in Christ's Great Commission, being a distinct exercise of Christ's authority, added to which is baptizing (a second exercise) and teaching (a third exercise). In other words, I don't believe a "made disciple" (past-perfect tense) is the description of a successful evangelistic encounter.
 
The first explicit mention of infant baptism comes from Tertullian in the early 3rd century. He opposed it and treats it as an innovation.

This a false statement. Tertullian treats it as a present reality. He nowhere explicitly condemns it rather, he states that it is preferable to wait.

God’s approbation sends sure premonitory tokens before it; every “petition” may both deceive and be deceived. And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if (baptism itself) is not so necessary—that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.” Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the “remission of sins?” More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to “ask” for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given “to him that asketh.” For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred—in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom—until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.

Tertullian. (1885). On Baptism. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), S. Thelwall (Trans.), Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (Vol. 3, p. 678). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

The text below is from Cyprian, who was alive around the same time as Tertullian. Cyprian clearly affirms infant baptism. He mentions that an entire council supports infant baptism.

But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. For as the Lord says in His Gospel, “The Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them,” as far as we can, we must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost. For what is wanting to him who has once been formed in the womb by the hand of God? To us, indeed, and to our eyes, according to the worldly course of days, they who are born appear to receive an increase. But whatever things are made by God, are completed by the majesty and work of God their Maker.

Cyprian of Carthage. (1886). The Epistles of Cyprian. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), R. E. Wallis (Trans.), Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix (Vol. 5, pp. 353–354). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.
 
Could you provide a quotation, or at least name the source? I think I've read the words you are referring to, and I don't recall anything about "innovation".
I believe it's in his De Baptismo. Tertullian was apt to appeal to apostolic practice in many of his apologetic works. So while his counsel against infant baptism proves it was in fact occurring, his general modus operandi suggests he believed it had post-apostolic origins. As Dr. John Hey (18th century Anglican) commented, "It seems odd that he [Tertullian] would not know, along with Origen, of the tradition, that infant baptism had been ordained by the apostles." (Lectures in Divinity) Kurt Aland (nominally Lutheran) went into this issue in some depth in his Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?, and characterized Tertullian's remarks as a reaction to the "development" of infant baptism.
 
Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. ...And if it should seem necessary to do so, there may be added to the aforementioned consideration the fact that in the Church, Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous. -Origen. Homilies on Leviticus.
 
Origen. Homilies on Leviticus.
Origen also said, “The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).
 
Origen also said, “The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).
Which would further debunk your claim about infant baptism being an "innovation" around the time of Tertullian. This quote along with the ones I provided nowhere reflects that these Early Church theologians were reacting to infant baptism as being a new innovation.
 
I said Tertullian "treated" it as an innovation. See post 36.
And I said "This quote along with the ones I provided nowhere reflects that these Early Church theologians were reacting to infant baptism as being a new innovation." Simply substitute "reacting" for "treating." It makes no difference. The substance of what I said remains unchanged.
 
And I said "This quote along with the ones I provided nowhere reflects that these Early Church theologians were reacting to infant baptism as being a new innovation." Simply substitute "reacting" for "treating." It makes no difference. The substance of what I said is not changed.
I understand that's your opinion, while other credible church historians characterize it the way I have. See post 36. I also acknowledged that Origen advocated infant baptism way back in post 16. In your haste you are mischaracterizing and/or misunderstanding what I've said.
 
Last edited:
The first explicit mention of infant baptism comes from Tertullian in the early 3rd century. He opposed it and treats it as an innovation.

Hippolytus in 215:

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16)
 
Hippolytus in 215:
Tertullian's statement would slightly predate this (c. 202 AD). Also, dating the Apostolic Tradition that early is a matter of dispute, with some modern scholars concluding that Hippolytus was not the actual author.
 
Last edited:
This a false statement. Tertullian treats it as a present reality. He nowhere explicitly condemns it rather, he states that it is preferable to wait.

God’s approbation sends sure premonitory tokens before it; every “petition” may both deceive and be deceived. And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if (baptism itself) is not so necessary—that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.” Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the “remission of sins?” More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to “ask” for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given “to him that asketh.” For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred—in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom—until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.

Tertullian. (1885). On Baptism. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), S. Thelwall (Trans.), Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (Vol. 3, p. 678). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

The text below is from Cyprian, who was alive around the same time as Tertullian. Cyprian clearly affirms infant baptism. He mentions that an entire council supports infant baptism.

But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. For as the Lord says in His Gospel, “The Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them,” as far as we can, we must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost. For what is wanting to him who has once been formed in the womb by the hand of God? To us, indeed, and to our eyes, according to the worldly course of days, they who are born appear to receive an increase. But whatever things are made by God, are completed by the majesty and work of God their Maker.

Cyprian of Carthage. (1886). The Epistles of Cyprian. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), R. E. Wallis (Trans.), Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix (Vol. 5, pp. 353–354). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.
Thank you for these.
I believe it's in his De Baptismo.
Yes, I found it and quoted it above.

Do you still stand by your assertion that Tertullian was treating baptism as an innovation?
 
Fascinating.
Would you care to exegete what you believe indisputably shows that Terullian didn't see it as an innovation (i.e. that he certainly didn't see baptizing infants incapable of "coming" to the rite as having post-apostolic origins)? I would be genuinely interested in a thoughtful perspective. It is always possible writers like Hey and Aland, along with myself, have missed something crucial.
 
Last edited:
I understand that's your opinion, while other credible church historians characterize it the way I have. See post 36. I also acknowledged that Origen advocated infant baptism way back in post 16. In your haste you are mischaracterizing and/or misunderstanding what I've said.
Water Baptism does not deal with remission of Original Sin, correct?
 
Water Baptism does not deal with remission of Original Sin, correct?

Why don't you tell us? Also, how does this pertain to the OP's question. If you want to learn the nuances of the biblical doctrine of baptism, I would be happy to recommend some books.
 
Last edited:
Reverend Buchanan is correct, this is an argument from outside exegesis, and like evidences of creation, should be secondary compared to a Scriptural, exegetical basis. To the paedobaptist (like myself) I am comforted by the historical argument and obviously our Baptist brothers have thought through it and are not noticeably harmed by it. I have to make sure for myself to never base what I believe on something outside Scripture, and this is difficult for me, particularly in this case. Doctrinal issues like this shouldn't (and won't) be settled by extra-Scriptural proofs. Once again, and as Rev. Buchanan said, this is a helpful comfort to the paedobaptist. It shouldn't be the primary reason for being one however. I'm not saying this to admonish anyone but I constantly need to remind myself of it.
 
It's only "extraordinary" silence if your frame of reference leads you to think it would be as certain as the sunrise, that failed to come. Sherlock's non-barking dog only serves his interest because of its standard behavior evidenced to all. Furthermore, any other cause for the dog's silence must be rigorously excluded. But in the end, the silence is still not dispositive. It merely serves as a stimulus to focus on one area of investigation to the exclusion of others.


This post quoted above is (correctly) demonstrative of a parallel case. A Baptist frame of reference is often taken as a firm basis for doubting the reasonableness of NT-baptism-in-place-of-OT-circumcision. But once again, it is merely a case built on an expectation, not evidence. There are other reasons that can be offered as to why baptism does not appear in the Acts record of the Jerusalem Council.

************************
Because I am deliberately undermining confidence in arguments from silence, now let me offer an argument from silence. This argument has the advantage of not being Scriptural but historical. It is an advantage, in the sense that we can skip debates about exegesis. It is still an argument from silence, and as such nothing may properly be deduced from it. The best it can do is call on our own minds to suggest explanations for it.

Where are the historical debates and outrage from the early centuries over the (supposed) late-invention of "infant" baptism? Where is the counter-claim to Tertullian's (or some other) allegation that IB is "apostolic" in origin? There is record of arguments over the date Easter should be celebrated, and other petty matters, to go along with more serious and weighty doctrinal and practical concerns. The church fought against the introduction of images, even if the correct iconoclastic side lost. How much more would we expect a freak out over the introduction of so curious a practice as IB?

I don't happen to think there's a better explanation for this lacuna than that the practice was, in fact, apostolic as claimed. However, I do not doubt that from an alternate frame of reference the silence of the father's record can be reasonably explained to another's satisfaction.

Do I think the Apostles *would have* done more or differently if they meant to put the NT church on a different footing (as to membership) than the OT church? Yes, inasmuch as my frame of reference promotes that theory. But I don't expect a Baptist (or a RomanCatholic for that matter) to grant my primary assumptions.
Oh I agree it's not a solid deductive argument but an inductive historical argument. It is mere evidence not proof. Solid post.
 
Reverend Buchanan is correct, this is an argument from outside exegesis, and like evidences of creation, should be secondary compared to a Scriptural, exegetical basis. To the paedobaptist (like myself) I am comforted by the historical argument and obviously our Baptist brothers have thought through it and are not noticeably harmed by it. I have to make sure for myself to never base what I believe on something outside Scripture, and this is difficult for me, particularly in this case. Doctrinal issues like this shouldn't (and won't) be settled by extra-Scriptural proofs. Once again, and as Rev. Buchanan said, this is a helpful comfort to the paedobaptist. It shouldn't be the primary reason for being one however. I'm not saying this to admonish anyone but I constantly need to remind myself of it.
Your right. It's not proof but evidence. It should be decided by scripture. But this is historical in nature meaning it took place at a time and a place.
 
First, I am not in any way, shape or manner putting my faith in the early church. However, it can't be said that church history is totally irrelevant to the question at hand.

Second, there are substantial differences between cases like the Trinity and baptismal practice. While the doctrine of the Trinity didn't find full, unified expression for centuries, there are innumerable statements in the ECFs on various attributes and relationships concerning the persons of the Godhead that are fully consistent with orthodox theology. There is no analogous treatment of baptism.

In other words, many of the individual components pertaining to the full-orbed, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity find immediate and continuing expression among the ECFs. Conversely, from the very earliest writings and continuing for centuries later there is virtually no trace of covenant/circumcision thinking in the ECFs various expressions concerning baptismal doctrine.

No intention to say you put all your faith in them. I just mean that I'm cautious. What exposure I have has taught me that their proximity to the apostles doesn't guarantee a whole lot.

But as for there being in the ECFs virtually no connection between circumcision and baptism, the council quoted below in this post seems to say otherwise. Obviously, someone thought of it. If this guy did, then so did others likely. I admit I find Cyprian's word to be painful to read and understand, and it sounds more like reasoning from an auto-efficacy of baptism.

This a false statement. Tertullian treats it as a present reality. He nowhere explicitly condemns it rather, he states that it is preferable to wait.

God’s approbation sends sure premonitory tokens before it; every “petition” may both deceive and be deceived. And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if (baptism itself) is not so necessary—that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.” Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the “remission of sins?” More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to “ask” for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given “to him that asketh.” For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred—in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom—until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.

Tertullian. (1885). On Baptism. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), S. Thelwall (Trans.), Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (Vol. 3, p. 678). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

The text below is from Cyprian, who was alive around the same time as Tertullian. Cyprian clearly affirms infant baptism. He mentions that an entire council supports infant baptism.

But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. For as the Lord says in His Gospel, “The Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them,” as far as we can, we must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost. For what is wanting to him who has once been formed in the womb by the hand of God? To us, indeed, and to our eyes, according to the worldly course of days, they who are born appear to receive an increase. But whatever things are made by God, are completed by the majesty and work of God their Maker.

Cyprian of Carthage. (1886). The Epistles of Cyprian. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), R. E. Wallis (Trans.), Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix (Vol. 5, pp. 353–354). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.
 
Theology, no. However, when I was investigating the historical case for infant baptism, it struck me that a practice is going to be more robust than a theology (hence baptism and the Lord's Supper are nigh universally practiced throughout Christian time and space, though their various and contradictory theological rationales abound). And (here comes another argument from silence) it seemed to me that convincing the whole church--including remote, rural ones--from one end of the Roman Empire to the other to begin the practice of infant baptism without a squeak of protest would have been quite the undertaking.

We should expect to see at least some resistance given the same freakout that was occasioned over a practice (again) so simple as the date of Easter. Even just one note or quotation from an early father: "The Warbsquiblers of Morinthia refuse to practice the baptism of all but mature believers, saying this is the true teaching of the apostles."

Thanks for this insight. And hearing the word "warsquiblers" was a nice way to help decompress from the stress of the day :)
 
Why don't you tell us? Also, how does this pertain to the OP's question. If you want to learn the nuances of the biblical doctrine of baptism, I would be happy to recommend some books.
All of us experienced the effects of the Fall, of Original Sin, but the cure is not found when water baptized, but when received forgiveness and cleansing by blood of Jesus when received through faith. I was just suggesting that since it seemed some of the Ecf linked infant baptism to remission of sins, they had misunderstood from scriptures on what water baptism is and what it meant.
 
Paul makes it very clear, in numerous places, to Jew and Gentile alike, that outward circumcision has become “nothing”. (1 Cor. 7:19; Rom. 2:25-29; Gal. 5:6, 6:15; Col. 3:11). So it seems the better question is, if water baptism carries over the particular aspect of physical circumcision that it must be given to all of one’s physical offspring, shouldn’t such find explicit command somewhere?

Even if one supposes Jewish Christians would have “automatically” assumed such a continuation, what about Gentile believers? Apart from explicit instruction from the Apostles to do so (and this preserved in holy writ for the sake of future Gentile converts, who in a few short years would constitute the vast majority of the church), how could such an inference be certainly known?

It’s also been pointed out that there is no indication whatsoever in the writings of the early church fathers conveying that any of them understood baptism was to be given to infants on the basis of continuing that particular aspect of circumcisional practice. Origen was one of the earliest advocates of infant baptism, but he makes no reference to covenantal inclusion as the reason for it. Rather, he specifically appeals to apostolic tradition, claiming they passed along the teaching that infants need to be so cleansed from original sin (Commentaries on Romans, 5.9). While by no means definitive in establishing proper theology or church practice, this is extremely inauspicious from a historical perspective.

The biblical references to household baptisms are at best inconclusive on this point.

Phil,

Your post presupposes a command was needed. What was needed was not a command to baptize infants but rather a proper understanding that baptism was to be administered (once) to those who were to be considered part of the church.

Your point that household baptisms are inconclusive would seem to miss the point of corroborating evidence. When we come to the NT we should expect to see household baptism. We should also not expect to see a child from a covenant home undergo baptism after coming of age. Both expectations are met, as anticipated. They serve to corroborate covenant baptism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top