Thanks to our brother, John Piper, baptism is once again at the forefront of many discussions this week. And while I know I have covered the topic extensively on this blog, I think it would be beneficial to do a brief examination of the household baptism accounts which are found in the New Testament. Most of what I am about to post comes from a comment I submitted on another blog today, and also from one of my comments on a previous thread on this blog. The first section below will be focusing in specifically on the conversions of Cornelius and those present with him, and the second part will be a brief address of it and other household conversions found in the NT.
On another blog today I was told, “If one of these [NT] households contained a young child, then your understanding of baptism is shot.” To which I replied the following:
I agree (if by ‘young child’ you mean someone not yet old enough to profess faith, whom I would consider to be an infant or toddler). Show me where any of the household baptisms in the NT contained even one infant or toddler and I will recant my position right here and now.
In Acts 10, Peter is proclaiming the gospel to the Gentiles, and the “gift” of the Holy Spirit, the one Peter referenced as the promise in his first sermon to the Jews in Acts 2, was poured out on those present with Cornelius. Let’s pick up the narrative in verse 47 of chapter 10…
Then Peter declared, 47 Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.
What a perfect place for Peter to instruct these Gentiles about the need for their children to be baptized! But, why did he not do that? Why did he only ‘command’ to get baptized those who had received the Holy Spirit? This is yet another example of the perfect time for an explanation (to non-Jews, who wouldn’t necessarily be familiar with the OT practices of covenant signs) of the need to continue the OT covenant practice of placing the sign on all family members, but he doesn’t do it.
Why? Because the promise is only for those whom the Lord will call to Himself, and the sign of that promise is placed only on those who profess that the Lord has called them.
Why? Because the NEW covenant, in Christ’s blood, is NOT LIKE the old. Because it is a result of being circumcised of the heart.
That is why Peter did not command anyone to be baptized except those who had received the gift of the Holy Spirit.
In a previous thread on this site, a frequent commenter here made the claim that, apart from the account with Cornelius and those present, all the other household conversions in the NT only show the head of household believing. This was part of my reply to him:
THE JAILER…
First of all, in Acts 16:32 Paul and Silas spoke the word of the Lord to the jailer TOGETHER with ALL who were in his house, and then Acts verse 34 says that the jailer rejoiced greatly, “having believed in God WITH HIS WHOLE HOUSEHOLD.” – NASB
So, the whole household of the jailer rejoiced AND BELIEVED according to the text. It simply makes no sense that his whole household heard the gospel, rejoiced AND was baptized, but that he was the only one who actually believed.
CRISPUS…
The account with Crispus supports my position that those who were baptized were only the ones who believed. Acts 18:8 says, “Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, BELIEVED in the Lord WITH ALL HIS HOUSEHOLD, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were BELIEVING AND BEING BAPTIZED.”
This account shows no one but those believing being baptized. There is no hint that anyone else was baptized.
Granted, the account with Lydia contains no real detail as the other accounts do, but should that account with no additional information trump all the other ones which provide much more insight into who was being baptized?
The details we DO have in Scripture when households were baptized overwhelmingly show belief, and THEN baptism. Cornelius and those with him, the jailer and his household, Crispus and his household. ALL of these accounts say the person believed, and that his household believed also.
As we do in other areas of doctrine and theology, would not the correct thing to do here be to interpret the unclear in light of the clear? The account with Cornelius is crystal clear as to who was baptized – only those who had received the gift of the Holy Spirit. The other accounts are also pretty clear – thehouseholds believed, rejoiced, and were baptized. Paul even goes a step further after the account of Crispus to point out that many other Corinthians were BELIEVING and being baptized. The account with Lydia, though, provides no specific details – it just says her household was baptized.
Which ones should govern our conclusions? Which ones give us the greater insight? Which ones are more clear? Of the accounts of household baptisms which do have detail, it is clear that those who were baptized were also believing. And, of the accounts we have of household baptisms, I think the correct thing to do is to base our conclusions off of those accounts which give us the greater insight into who was being baptized.
Subscribe
Beauty Will Rise - Steven Curtis Chapman
