Donations for the month of March


We have received a total of "0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
NH, USA
Posts: 14,450
Joined: April 2001
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,781
Posts54,881
Members974
Most Online732
Jan 15th, 2023
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,447
Tom 4,516
chestnutmare 3,320
J_Edwards 2,615
John_C 1,865
Wes 1,856
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 4
John_C 1
Recent Posts
1 Cor. 6:9-11
by Pilgrim - Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:02 PM
Change in NRSVue text note on 1 John 5:7
by Pilgrim - Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:07 AM
Is the church in crisis
by John_C - Wed Mar 27, 2024 10:52 AM
Jordan Peterson ordered to take sensitivity training
by Tom - Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:00 PM
Should Creeds be read in Church?
by Pilgrim - Mon Mar 25, 2024 6:30 AM
Do Christians have Dual Personalities: Peace & Wretchedness?
by DiscipleEddie - Sat Mar 23, 2024 1:15 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#43727 Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:33 AM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
john Offline OP
Addict
OP Offline
Addict
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
In discussions of paedo/credo-baptism, I often hear the paedo-baptist position being supported by references to oikos(household) baptism in the NT. Although this is not the main argument for paedo-baptism, it is used as supplemental evidence. My question is that if oikos-baptism is Biblical, why do we not practice it today. I have seen many infant baptisms, but I have not yet seen any household baptisms. If you ask many paedo-baptists, they don't seem to have an answer. Some people say that it just doesn't fit in our individualistic society (Western perspective). Even the WCF 28.4 says that the subjects of baptism are those that profess faith or infants of one or both believing parents.

If, as many paedo-baptists claim, "there must have been some infants" in the household baptism examples of Acts, shouldn't we also have to claim "there must have been some older family members who didn't necessarily confess faith in Christ but who did not actively refuse baptism" who were baptized as well?

I am looking to hear primarily from paedo-baptists. Just for the record, I am paedo-baptist as well.

Thanks,
John

john #43728 Mon Nov 16, 2009 1:25 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 40
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 40
I'm not totally sure I understand your question, but I'll take a stab at it. I think the reason you don't see many households baptised anymore, is because its a one-time deal. Once a household is baptised then the only subsequent baptisms in that household would be for the children, individually, as they come into the family. The only time a household could be baptised today is when everyone (adults and children) in the family is unbaptised and the parents both want to receive baptism (for themselves and for their children.) I think this is pretty rare, even today, in the West.



john #43729 Mon Nov 16, 2009 1:50 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
John,

It is not unusual for people to look at these household baptisms out of their historical context. By that I mean that they seem to forget that the Jews had several thousand years of history within which covenant circumcision was practiced. The promise given to Abraham was to him and to his seed/children. There is both a physical and spiritual meaning to that word "seed" as you most likely know. grin

So, when we get to the New Testament where as paedobaptists we understand that baptism has replaced circumcision as the covenant sign, we must insist that household baptisms were administered on the basis of that which had been practiced for millennia; believers and their children. Seeing that the gospel came first to the Jews, they would expect that their children would be included. Thus, the question regarding "older unbelieving family members" is mute. Adults must profess faith (notice I did not say 'believers' although that is certainly true. wink) in order to receive baptism. The children of those professing faith are still included in the covenant since there is nowhere to be found a rescinding of children from the original covenant injunction.

And it is probably prudent to add, for the sake of our credo-baptist brethren, that the significance of the baptized infant was not a sign that they were de facto: saved, redeemed, elect, regenerate, Christians, etc., even though some may have been indeed elect. They, no less than adults, must be converted; repent and believe on Christ unto salvation.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Newman #43730 Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:58 AM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
john Offline OP
Addict
OP Offline
Addict
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
Originally Posted by Newman
I'm not totally sure I understand your question, but I'll take a stab at it. I think the reason you don't see many households baptised anymore, is because its a one-time deal. Once a household is baptised then the only subsequent baptisms in that household would be for the children, individually, as they come into the family. The only time a household could be baptised today is when everyone (adults and children) in the family is unbaptised and the parents both want to receive baptism (for themselves and for their children.) I think this is pretty rare, even today, in the West.

I think it is not as rare as you suppose unless we grant that parents are rarely converted. I would say that almost anytime an adult who was raised in a non-Christian home is converted, the odds are that he/she and his/her family has not been baptized. In some of these cases, I would guess the spouse is converted as well within some period of time of the other's conversion. If you do not limit this to the West, I think this is even more common.

The reason we do not see family baptisms today is not lack of subjects but it is that vast majority of churches no longer practice family baptism (hence, my original post).

John

Pilgrim #43731 Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:03 AM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
john Offline OP
Addict
OP Offline
Addict
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
So, when we get to the New Testament where as paedobaptists we understand that baptism has replaced circumcision as the covenant sign, we must insist that household baptisms were administered on the basis of that which had been practiced for millennia; believers and their children. Seeing that the gospel came first to the Jews, they would expect that their children would be included. Thus, the question regarding "older unbelieving family members" is mute. Adults must profess faith (notice I did not say 'believers' although that is certainly true. wink) in order to receive baptism. The children of those professing faith are still included in the covenant since there is nowhere to be found a rescinding of children from the original covenant injunction.

Just to press a little. Were not Lydia and the Philippian jailer Gentiles? And yet their families were baptized even though they did not have millenia of Jewish heritage?

How do you determine if an infant/very young child is old enough to no longer be subject to his parents choice but be required to make a profession of faith?

John

john #43732 Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:17 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Originally Posted by john
Just to press a little. Were not Lydia and the Philippian jailer Gentiles? And yet their families were baptized even though they did not have millenia of Jewish heritage?

How do you determine if an infant/very young child is old enough to no longer be subject to his parents choice but be required to make a profession of faith?
1. True enough that the Gentiles did not have this Jewish heritage/teaching/practice, but the apostles and disciples of the Lord at that time who were evangelizing the Gentile world did have that heritage to which they adhered. So again, the baptizing of infants of believing parent(s) was the God-ordained covenantal command that continued without abrogation for the Church. It was a matter of teaching the Gentiles about God's covenant with believers and their children along with all the truths concerning God, the Messiah, Church polity, etc., etc., that had to be done. Gentiles were virtually totally ignorant of true religion compared to the Jews who had to be reminded and corrected of these things.

2. This matter of the demarcation line as to age has always been a subject of debate. I think one could say safely and rightly say that there is no definitive age since age isn't the determining factor but rather the ability of a child to rightly understand the Gospel, discern conviction of sin and know their need of Christ. Some, particularly the continental churches, set the age at 16 for being admitted into membership. Others leave it open. Just recently, we became aware of an OPC congregation that allowed children as young as 7 to make a confession of faith and be received into membership; an anomaly to be sure in the OPC.

Do you have any thoughts on this age question?

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
john #43734 Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:34 AM
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 330
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 330
John,

I have witnessed over the years perhaps three or four cases of a family being baptized in our churches. The last two times that I witnessed this was a single mother with one or two children. The children were still younger than, I would say, 12 years. The mother is baptized after she professed faith publicly in a service (one ceremony) after which the children are baptized.

What I think is typical in such cases is the parents grew up in a family the may have become disconnected from the church or even had no relation with the church whatsoever. At some point in time one or both parents were evangelized and after, say, one year of cathecism classes for the parent, he or she is questioned by the elders and is allowed for public profession of faith.

Johan




Pilgrim #43735 Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:27 PM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
john Offline OP
Addict
OP Offline
Addict
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
1. True enough that the Gentiles did not have this Jewish heritage/teaching/practice, but the apostles and disciples of the Lord at that time who were evangelizing the Gentile world did have that heritage to which they adhered. So again, the baptizing of infants of believing parent(s) was the God-ordained covenantal command that continued without abrogation for the Church. It was a matter of teaching the Gentiles about God's covenant with believers and their children along with all the truths concerning God, the Messiah, Church polity, etc., etc., that had to be done. Gentiles were virtually totally ignorant of true religion compared to the Jews who had to be reminded and corrected of these things.

Pilgrim,

I understand your line of reasoning, but I do not find that it satisfactorily answers my question. I am not saying that I believe oikos-baptism should be used, but only that I have not found a convincing argument that it should not be yet.

Quote
2. This matter of the demarcation line as to age has always been a subject of debate. I think one could say safely and rightly say that there is no definitive age since age isn't the determining factor but rather the ability of a child to rightly understand the Gospel, discern conviction of sin and know their need of Christ. Some, particularly the continental churches, set the age at 16 for being admitted into membership. Others leave it open. Just recently, we became aware of an OPC congregation that allowed children as young as 7 to make a confession of faith and be received into membership; an anomaly to be sure in the OPC.

Do you have any thoughts on this age question?

First, I think we may not be 100% addressing the same issue. One issue is the age at which one can make a confession of faith. The other issue is the age at which a child no longer a subject of baptism due to his parents confession. We have two possibilities: A) the age at which a child can no longer be baptized due to his parents is the same age at which they show the maturity to make a valid confession of faith (but not that they will) and B) the age at which a child can no longer be baptized due to his parents is not necessarily equal to the same age at which they show they maturity to make a valid confession of faith.

Also, as far as church membership goes, I would say there is a difference between being baptized and being able to make a confession of faith. To be a full, communing member, one has to make a valid confession of faith. For a child/infant, baptism would place them as a non-communing member. I do agree 100% that a child should be mature enough to truly understand what their confession means and not just "agreeing to what mommy and poppy have taught them." To me, seven years old is most likely too young and to restrict confessions to over-16-year-olds is too harsh. I have not doubt a seven year old can confess the facts of the Gospel well enough, but I doubt that in most cases the seven year old truly understands. That is not to say that a seven year old can not be truly saved or that there are some seven-year-olds that could make a valid profession. I cannot give a specific age either. Regardless of age, I think the parents and elders should be responsible to thoroughly examine the child to determine the validity of the confession.

Back to the original point. Do you see the age which a child can not be baptized due to his parents is the same age at which a child shows the cognitive ability to make a valid confession? Or, should a church restrict paedo-baptism to say under 3-year-olds even though a 3-year old would not be expected to be able to make a confession of faith. Then, any non-baptized child whose parents entered the church when they were three would be barred from the church until that time at which they could make a valid confession.

I don't have the answer to this, that is why I am asking.

John










Johan #43736 Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:28 PM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
john Offline OP
Addict
OP Offline
Addict
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
Originally Posted by Johan
John,

I have witnessed over the years perhaps three or four cases of a family being baptized in our churches. The last two times that I witnessed this was a single mother with one or two children. The children were still younger than, I would say, 12 years. The mother is baptized after she professed faith publicly in a service (one ceremony) after which the children are baptized.

What I think is typical in such cases is the parents grew up in a family the may have become disconnected from the church or even had no relation with the church whatsoever. At some point in time one or both parents were evangelized and after, say, one year of cathecism classes for the parent, he or she is questioned by the elders and is allowed for public profession of faith.

Johan,

that is interesting. I wonder if non-Western churches practice this more.

John

john #43737 Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:50 PM
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 330
Enthusiast
Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by john
Originally Posted by Johan
John,

I have witnessed over the years perhaps three or four cases of a family being baptized in our churches. The last two times that I witnessed this was a single mother with one or two children. The children were still younger than, I would say, 12 years. The mother is baptized after she professed faith publicly in a service (one ceremony) after which the children are baptized.

What I think is typical in such cases is the parents grew up in a family the may have become disconnected from the church or even had no relation with the church whatsoever. At some point in time one or both parents were evangelized and after, say, one year of cathecism classes for the parent, he or she is questioned by the elders and is allowed for public profession of faith.

Johan,

that is interesting. I wonder if non-Western churches practice this more.

John

John,

I am not sure if you mean I am in a non-Western church? I would say our church is a Western church. It's not American but it is Western! scratchchin

Your question about the age of the children is quite interesting. I am not sure what would have been the case if the children were about 17 or 18 years old. My guess is that in such a case they would have had to follow the cathecism classes as did their parents and then be baptized after profession of faith. So, we do have credo-baptism in our churches, but it applies only in special cases.

Johan


Last edited by Johan; Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:51 PM.
john #43739 Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:17 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Originally Posted by john
I understand your line of reasoning, but I do not find that it satisfactorily answers my question. I am not saying that I believe oikos-baptism should be used, but only that I have not found a convincing argument that it should not be yet.
And that's what I thought I have been trying to address?? shrug IMHO, the NT record of household baptisms was expected since it was a practice inaugurated by God with Abraham and carried through as the record shows by the apostles/disciples. Thus, I too see no reason why it should NOT be continued since there is no explicit nor implicit command given in the NT after household baptisms were administered.

Originally Posted by John
First, I think we may not be 100% addressing the same issue. One issue is the age at which one can make a confession of faith. The other issue is the age at which a child no longer a subject of baptism due to his parents confession. We have two possibilities: A) the age at which a child can no longer be baptized due to his parents is the same age at which they show the maturity to make a valid confession of faith (but not that they will) and B) the age at which a child can no longer be baptized due to his parents is not necessarily equal to the same age at which they show they maturity to make a valid confession of faith.
For myself, the answer is very simple. If a child is capable of making a valid profession of faith then he/she cannot be baptized without it. What age that a valid profession can be made is that which is up for debate. I may be mistaken, but I have thought that many churches to be safe, perhaps, have set the age at 3. After the age of 3 infant baptism is no administered without a profession of faith. Doubtless, this age limit varies considerably in different denominations and congregations. Personally, I do not believe a 3 year old is capable of giving a valid profession of faith. And since salvation is not tied to baptism, denying baptism to young children does no harm nor does it endanger their eternal end.

Originally Posted by John
Back to the original point. Do you see the age which a child can not be baptized due to his parents is the same age at which a child shows the cognitive ability to make a valid confession? Or, should a church restrict paedo-baptism to say under 3-year-olds even though a 3-year old would not be expected to be able to make a confession of faith. Then, any non-baptized child whose parents entered the church when they were three would be barred from the church until that time at which they could make a valid confession.
I think we are on the same page here. grin And, I too have no definitive answer as to the "age" question which I stated above. But setting the cut-off for covenantal baptism at age at 3 seems reasonable. Thereafter, a child would have to make a valid profession of faith. Setting an age when a child could do that I think is nothing more than arbitrariness since God works in individuals as He wills. Also, a young child, let's say at 7 years old [i]may[/b] be able to make a valid profession of faith, but I suspect that this would be a rare exception.

Bottom line for me is that I don't see any hard and fast biblical rule that would determine ages. Prudence and general biblical guidelines in regard to professions of faith I think are the best policy. And, as far as the cut-off age for covenantal baptism, again I think 3 is fine.

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Johan #43742 Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:54 AM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
john Offline OP
Addict
OP Offline
Addict
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
Originally Posted by Johan
I am not sure if you mean I am in a non-Western church? I would say our church is a Western church. It's not American but it is Western! scratchchin

Hi Johan,

It's easy to identify "Western" with America/Europe and forget those are not the only places with Western societies. Thanks for the reminder.

John

Pilgrim #43744 Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:03 AM
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
john Offline OP
Addict
OP Offline
Addict
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 551
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Originally Posted by john
I understand your line of reasoning, but I do not find that it satisfactorily answers my question. I am not saying that I believe oikos-baptism should be used, but only that I have not found a convincing argument that it should not be yet.
And that's what I thought I have been trying to address?? shrug IMHO, the NT record of household baptisms was expected since it was a practice inaugurated by God with Abraham and carried through as the record shows by the apostles/disciples. Thus, I too see no reason why it should NOT be continued since there is no explicit nor implicit command given in the NT after household baptisms were administered.

By 'not satisfactory' I did not mean that you did not give a satisfactory reason as to why NT household baptisms were administered. I think you did. By 'not satisfactory' I was referring to the final conclusion that it was only to be administered during the NT time and not to be continued today. I am still chewing on this part.

Let me try to clarify your position. Are you saying that you believe that "oikos-baptism" is still the Biblical practice today with the caveat below that at some age a child has to be baptized based on profession instead of the parent's profession? In other words, for you is "paedo-baptism = oikos-baptism"?

Quote
For myself, the answer is very simple. If a child is capable of making a valid profession of faith then he/she cannot be baptized without it. What age that a valid profession can be made is that which is up for debate. I may be mistaken, but I have thought that many churches to be safe, perhaps, have set the age at 3. After the age of 3 infant baptism is no administered without a profession of faith. Doubtless, this age limit varies considerably in different denominations and congregations. Personally, I do not believe a 3 year old is capable of giving a valid profession of faith. And since salvation is not tied to baptism, denying baptism to young children does no harm nor does it endanger their eternal end.

Ok, I see you are with my B) position. That wasn't clear to me from your original post and caused some confusion.

Quote
I think we are on the same page here. grin And, I too have no definitive answer as to the "age" question which I stated above. But setting the cut-off for covenantal baptism at age at 3 seems reasonable. Thereafter, a child would have to make a valid profession of faith. Setting an age when a child could do that I think is nothing more than arbitrariness since God works in individuals as He wills. Also, a young child, let's say at 7 years old [i]may[/b] be able to make a valid profession of faith, but I suspect that this would be a rare exception.

Bottom line for me is that I don't see any hard and fast biblical rule that would determine ages. Prudence and general biblical guidelines in regard to professions of faith I think are the best policy. And, as far as the cut-off age for covenantal baptism, again I think 3 is fine.

I agree completely.

John

john #43750 Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:08 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450
Likes: 57
Originally Posted by john
Are you saying that you believe that "oikos-baptism" is still the Biblical practice today with the caveat below that at some age a child has to be baptized based on profession instead of the parent's profession? In other words, for you is "paedo-baptism = oikos-baptism"?
yep The situation would be, of course, that at least one adult in a family is converted and that there are infants or very young children in that family. Then, the believing parent(s) would have to make a credible/valid profession of faith which would then allow those particular children to be baptized as well. After a certain age, let's say 3 years old, a child would also have to make a public valid profession of faith in order to receive baptism. grin

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
john #43753 Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:54 AM
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
Old Hand
Offline
Old Hand
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 969
Just a quick note here John then I'll stick my credo-baptist nose elsewhere:
Quote
And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled. A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.
Acts 16:13-14 NASB

Because it is A. The Sabbath and B. Lydia was worshiper of God.

She probably fell under the category of being a God Fearer Having some knowledge of the religion of Israel.

Carry on.


Peter

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 84 guests, and 17 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
PaulWatkins, His Unworthy Son, Nahum, TheSojourner, Larry
974 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,506,457 Gospel truth