Household (Infant) Baptism, Part 2

October 14, 2019 by Keith Crosby

If you haven’t read the first installment, you can do so by clicking here. We are into our final installment of a two installment discussion of baptism. We are discussing household or infant baptism and we will eventually get into the mode of baptism and its significance. Part and parcel of this discussion is the necessity of believer’s baptism. Only those who have trusted Christ are to be baptized.

Let’s reconsider the case for believer’s baptism made in the New Testament. Believer’s baptism contradicts the notion of household and infant baptism. When it comes to baptism coming after salvation, the baptism of Cornelius and others who embrace Christ through Peter’s preaching is instructive. Peter is summoned by God to go to the house of a Gentile (a Roman centurion) and preach the Gospel (Acts 10:1-24). Upon entering the house Peter meets Cornelius who tries to worship Peter (Peter prevents him) and explains to Peter that God called upon Cornelius to summon Peter to Cornelius’ home and hear a message (Acts 10:25-33). In verses 34-43 Peter acknowledges his own surprise that God has called Peter, a Jew, to enter a non-Jew’s house and share the gospel with them but fully embraces this call from God.

As Peter preached, God moved and people were saved. They even spoke in tongues, confirming for Peter their salvation. Peter’s reaction is instructive:

44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. 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. (Acts 10:44-48)

What happened? Consider Peter’s observations and comments—and commands. Peter recognizes their salvation and in obedience to Christ’s commands (Matthew 28:18-20) baptizes them (vv. 47-48). They asked Peter to stay for a while (v. 48), which Peter did, no doubt fulfilling the third part of the Great Commission (go make disciples; go baptize them; go teach them to do all I commanded—Matthew 28:19-20).

What happened next? Upon Peter’s return to Jerusalem, Peter’s fellow Jewish Christians asked Peter to give an account of what he did (they weren’t so sure he did the right thing). Peter’s explanation and their response is instructive:

13 And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; 14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ 15 As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. 16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” 18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.” (Acts 11:13-18)

One can’t help but notice the similarities here between this event and the Philippian jailor. Notice that the household believed. Should we assume infants believed because of the statement, “you and your household?” Also consider the sequence of events leading up to the baptism: first belief, then baptism. That should make sense to the thoughtful reader given the sequence of events in Matthew 28:18-20:

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)

Consider Jesus’ sequencing: evangelize; baptize; catechize. We tell people about Jesus. They come to faith (i.e. Go… make disciples). We baptize (their first step of obedience after salvation). We catechize: “teaching them to do all I have commanded you.” People get hung up on the word catechize. It only means to train or teach. Evangelize; baptize; catechize is the sequence we see throughout the New Testament. Baptism never precedes belief.

Baptism never precedes belief. Baptism always follows belief. This is the case with the Philippian Jailor. This is the case with Cornelius. This is the case with the Royal Official (some refer to as the Ethiopian Eunuch):

Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert place. 27 And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship 28 and was returning, seated in his chariot, and he was reading the prophet Isaiah… 29 And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot.” 30 So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him… 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. 36 And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. (Acts 8:26-38)

Philip shares the Gospel. The court official comes to Christ and is baptized (vv. 31-38). Evangelize… baptize… that’s the Bible’s sequence.

Consider the example of Lydia’s baptism. She comes to Christ and is baptized:

So, setting sail from Troas, we made a direct voyage to Samothrace, and the following day to Neapolis, 12 and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia and a Roman colony. We remained in this city some days. 13 And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer, and we sat down and spoke to the women who had come together. 14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. 15 And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us. (Acts 16: 11-15)

Some leapfrog over the sequencing of her baptism and try to make a case for—you guessed it—household baptism. The problem here is you must assume households were baptized—reading into the text infants were baptized without believing. No mention is made of infants or children. Frankly, it’s wishful thinking… wishful thinking particularly when you consider the mode of baptism.

What is the mode of baptism? What’s in a word like baptize (βαπτίζω--baptidzo)? What’s in a word like sprinkle (ῥαντίζω--rhantidzo)? βαπτίζω (baptidzo) is found nearly 80 times in the New Testament and in nearly all cases it is used to denote this act. No other word is used for this. It has a range of meaning including immerse, drown, sink, and dip under. So, what’s the big deal? There is a separate word for sprinkle (rhantidzo). Rhantidzo (ῥαντίζω) is found four times in the New Testament. (Hebrews 9:13, 19,21; 10:22). It means to sprinkle and is never found in the context of baptism.

What does baptism signify? This question is significant because of what baptism symbolizes relative the ‘fit’ of the mode of baptism.

3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. (Romans 6:3-5)
having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:12)
For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. (Romans 6:5)

What do we see and learn here? Baptism signifies and symbolizes death (and resurrection) with Christ (Romans 6:3-5). Baptism pictures death with Christ and resurrection with Christ (Colossians 2:12; Romans 6:4). Now think with me… how would sprinkling fit into these? Which paints the clearer picture of the death, burial, and raising of Christ—baptism or sprinkling? If sprinkling is the mode, why not employ ῥαντίζω (rhantidzo)? Why use a word that means to immerse, drown, or dip under?

Immersion or sprinkling? What again? I know what you’re thinking… “Didn’t we just look at that?” Let’s return to the biblical record. What examples do John the Baptist, Christ and Philip provide us? In John 3:23 we read that John was baptizing where there was much water. Why would much water be necessary if he sprinkled people? Then we have the account of the royal official:

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. 36 And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” 38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8:35-39)

Why not baptize with a canteen, jug, or bowl? Remember the context surrounding these events. The eunuch was traveling with a large retinue or caravan. Philip could have baptized him with water from the caravan (rhantidzo) unless, of course he intended to baptize by immersion (baptidzo): “and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.” It seems more than plausible that they had to go down into the water in order to facilitate immersion; otherwise, they would have dipped a pitcher of some sort into the water.

You see this same sort of practice with Jesus with John the Baptist. John could have dipped down into the water and sprinkled Jesus. But Jesus went down into the water with John to be baptidzo’d (baptized) rather than rhantidizo’d (sprinkled):

Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. 14 John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 15 But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. 16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3: 13-17)

Jesus was baptized by immersion. The Ethiopian eunuch was baptized by immersion. John baptized people by immersion. Much water was needed because much water was required to immerse; otherwise, a canteen or bowl could be used to sprinkle. Baptism follows the decision to surrender your life to God, Jesus as Messiah—doing the Father’s will (Matthew 3:17)—and others who surrender to Christ in salvation. Baptism is for those who’ve made a cognitive decision to submit to God.

What’s all this got to do with household or infant baptism? Infants can’t surrender their souls to God. They are too young to voluntarily surrender to Christ and receive baptism as the first step of obedience (like Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian Jailor, the Ethiopian eunuch, and others who heard the gospel). Believers baptism is what Christ calls us to: (1) evangelize; (2) baptize; (3) catechize (Matthew 28:18-20). Baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and our being baptized into His death and being raised to life in Christ:

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. (Romans 6:3-5)
having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:12)\
For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. (Romans 6:5)

Can you imagine an infant volunteering for baptism; can you imagine immersing that infant? Infant baptism is a holdover that is pre-Reformation. It cannot be supported from the Scriptures without doing violence to the text by imposing a set of circumstances upon the text that are not found in the text. There is not one incidence of sprinkling (ῥαντίζω--rhantidzo) an infant in the New Testament. There’s not one instance of baptizing (βαπτίζω—baptidzo) an infant in the New Testament. We do well to follow the text rather than bend it to suit our preferences or traditions. Baptism is for believers and by immersion.

Dealing with the Disorderly vs. the Discouraged

October 09, 2019 by Keith Crosby

We urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone. (1 Thessalonians 5:14)

What’s this all about? Writing to the fledgling and fragile church at Thessalonica Paul gives them concise and needed instruction for their spiritual growth, congregational well-being, and consolation. In so doing he provides us invaluable instruction for the Church today. It is amazing how much the Holy Spirit communicates through the Apostle’s pen in a single sentence!

We urge you, brethren… Paul is addressing believers and believers only, within the church (brethren). Paul’s letters to the church at Thessalonica is all about caring for the church. Consequently, Paul addresses those within the church. He does so with ‘urgency.’ No pun intended (“We urge you…”). The verb he employs communicates a real sense of urgency. He is exhorting them to a course action. He addresses them to attend to a need.

Admonish… encourage… help… be patient... Here God calls upon them and us to four courses of action. These are all commands, in the imperative mood. In that the Holy Spirit employs the imperative, these are not options. He mandate 4 courses of action in connection for a variety of people-types within the church. For the glory of God and the good of others (not to mention our own growth) we do well to conform ourselves to His prescriptions if the church is to not only survive but thrive.

Admonish the unruly. You could render this ‘warn,’ ‘rebuke,’ ‘counsel,’ or ‘instruct’ the disorderly. There are those within a congregation or assembly who seem to cause disturbance or trouble. Outwardly, they seem to be ignorant, or perhaps newbies. Often they are generally pleasant but somehow, some way they seem to be at the heart of conflicts and confusion that occurs over time. They may be people who seem to get into debates, arguments, or conflagrations over non-essential and non-eternal matters. They may be those who fight over the color of the carpet or the verbiage in the church bylaws or constitution. They may inject politics into discussions of theology confusing ideology with theology. They may perpetually and habitually find themselves short of funds, out of a job and looking to the church to fix their problems, refusing to accept responsibility for their actions. They are not the weak brother (sister) who is new to the faith. They are not the faint-hearted who are worn down by situation, circumstance, or illness. They are in short unruly. We are to do our best to correct them or help them grow (James 5:19-20). But at some point, if they persist in their unruliness or disruptive behavior we may be forced to remove them from the congregation (cf. Matthew 18:15-17). Often when painful decisions must be made there are those who “advocate for grace” forgetting that the grace is that we are confronting them and trying to help them grow. Moreover, by dealing with them, we are showing grace to others in the congregation who may have been or who are impacted by their unruly conduct.

Encourage the faint-hearted… help the weak. Life in this fallen world is hard. Multiple setbacks, illness, or heartbreak can wear a soul down. You see this in the book of Job after Job suffers unspeakable loss and heartbreak—not to mention illness and injury. Regrettably, Job’s friends make things worse by ‘piling on.’ Proverbs tells us that an apt word brings healing to the bones and the tongue of the wise brings healing. This has to do with encouraging (rather than discouraging) the faint-hearted. Our mission is to give hope not bring further harm. Sometimes this involves rejoicing with those who rejoice and weeping with those who weep (Romans 12:15). It is said of Jesus that a bruised reed He will not break and a smoldering wick He would not snuff out. That should be us. Sometimes the weak are those new to the faith and without a solid understanding of Scripture. We are to be of assistance to them. We are to come alongside them.

Be patient with everyone. We’ve all heard the saying that if your only tool is a hammer, then everyone starts looking like a nail. Being patient with everyone—with all kinds of people—involves the use of discernment. The unruly, the faint-hearted and the weak are three classes of people in distress. Sometimes they closely resemble one another. Consequently, we have to be, to use an old word, longsuffering. We have to endure and be patient. Why? You don’t want to misdiagnose the weak and the faint-hearted as unruly. There are nuanced and not so nuanced differences between the three. It would be almost a crime to confuse the faint-hearted or the weak (minded) with the unruly. Equally injurious (to the larger congregation) would be confusing the unruly for the faint-hearted and the weak. Sin, they say, is like a bomb. It harms its targets and the shrapnel resulting from the explosion maims and harms the innocent people around it. So it is with the unruly or disorderly. Sometimes we pass them off as weak or fainthearted and in the name of showing grace we show anything but grace to the people around them (inside and outside the church). As we discern who is unruly, faint-hearted, or weak, we must patiently and kindly walk arm and arm with them to rightly “diagnose” their condition. This requires both patience and discernment.

Discernment requires patience (and precision). Distinguishing between the unruly, the faint-hearted and the weak requires patience and care—precision. Why? Because we want to help all three. At the same time, discernment tells us that sooner or later the unruly have to be removed (Matthew 18:15-17; 1 Corinthians 5:11; 1 Thessalonians 3:10-12). But patience is the watchword because restoration is always the goal, even if restoration may not be possible and removal is necessary (Galatians 6:1-2; Matthew 18:15-17). Some would call this tough love. Others an intervention. In any case, it’s commanded and required of every Christian and every Christian church—even in our conveniently non-judgmental culture.

Household (Infant) Baptism? (Part 1)

September 26, 2019 by Keith Crosby

Does the Bible teach infant baptism? Depends on who you talk to. Certainly no text of Scripture prescribes infant baptism. Yet in Catholicism, and some Reformed circles tremendous effort is expended to justify the practice. In Reformed circles, baptism is given no link to salvation. Presbyterians, Reformed Baptists, and others are careful to point out that baptism doesn’t wash away sin, that baptism isn’t required for salvation, and that while it is a rite of initiation of sorts into a formalized relationship with Christianity it has no magical powers.

Romanism takes a different direction. In Catholicism baptism ‘purifies of all sins’ and is the rebirth. Salvation, in their minds, depends on baptism. For lack of a better, more accurate, descriptive term the waters of baptism are magical. Baptism is magic in Catholicism.

Infant baptism in ‘Reformed” circles. Obviously, the Reformed view described above still allows those who embrace it to remain within biblical, orthodox Christianity. The Catholic view, connecting baptism with regeneration and a means of being born again (justification), is sub-Christian and falls outside Christianity. From Jesus to the Apostles, there is no instance where baptism is prescribed in order to be saved or born again and no instance where the baptism of infants is prescribed.

Yet Catholicism and some streams of the Reformed faith make a case for infant baptism. Lacking any clear Scriptural warrant there is a reliance upon “tradition” and reading infant baptism into a phenomenon erroneously labeled “household baptism.” The interpretive process (hermeneutical and exegetical praxis) that gets them there entails reading into the text of Scripture one’s bias rather than reading from the text of Scripture (eisegesis rather an exegesis). Consequently, both have to look for a narrative rather than didactic passage (teaching passage) and force infant baptism upon it.

The baptism of the Philippian jailor and his family—is this infant baptism? The key passage employed tends to be the passage of the conversion of the Philippian Jailer and his family in Acts 16. The problem with the passage is ignoring the passages that point to the mass conversion of those who hear the gospel preceding their baptism. This is instructive because it shows the danger of taking a verse or a sentence out of context (proof-texting) which both Catholic and Reformed adherents to infant (or household) baptism must do to make their traditions appear sound. Let’s look at Acts 16:25-34.

25 About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them, 26 and suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken. And immediately all the doors were opened, and everyone’s bonds were unfastened. 27 When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. 28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.” 29 And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. 30 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. 34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God. (Acts 16:25-34)

What is this passage about? The passage is not a lecture on theology. It’s not so much about how to be saved (although Paul does explain “how” to the jailer) or who is to be baptized—or what baptism is or is not. Think of it as a video clip of sorts from Church History in the book of Acts. It’s about Paul and Silas and their ministry to the Philippian Jailer. Understand that Acts is “history” not editorial. It’s about the spread of the Gospel through the witness and preaching of Paul and Silas.

The passage is also about the salvation of the Philippians jailer and others. The focus of the passage is the Jailor’s question (What must I do to be saved?) and Paul’s answer—and the results of Paul’s evangelism and witness. Paul answers the jailor’s question as follows, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household (Spoiler alert: you might want to pay attention to that last phrase).”

The jailer is told that salvation will come from believing in Christ. The Jailor is told “believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household (v 31).” What happened next? Paul and Silas (“they”) spoke the word of the Lord to him and all who were in his house (v. 32). In the same hour of the night… he was baptized at once, he and all his family (v. 33).” Notice, all heard the gospel, the message of salvation—the jailor and all who were in his house (v. 32). And he was baptized as was his family (v. 33). Why? Because they responded to the Gospel. When were they baptized? They were baptized after hearing the gospel. Why? Presumably all in the household---hearing the gospel, like the jailor, responded to the gospel, the call to “believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household (v. 31).” He and his family believed and were baptized (v. 33). A celebration followed. The entire household celebrated that the jailor had come to salvation (v. 34):

30 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. 34 Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God. (Acts 16:30-33)

Let’s ask and answer a few questions. Does Paul suggest that baptism is necessary for salvation? No he does not. His answer to that question (“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”) is “believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.” There is no condition added such as “believe and be baptized.” Notice the appeal is made to the Jailor for his salvation as well as the salvation of those under his roof, including his family. Here’s where people attempt to cling to the closing sentences of the passage while ignoring the opening sentences which provide them context. The command to believe in the gospel (i.e. the message /word)—"you and your household.” Was Peter saying that infants and toddlers were to believe? Does he say this explicitly? Or, does he say, ‘household?’ Nowhere does the text that commands the household to believe and be saved suggest the inclusion of infants, toddlers, and children. The household would pertain to those who could listen, comprehend, and exercise faith (belief).

Here’s where people do violence to the meaning of the passage and the text. People want to take phrases like you and your whole household or your family and impose baptism on all of them apart from salvation. Catholics and many in the Reformed Faith point to this narrative that is descriptive and like to pretend it is prescriptive. No mention is made of the baptism of children or infants. Nor is there any insinuation that having servants and paid help baptized is suggested or prescribed. If this were true and this passage prescribed household baptism in such a sense, then one’s employees would be included. What about unbelieving visitors or house guests? This would go well beyond family and children, or infants.

Is it possible that infants and toddlers were in the household? It’s possible? Is it possible that infants would be expected to believe? It’s improbable and unlikely—if not impossible?

Let’s ask and answer a few more questions about our passage and what it describes. Is it possible that infants and toddlers were not present in the household? It’s possible. Is it probable? It’s likely given what Paul said about the jailor and the household being saved by faith (believe… you and your household). Does Paul mention that baptism (infant or adult) is necessary for salvation (vv. 25-34)? No. The passage indicates that salvation follows baptism but salvation requires belief.

“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household (vv. 30-31).”What follows is instructive and enlightening: “32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house (Acts 16:32).”

Should we make a case for household salvation from this passage (believe, you and your household)? That would be illogical. Salvation is an individual exercise of saving faith. It just so happens that those who heard believed. In fact, people celebrated the jailor’s belief as his belief induced him to have Paul and Silas speak to the whole household.

Should we make a case for household baptism from this passage? No, that would require something akin to household salvation by relationship to the Jailor rather than Christ. Some would have us ignore the exercise of saving faith on the part of the individuals present in his household for the sake of pushing the idea of household baptism (including children, infants, servants, etc.). The reality is, based upon what the text says, that household heard the message and they believed and were baptized, including the jailer’s family as part of the household. The household believed. The household was baptized in accordance with Jesus’ command in Matthew 28:19-20.

It is possible the household did not believe but was merely baptized as a group? Baptism in the New Testament always follows someone ‘coming to Christ.’ There is no record of knowingly baptizing unbelievers of any stripe. There is no command to do so. If the household did not believe, why did they celebrate the jailor’s belief in a foreign God that contradicted their state religion (emperor worship and the worship of the Roman Pantheon and Greek Pantheon of gods)? Why did Paul baptize the household? He did so because they embraced the gospel and Peter was obeying the command of Christ to make disciples, baptize those disciples and teach them to do all Christ commanded (Matthew 28:19-20). Paul was obeying Jesus.

Is a command for household baptism explicitly given in this passage? No, it is not. The passage is narrative (description) rather than prescriptive. No, you have to read that agenda into the text because it cannot be found within the text.

What can we explicitly know from this passage? The household believed; the household was baptized. The household celebrated the conversion of the jailor. Baptism, in the New Testament, follows conversion. Yet not everyone is baptized after conversion. And this lack of baptism does not affect their salvation. Think of the thief on the cross. He is told he will be with Christ that day in Paradise—without being baptized.

Regeneration, justification, conversion, and salvation always precede baptism. Baptism does not convert, justify or regenerate. Furthermore, New Testament baptism is “believers baptism.” Infants cannot exercise saving faith—they can’t even talk or understand the Gospel message—or know to take care of themselves. Believer’s baptism is the practice of the New Testament. From the Ethiopian Official to Lydia. Her salvation came this way: “The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul (Acts 16:14).” Her household was baptized as well (like the Philippian Jailor); however, no mention is made of her family and it appears she was not married and had no children. We do well to remember that Jesus taught that baptism follows conversion. In the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) we find the baptismal formula coming after the making of disciples, not before (as would be the case with children):

This passage (Matthew 28: 18-20), unlike the passages above (in Acts) is prescriptive. We have Jesus prescribing conduct. To that end, Paul in his letter to the unruly church at Corinth, indicates that baptism was not essential in that, in Paul’s view, it was not his priority:

17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (1 Corinthians 1:17)

Consider the implications of what Paul is saying. He implies and indicates that he neither came to baptize nor impress with eloquent speech “lest the cross be emptied of its power.” Christ sent Paul to preach the gospel first and foremost. If baptism resulted in justification or conversion—if it washed away sin, then it is unlikely the Holy Spirit speaking through the pen of the Apostle would have given us 1 Corinthians 1:17.

Let’s talk about next week. In part two, next week, we will consider the narrative of the conversion, then baptism of a Roman Centurion named Cornelius (Acts 10:30-48). You may wish to read and familiarize yourself with this text between now and Thursday. As you read, try and read from the text rather than reading things into the text (like infant baptism or baptismal regeneration—salvation through baptism). As yourself three questions:

1. What does the text say?

2. What does the text mean?

3. What then shall I do or how shall I think?

See you next week! Click here for the conclusion.