Subjects of Baptism, Part 2 (in the Acts)

Introduction and Review of Previous Study on Jesus' Practice

0:00 This adult Sunday school class was held on June 26, 1983, at the Trinity Baptist Church in Montville, New Jersey.

0:11 Now, let's begin by asking for the blessing of God upon our study of His Holy Word. Let us pray.

0:28 Our God, we give you thanks for the privilege of meeting together to study the Scriptures. We pray, Lord, that as we come to consider the data in the book of Acts with respect to the practice of the apostles, we pray, Lord, that you would come to us, enlightening our minds and hearts, granting to us a receptiveness to the teaching of the Scriptures, that we may be clear in our understanding. We pray also, Lord, as we enter again to the discussion of the Bible, that we may be clear in our understanding. We pray, Lord, that you would give us grace to speak, to think, to act in a way that befits Christian love, Christian compassion, and integrity, and fairness, and honesty. Draw near to us, O Lord, and keep us from our own indwelling sin, that it may be mortified that we may speak to your honor and to your glory, that every word that is said, may redound to the praise of Jesus Christ. Use this time of study in your word for the good and the benefit of your people. We ask it in Jesus' name. Amen.

1:54 Now again, we continue this morning our study of the biblical witness as it directly impinges upon the subjects, as it directly impinges upon the subject of baptism. For those of you who may be visiting with us today, we have been engaged in a study of the subject of infant baptism. This is the third of our studies, and it is part of a series which probably is going to be a little bit longer than I originally expected. Some of you knew that would be the case.

2:30 But first of all, we are considering those passages which, explicitly and directly address the subjects of baptism. Under this, first of all, the passages which define explicitly and describe them, and then secondly, the passages used to support the contention or assertion that infants ought to be baptized, and then thirdly, the conclusion which is mandated by the biblical witness. Now, so far, we are still, under Roman numeral one, the passages which define and describe the subjects of baptism. And last week, we considered those passages in the life and ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ, which are, of course, recorded in the Gospels. And we saw, first of all, that baptism in the New Testament is mentioned in connection with the ministry of John the Baptist, and we saw then, also, that Baptists and most Paedobaptists would agree, firstly, that John's baptism was disciple baptism, and secondly, that John baptized none but disciples. Then also, last week, we looked at the practice of the Lord Jesus Christ,

3:59 and we saw that the Lord Jesus practiced disciple baptism, and also that he perpetuated, perpetuated the institution of disciple baptism. We looked at John chapter 4 and verse 1, in which we saw that Jesus' practice was equivalent to John the Baptist's practice. The text that reads, Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John. And then also, we looked at Matthew chapter 28, in which Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John.

4:36 And then also, we saw that Jesus perpetuated that which he was already practicing, the making and baptizing of disciples, and then teaching of those disciples all things which they were commanded. Now, B.B. Warfield would agree with our conclusions with respect to this.

4:57 In his Biblical and Theological Studies, page 399, he says, and I quote, Nobody supposes that Jesus and his disciples, were in the habit of baptizing infants, end quote. In other words, he does not believe that the practice can be established from the practice of Jesus Christ and the apostles during Jesus' ministry and life on earth. Now, from last week then, we saw two things. And that is, first of all, that Jesus Christ practiced disciple baptism, and that Jesus Christ practiced, perpetuated the ordinance of disciple baptism. Now, in response to this, there has been a division among our Paedo-Baptist brethren in the way that they view the commission of the Lord Jesus Christ, which we considered last week contained in Matthew 28 and the debatable but parallel passage in Mark 16. Three possible responses. The first would be, the idea that the commission must necessarily include infants.

Paedobaptist Interpretations of the Great Commission

6:14 And I have not found a credible spokesman for the Paedo-Baptists who would take this position. In other words, when you read that Jesus said, Go into all the world, make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them, I do not know of any credible spokesman who say there is no plausible way that this can be understood except as demanding, infant baptism. I don't know any who say that. There are some who say that this could possibly include infants, and that the way that this is stated does not necessarily exclude them. For example, the German commentator Lange takes this position, and he says that the willingness of children to be disciples is presupposed in the willingness of the parents. Then also Schaff, the great church historian, in two of his works, in the History of Christianity, Volume 1, and also in the History of the Apostolic Church, Volume 2, page 261, takes the same position. He says that disciples are made by baptizing them, and that the commission is put in general terms which could include infants. He says that whole nations were to be discipled, and this

7:35 included the children. Charles Hodge, in Systematic Theology, the great work that he has done, Volume 3, page 556, takes the same position, in which he says that the apostles would have understood that when the head of the household believed, therefore the rest were to be baptized, and so he says, the way you understand this commission depends upon the way you understand the commission. The way you understand the precedent of the previous practice of the apostles. And so there are some of our Paedo-Baptist brethren who take the position that this commission could possibly include infants and does not necessarily exclude them. But then there are others who do not take this position and cannot see it in the text. And there are others then from the Paedo-Baptist camp who say that the commission of the Lord Jesus Christ could not possibly include infants, but definitely excludes them. That in the commission, the Lord Jesus Christ is not speaking about infant baptism at all. Take, for example, Bishop Ryle. Now I'm going to quote some of them. I only brought a few of the references. You may

8:48 have wondered, what is he doing with all these books? But I only brought a few of the references, believe me. All right, Bishop Ryle, in his commentary on Matthew, a footnote on page, 411, makes the following statement. He says, I purposely abstain from saying anything on the subject of infant baptism. He's speaking now about the commission. There's nothing in the text which can fairly be used either way in settling the much-vexed controversy. The point settled by the text is not so much what ought to be done with the children of Christians as what ought to be done with heathens when converted. In other words, he says, I purposely abstain from saying that the text is not talking about when Jesus says, go into all the world, make disciples, baptize them. The text is not talking about what do you do with those who have been raised in Christian households. It's talking about a commission to go out into the heathen world

9:49 and then to make disciples out of those who were previously pagans. So Jesus is not speaking in reference at all to what you do in the case of those who were reared in Christian households. He's not addressing that. He's not addressing that issue at all. In other words, the case of infants is not at all under consideration in the context. John Calvin takes a similar position in his comments on the harmony of the gospel, volume 3, page 251 and 252. He says, and I quote, Christ orders that those who have subscribed to the gospel and professed themselves disciples are to be baptized in the gospel. Partly that baptism may be for them a token of their eternal life in God's sight, partly as an

10:49 outward sign of faith before men. But as God affirms his grace to us with this sealing, so those who offer themselves for baptism in turn ratify their faith in the gospel. And he says, and I quote, as if by appending their signature. And then he goes on to speak about the parallel passage in Mark.

11:17 And he says, so it is said in Mark, he that believes and is baptized. These words not only exclude from the hope of salvation hypocrites who empty of faith are puffed out with the outward sign alone, but also he couples both. Baptism with a holy bond to teaching that the one may be no more than an addition to the other. As Christ orders them to teach before baptizing and only wishes believers to be received for baptism, baptism appears not to be rightly administered unless faith has preceded. Now that's quite an admission from John Calvin. In fairness to him, he goes on to say, on this pretext, the Anabaptists have raised a great tumult against infant baptism. And I might add, in my judgment, and rightly so, if what Calvin has said is true. Nevertheless, that is Calvin's position on the Great Commission.

12:40 That baptism is not rightly administered. That baptism is not rightly administered unless faith has preceded it. He takes that from the clear language of the text. Then he does go on to attempt to show how it is that you can still practice infant baptism and get around that.

12:59 Berkhoff, in his Systematic Theology, says something very similar in his exposition of the Great Commission on page 624. And after he quotes, He says this about the commandment given by the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, the following elements are clearly indicated in this authoritative command. A. The disciples were to go out into the whole world and to preach the gospel to all the nations in order to bring people to repent, and to the acknowledgement of Jesus as the promised Savior. B. They who accepted Christ by faith were to be baptized in the name of the triune God as a sign and seal of the fact that they had entered into a new relation to God and as such were obliged to live according to the laws of the kingdom of God.

14:24 C. They were to be brought under the ministry of the word not merely as a proclamation of good news but as an exposition of the mysteries, the privileges, the duties of the new covenant. So he says three things. The disciples were to preach, the disciples were to baptize those who accepted Christ by faith and the disciples were then, these new disciples, were to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

14:54 They were to be brought under the ministry of the word of God. Whatever else may be there, he says, these things are clearly, unambiguously taught and contained in the commission of our Lord Jesus Christ. In other words, whatever may not be clear or whatever one may be able to read into it, one thing is so clear that it cannot be avoided from it. It is that the Lord Jesus Christ instituted and perpetuated the order of the world.

15:24 The order of the world. The order of the world. The order of the world. The order of the world.

15:24 The order of the world. The order of the world. The order of the world. The ordinance of disciple baptism to those who believe in Jesus Christ.

15:31 And this is something which is generally agreed by Baptists and Pado-Baptists alike. Now, one of the great historians who wrote a work on the history of infant baptism, to which I do not have access personally, and I would like to be able to get a hold of it and read it, a man by the name of Dr. Wall. He also speaks in this vein, and I'm quoting now from a secondary source, Watson.

16:01 And so, of course, therefore, I trust that Watson is quoting him accurately. He makes the following statement. The commission given by our Savior to his disciples in the time of his own mortal life to baptize in the country of Judea is not all set down in Scripture. Only it is said that they baptized a great many.

16:25 And the enlargement of that commission among all the heathen nations is set down in such brief words that there is no particular direction given what they were to do in reference of the children of those who received the faith. History of Infant Baptism, Volume 1, page 5. In other words, he says this. We know that they baptized disciples.

16:52 This was enlarged, that they were to baptize disciples. Throughout the whole world. And the commission given in Matthew 28 is so brief that there is no reference in it as to what they are to do with the children of those who have professed the faith.

17:11 You follow that?

17:14 Now, therefore, all agree that the Lord Jesus Christ practiced and perpetuated disciple baptism. And some are willing to go so far as to assert that he said, He said absolutely nothing concerning what the disciples were to do in the case of the children of those, the children born to those who had become Christians. Now, secondly, then, we come this morning to consider the practice of the apostles. The practice of the apostles.

The Practice of the Apostles: Mass Baptisms in Acts 2

17:56 Now, the first passage is Acts, chapter 2. And there are ten passages. In the book of Acts, there isn't a great voluminous amount of data. The first is in Acts, chapter 2, verse 38 and 41.

18:29 And I am going to make an attempt to get through these passages this morning. I'm going to try my best.

18:39 Now, Peter is preaching the gospel here on the day of Pentecost.

18:44 We find in verse 37 that after he's preached, we read, Now, when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart and said to Peter, and the rest of the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? And Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. And we'll take up verse 39 later on. We're not going to deal with that one this morning.

19:15 I'm not going to pass over it. I know it's a text that's often quoted. I'm not going to pass over it as though it doesn't exist at all. So just be patient.

19:23 I'll get back to Acts 2.39. I'm only now considering those verses which explicitly mention the subjects of baptism. Verse 41.

19:33 Then they that received his word were baptized, and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls, and they continued steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, and in the breaking of bread and the prayers.

19:58 Now notice who were baptized in the text. Peter was preaching to the unconverted Jews, but he was preaching to Jews, and he said to them that they must repent. And notice which ones of those who heard the word of God were baptized. Verse 41.

20:22 Then they that received his word were baptized, and notice the result, and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. It was the ones who received the word, not the ones who rejected the word, but the ones who received the word and the ones who were added unto their number. These also continued steadfastly, and we're told in verse 47 that the Lord was adding unto them day by day those as were saved. So we find here an instance of a mass or multiple baptism. He preaches to the Jews. He tells them they must repent and be baptized. Those who do repent, those who do receive the word are baptized.

21:21 They're added to the number. They continue steadfastly. They are described as those who have been saved. And also, they are described as those who believe in verse 44.

21:36 And all that believed were together and had all things common.

21:43 Now, it's especially important to notice that the apostle Peter preached these things to the men of Israel. He says, verse 36, let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly. He says, men and brethren. He says, brethren.

22:07 He says, you men of Israel. He's describing men who were Jews. That's very clear. Now, what's the significance of this?

22:16 Well, these people were circumcised as infants. And from their infancy, the people who were baptized upon their repentance and faith were nurtured and raised in the covenant community. And they were marked with the appropriate sign of inclusion in the Abrahamic covenant and its blessings. Yet, in spite of this, they were not exempt from disciple baptism when they came to faith.

22:48 And they were not entitled to it unless they became disciples. And this, it seems to me, is a very significant fact because it establishes a precedent and I will underscore this later when we come to the conclusions. But simply note for now that those who are included in the covenant of grace from infancy who received the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant and its blessings from infancy when they repented and became disciples, they received disciple baptism. The fact that they had been included from infancy did not exempt them from the ordinance of disciple baptism when they believed.

23:33 And the fact that they had been included from infancy did not entitle them to disciple baptism unless they repented and believed.

The Practice of the Apostles: Mass Baptisms in Acts 8 (Men and Women)

23:47 Now, the second passage is found in Acts chapter 8, verses 12 and 13. Acts chapter 8, verses 12 and 13. Acts chapter 8, verses 12 and 13. But when they believed Philip, preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

24:25 And when they believed Philip, preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. And when they believed Philip, preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Now, notice that the first thing that's said about the subjects of baptism in this passage is that they believed Philip. They believed Philip.

24:57 Where was Philip? He was preaching in the city of Samaria, verse 5, and he was preaching to multitudes, verse 6. The multitudes gave heed with one accord to the things that were spoken by Philip. When they heard and saw the signs which he did, he was engaged in open, public preaching of the gospel to multitudes.

25:26 And some of those multitudes believed Philip. And when they believed Philip, they were baptized. And so the thing that we're told, is that they had heard the preaching of the gospel and that they had believed it. They had exercised faith in Jesus Christ.

25:47 They had professed that faith in Christ. Now, we're told something else very significant about the members of these multitudes who had believed and were baptized. They are described as, notice the text, both men and women. Now, if Luke was determined to end all controversy on the subject, he had merely to append one more word.

26:24 Men, women, and their little children. He didn't say that.

26:35 It's true, he didn't say both men and women. And when they brought their children, they were forbidden. Luke didn't say that either. But Luke did not record that children, infants, toddlers, were baptized upon this occasion.

26:58 And he uses words which are intended to distinguish adults from children. He is deliberately saying, in the use and employment of these words, and he could not state it, any more clearly, that children are not included in this event. He deliberately employs words intended to exclude them. Now, let me show you a parallel passage.

27:30 You see, because the men and women, the words that are used, describe not only the gender, but also the maturity of the subjects of baptism. It describes their physical development. These are the words which are used in the Bible to distinguish adults from minor children, from toddlers, infants, or other boys and girls. See, there's a difference, as you well know.

28:00 Now, let me illustrate this on the board here before we turn to the parallel passage.

28:05 See how far it goes. There you go. You have boys, and they develop into men. You have girls, and they develop into women.

28:20 And we have words which are used to distinguish men from boys and women from girls. And so did the Greeks. And the words that we find in the text are these words. When it says men, it does not mean and cannot mean boys.

28:36 When it says women, it does not mean and cannot mean girls. Now, we know, if you put boys and girls, you get children.

28:48 Now, we know that a boy doesn't become a man overnight.

28:53 When does a boy become a man? Well, that's a difficult question. When does a girl become a woman? That's a difficult question.

28:59 We're not discussing that now. We're not talking about the case of those who maybe in some ways they're boys and maybe in some ways they're men. We're not getting into that whole discussion right now as to when a boy becomes a man. That's difficult enough to determine, as I well know from my own life.

29:16 But the thing is this. That's the truth. But the thing is, whenever a boy becomes a man, and whatever all of that involves, and the scripture does give us some data to be able to distinguish between boys and men and girls and women. The words that are used here do not describe boys and girls.

29:36 They are the words which are used in the Bible to describe men and women and not boys and girls or children. Now, there's a parallel passage. In which this is made very clear. It's in the Gospels.

29:49 It's in Matthew chapter 14, verse 21.

30:14 And here we find reference to the feeding of the multitudes in the desert.

30:21 And he says, And those that did eat were about five thousand men, same word, besides women, same word, and children. About five thousand men besides women and children. Children is not the same as men and women. Children are different than men and women.

30:45 Children are distinct from men and women. Children are boys and girls. Men and women are not boys and girls. That's the way the words are used.

30:52 And that's the way they're being used in Acts chapter 8. Boys and girls were not baptized on that occasion, just like boys and girls did eat upon the other occasion. Upon the occasion in Matthew, boys and girls, ate, but upon the occasion in the book of Acts, boys and girls were not baptized, only men and women. Now why is that so?

31:17 How can that be explained?

31:21 How can that be explained? It's true, the text doesn't say that boys and girls were presented for baptism and were forbidden. It doesn't say that, I admit it. But why weren't they baptized?

31:34 Peter was preaching to the multitudes. It says multitudes of men and women were baptized. Can we realistically conceive that multitudes of men and women had no children at all?

31:50 Is that a fair assumption? It may be a fair assumption to say, here's one couple who was childless, here are two couples, ten couples, but can we realistically conceive of a situation in which there are multitudes of men and women who are childless? Is that a realistic way to look at the truth? That's the text.

32:14 I say no. It's not realistic to assume that there were multitudes of men and women involved and that none of them had any children.

32:24 So if they did have children, if some of them had children,

32:30 why weren't they baptized?

32:34 Perhaps they were baptized, someone says, and it's not recorded. Why isn't it recorded?

32:40 What could Luke possibly have to gain by omitting the fact that children were baptized along with the men and the women? Why would he do a thing like that? Certainly not to encourage the Baptists. Why would he do it?

32:57 All if children were baptized, when children ate,

33:03 he says, not Luke, but Matthew, men, women, and children ate from the bread. If children were baptized, why not say boys and girls as well as men and women were baptized? Why exclude them? Why use words deliberately calculated to let us know that they are not being included?

33:25 Why do that? Unless indeed and in fact they really were not included. Pastor Martin. Especially when Luke, in another chapter in Acts, were you going to bring that out from chapter 21?

33:38 It's careful to include children when they were in a group, a much smaller group of disciples at Tyre, Acts 21 and verse 4. And having found the disciples, you tarry there, seven days and be said to Paul through the Spirit that we should not set foot in Jerusalem. And when it came to pass, we'd accomplished the days, we departed and went on our journey. And they all, with wives and children, brought us on our way.

34:10 So when he's describing the disciples in a family situation, saying goodbye to Paul, he does not exclude the children as the careful historian he was. He makes it plain that the entire families of the disciples came out to say goodbye. So if in a simple historical narrative where no real theological issue is involved, Luke is careful to include the children for accuracy, how much more should we expect it if they were included in a matter pertaining to the subject of baptism? Now, I suppose it could be answered.

34:48 I suppose it could be answered, not to what you've said, but to the whole, but to the whole, but to the whole problem. It could be answered, although I have not read anyone who answers this way, it could be answered that infant baptism was not yet instituted because they were still practicing circumcision, but that awaited Acts chapter 15 and the other places where circumcision was no longer then to be practiced, but circumcision was then substituted for infant baptism in redemptive history. That could be said, I suppose.

35:23 I do not know what else, could be said except to say that it's possible that for whatever reason they were, that infants were baptized and Luke chose for whatever reason not to record it. It could also be said that Luke did not indicate that the apostles forbade in this passage the baptizing of infants. Still, it seems that the most likely and probable explanation is that in fact, No. No boys and girls were baptized.

36:00 And the reason was that the apostles did not practice the baptism of infants, boys, and girls. Seems to be, to me, that straightforward an explanation. Right now, two other passages. We've considered now the first two instances are instances of multiple or mass baptisms.

The Practice of the Apostles: Individual Baptisms in Acts 8 and 9

36:23 And now we come to what could be called, those, you know, those who are not baptized. Those isolated or individual baptisms. Two passages, Acts 838. And I won't spend much time with them because our time is going away.

36:36 Acts 838, which is the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch, which simply says, and as they went on their way they came to certain water and the eunuch said, behold, here is water. What does hinder me to be baptized? And then maybe yes, maybe no. And Philip said, And if you believe with all your heart, you may.

36:59 And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. There's a variant reading on that text, which I won't go into. And then verse 38 says, and he commanded the chariot to stand still. They both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.

37:16 Now, one thing at least, variant reading or no variant reading, we don't need to base our case upon that. But one thing at least is very clear, and that is that this is a clear instance of disciple baptism. There's no doubt about it. This is disciple baptism.

37:31 There's no other thing that could possibly be read into the text any way, shape, or form but disciple baptism. The next is the conversion of the apostle Paul in Acts chapter 9 and verse 18. And straightway there fell from his eyes, as it were, scales, and he received his sight, and he arose and was baptized, and he took food and was strengthened. And so, again, a clear example of the baptism of a new disciple, and no other construction could possibly be put upon the text.

Household Baptisms: Introduction and Paedobaptist Admissions

38:15 Right now, then, we come in the next place, after having seen these multiple baptisms and the individual baptisms, we come now to the household baptisms. And there are four passages in the book of Acts, Acts 10.48, Acts 16.15, 16.33, and then also a relevant passage in Acts 18.8, and then one in the book of 1 Corinthians, which we'll look at all under the category of the household baptisms. It's interesting that all of these household baptisms come together in the scriptures. And the first one is mentioned in Acts chapter 10 and verse 18.

38:58 Now, this household baptism issue is one of the things which is commonly employed by the paedo-baptists to at least strengthen their contention or belief that infants should be baptized. And this is the only dimension of the biblical data which lends any credence and plausibility to their cause,

39:30 with reference, that is, to the subjects of baptism. And so, therefore, usually these passages...

39:37 These passages are held to with great determination and tenacity. Yet I should say at the beginning that even in the end of the day, they admit that their case is not proved by these texts. The case is not proved by these texts. John Murray says in Christian Baptism on page 68, quote, We cannot prove conclusively that there were infants in Christ.

40:07 We cannot prove conclusively that there were infants in Christ. And Warfield goes even further. In his studies in theology, page 396 and 397, he says, Even if we could prove that there were members, that there were infants in the households, it would not automatically follow or prove that they were baptized. Now, that is the essence of what he said.

Household Baptisms: Cornelius's Household (Acts 10)

40:36 You can read it on page... 396 and 7, and this is enlarged upon by the Baptist, Carson, in his classic work, Baptism, Its Mode and Subjects. And basically, Warfield admits the legitimacy of Carson's argument as it's developed on pages 181 through 194. Now, having said that then, by way of introduction, let's look at the biblical data themselves. All right, first of all, Acts chapter 10 and verse 48. Verse 47 says, Can any man forbid the water that these should not be baptized to have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

41:36 Now, who is the them in this passage? Well, from verse 47, it's evident that they received the Holy Spirit. But from chapter 11 and verse 14 and 15, it's also evident that these people are described as a household. They are the household of Cornelius. And so you find here the first example of household baptism. Verse 13 indicates that Peter is recounting to the Jews at Jerusalem, and he's recounting to the Jews at Jerusalem, and he's recounting to the Jews at Jerusalem, and he's recounting to the Jews at Jerusalem, and he's recounting to the Jews at Jerusalem, what Cornelius told them. Verse 13, And he told us how he had seen the angel standing in his house and saying, Send to Joppa and fetch Simon, whose surname is Peter, who shall speak unto you words whereby you will be saved, you and all your house. And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us.

42:40 Now you notice, the Holy Spirit from 1047 clearly fell on the them who was baptized. The them of 1115 is the them spoken of in 1114, namely Cornelius and his house. And one other thing is told to us about Cornelius and his house, and that is that through the words which Peter spoke, they would be saved. They were saved. The Holy Spirit fell upon them, and then they were baptized. Now that is the first instance of household baptism in the Bible. Cornelius' house. They were saved, a saved household. They had the Holy Spirit,

43:27 and it was that saved household who had received the Holy Spirit, which was and became a baptized household. See that? Now, we're told something else about the conversation. We're told that the Holy Spirit was baptized, and that he was saved, and that he was baptized. And that was the position of the household in 1024 and 1023, and that is that it in 1033, and that is that it included his kinsmen and his close friends. His kinsmen and his close friends. So then, if it's right to conclude that the infants of the household were baptized, then it must also be right to conclude that the infants of the household were saved, received the Holy Spirit, and spoke with tongues. And this is the first mention of household baptism in the scriptures.

44:26 It occurs in conjunction of the conversion of Cornelius and his kinsmen and his close friends from being God-fearers to being, in the full-orb sense of the word, Christians. And that conversion is called salvation. All right, the second passage is in Acts chapter 16 and verse 15.

Household Baptisms: The Philippian Jailer (Acts 16) and Crispus (Acts 18)

44:55 Now, in this passage, nothing whatsoever is told to us about the condition of the household. We simply read, And when she was baptized and her household, she besought us, saying, If you've judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house. Now, this passage has been especially used by the Pato-Baptists. If you wish to read some commentaries, see Calvin in his commentary, page 74, or Matthew Henry, page 207.

45:28 This is a passage which is frequently quoted. We'll come back to this passage because this passage says nothing about the members of the household except they were members of the household. So let's go to the other passages first, and then we'll come back. Acts 16 and verse 33.

45:46 And I'm hastening to return to Lydia. We have about five minutes left. And verse 33, this now describes the Philippian jailer. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes and was baptized, he and all his, immediately.

46:07 And he brought them up into his house and set food before them and rejoiced greatly with all his house, having believed in God. Now, here's another instance of household baptism. Not only was the...

46:22 The jailer baptized, but all of his were baptized. Now, does the scripture tell us, in the context, anything about this household? Well, yes, it does. Look at verse 31.

46:38 And they said, And believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house. What does it say? It says, It says, It says, It says, shalt be saved. Again, verse 32.

47:00 And they spake the word of the Lord unto him with all that were in his house.

47:09 So all that were in his house heard the word of God. All that were in his house were saved, just like he was saved. And all that were in his house were baptized. And then afterward, all that were in his house, rejoiced greatly with him, because he had believed in God.

47:30 So again, this instance of household baptism is also clearly an instance of household salvation. Even as baptism came to the household, so also salvation came to the household. All those that were baptized heard the word of God. All those that were baptized were saved.

47:53 All those that were baptized... Also rejoiced greatly with the Philippian jailer in his faith.

48:00 There's nothing here that indicates anything other than a household conversion. And identified with the household conversion comes the household baptism. And again, Acts chapter 18 and verse 8.

48:28 And Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his house. Here you have another. Household conversion. An entire household.

48:39 The household of the ruler of the synagogue believed in the Lord.

48:45 And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.

Household Baptisms: Stephanas's Household (1 Corinthians 1 & 16)

48:53 Then the other passage. The household of Stephanas, 1 Corinthians chapter 1, verse 14. I thank God that I baptize none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest any man should say that you were baptized into my name, and I baptized also the household of Stephanas. Now you need to turn over to 1 Corinthians 16 to indicate, to see what the household of Stephanas was like.

49:35 1 Corinthians 16, verse 15 and 16. Now I beseech you, brethren, you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of...

49:50 Achaia, and that they have set themselves to minister unto the saints. The same household which was baptized was a household which had set itself to minister to the saints. And if the household then can be described as being set to minister to the saints, why should we be surprised if it's also said to be baptized? There's nothing...

50:20 There's nothing here again that indicates anything other than a household conversion. We read of the household conversion of Crispus, then we read of the baptism of the household of Stephanas. He's speaking about those household conversions which he was involved in taking care of the baptism specifically for. So you find the same pattern.

50:45 A household conversion, the word preached, faith exercised, baptism, practiced. You find the same pattern in Acts. You find the same pattern in the book of 1 Corinthians. Now we must come back and return to the household of Lydia.

Household Baptisms: Lydia's Household (Acts 16) Re-examined

51:03 And I will try to deal with this as briefly as I can.

51:11 The household of Lydia.

51:15 Now I would like to submit to you that there are three things about Lydia which are told to us in the passage. First of all, she was a businesswoman. She was a seller of purple. Second, she constrained single missionary men to stay with her.

51:32 And thirdly, she's presented as though she were the head of the home. And this third may be a little bit iffy in some people's minds, so I'll quote from a paedo-baptist who obviously had no axe to grind in the case. And on page 314, he makes the following statement. This is F.F. Bruce in his commentary on the Acts of the Apostles.

51:56 He says, Lydia appears to have been the head of the house. We may conclude that she was unmarried or a widow. In that case, her household would include servants and other dependents, perhaps some of the women of verse 13. For women in the Philippian church, see Philippians 4.2.

52:24 The following is an excerpt taken from the review at the beginning of the next class. As I said last week when I quoted F.F. Bruce with respect to the baptism of Lydia's household, that F.F. Bruce was a paedo-baptist.

52:40 And then afterwards, I learned that he was involved with the brethren. So that needs to be corrected. Now, the reason that I said that was in order to underscore the idea that he had no prejudice in the text when he was saying that Lydia was the head of the household. Now, the fact that he's a Baptist, of course, does not mean that he was prejudiced, just because he was a paedo-baptist.

53:04 And that his exegesis grew out of prejudice. I still don't believe he was prejudiced. Nevertheless, the point that I was making is thereby invalidated. However, there are other paedo-baptist commentators who say exactly the same thing.

53:21 For example, Lenski. And I have no doubt in my mind that Lenski was a paedo-baptist. Lenski says the same on page 657. And I knew this last week, but I only quoted Bruce because the Bible says that he was a paedo-baptist.

53:35 And I knew this last week, but I only quoted Bruce because Bruce, and I knew this last week, but I only quoted Bruce because Bruce, was more clear than Lenski and more thorough in what he said, but Lenski does make the same point. He says the following, Lydia dealt in purple goods of all kinds, and it is not necessary to add all kinds of other goods. The sale of purple was a business that required a large capital. Let us take it that Lydia was a widow and was carrying on her dead husband's business by importing from Thyatira and selling in Philippine.

54:09 So he also indicates that Lydia was the head of the home, and he says here that she was carrying on her dead husband's business. Of course, the other possibility, as Bruce pointed out, is that she was a single woman and was never married. But in any event, they would tend to agree that the language is such that Lydia was the head of the home. So it doesn't grow out of prejudice if someone takes that, that position on the passage.

54:35 That was the only point that I was seeking to make last week by quoting from Bruce in the way that I did.

54:45 All right, so let's then grant then that you don't have to have an axe to grind to believe that she was the head of the house, and if she was the head of the house, that she was either an unmarried woman or that she was a widow. Now let's take the first instance. Suppose she was an unmarried woman. Did an unmarried woman have infants in the home?

55:08 Unlikely. Well, perhaps she was an immoral woman. Well, perhaps so, but the text says that she was a woman that feared God. It doesn't say she was an immoral woman or a harlot.

55:18 It says she was a woman that feared God. Very unlikely that an unmarried woman who was a God-fearing woman and not a harlot would have infants or children in her house which were hers,

55:33 especially in the light of the fact that she was established in a trade and she was engaged in a business. Now let's suppose the second then. Suppose she was a married woman and now she was widowed. If so, I say she was probably an older woman, just simply from the fact that there are more widows that are older than are younger.

55:56 However, the scripture does teach, does it not, that there are young widows and that Paul says he desires that the younger widows would marry. Yes, yes, that's true. She could have been a young woman, but she was an unmarried woman. Who had suckling infants, but now consider what she did.

56:13 She invited these single missionary men to come and stay in her home. Can you put yourself in that position? Can you see, can you conceive, here's a young woman who has been widowed, lost her husband, she has infants, now single men come into the community and she invites these single men to come into her home and to stay with her. Do you think Paul would have gone for an arrangement like that?

56:40 Do you think that that would have indicated propriety? No, it wouldn't. Do you think that would have been providing all things honorable in the sight of men? Not likely.

56:53 So I submit to you that it is the epitome of unlikelihood that Lydia was a young woman who had been widowed and who had young children or infants there in the home with her. And you can see Matthew Henry, it says, she constrained them. They were unwilling to come, perhaps because of the impropriety they were unwilling. Well, see Matthew Henry, page 207, for a very good explanation of the unwillingness of the apostles and the fact that she constrained them.

57:28 So either she was an elderly woman, an old woman who had never been married, or she was an older woman who was a widow, probably. And she could, with propriety, constrain those young boys to come into the house and stay with her. And she insisted that they come. You stay here.

57:55 Now, who could get away with that? She constrained them. An old woman.

58:02 Now that, I don't think I'm reading into the text. I think that that fits the facts that she was the head of the home, a businesswoman, and that she constrained single wayfaring men to stay with her in her home.

Conclusion on Household Baptisms and Baptist Equivalent

58:19 Now then, I ask you, when the data is considered, do you think that we're forced to conclude that infant baptism was practiced from the data concerning these household baptisms? I say no. And therefore, the conclusions drawn by some men, like Dr. Hodge in Systematic Theology, are really totally unwarranted.

58:42 Page 556. And even those, who draw lesser conclusions, who find strong presumption in favor of infant baptism, were also mistaken. See Murray, page 68 and 69 of Christian Baptism. Rather, brethren, the overwhelming weight of the explicit evidence is that household baptisms followed household conversions.

59:08 In every instance but one, this is either explicitly stated or strongly implied, in the context and in the only other instance, Lydia, the presence of an infant is so unlikely in the light of the data as to create strong presumption against it. And so, with respect to the household baptisms, let's admit that we must be on the defensive with respect to this. Simply surface reading of the text could lend some plausibility to the assertion that there were infants who were baptized. But when the text and the context are examined, what it really indicates is that, household conversions occurred.

59:51 Now, I'll close then on this note. And there's only one more passage. It has to do with the rebaptism of John's disciples. We can look at that perhaps briefly next week.

60:00 I really must close now. But one of the things that is said is that Baptists have no equivalent to this household baptism practice. I don't think that's true. Believe if I ask those of you who have been converted and have had your entire household converted, to stand up, there could be some who could stand and say, God has saved me and God has saved my house.

60:25 He saved me. He saved my children. He saved all of those who are with me in my house. And the whole household has been baptized.

60:35 It's true that many of the other of us have also experienced the tragedy of a divided household. And Jesus has said that this will happen too. He said that a man's foes will be those of his own house. We must not expect to find that every household will find every member converted.

60:53 You don't find that in the scriptures. You find some remarkable instances of household conversions, and so do we. But we also find not to discourage the saints, that there are those who have to say to the breaking of their hearts that my enemies are the members of my own house. My enemies are the members of my own house.

Final Summary and Prayer

61:17 Amen. So then, with respect to the scriptural data, we can say this, and this is my final word. There's nothing that mandates infant baptism, but there's much that mandates the disciple baptism of Jews and Gentiles alike when they become disciples. Let us pray.

61:47 Our Father, as we come into your presence this morning, we give you thanks for your holy word. And even as we have read of these household baptisms and conversions, we thank you that your grace often comes and touches a whole house and gives them the blessed privilege of rejoicing in their common faith in Jesus Christ. We know that others of us, Lord, though we have seen some work in our families whom we love, yet we also have the pain of those unconverted relatives who are a grief of mine to us and also break our hearts and our concern for them. We pray that we may see your word go forth through our families with great power to their deliverance, to their salvation, that we also may experience more of that wonderful privilege of seeing whole households converted and brought to the knowledge of Jesus Christ and his salvation and grace. We pray these things in his most holy name. Amen.