Go to the index of other articles to do with Baptismal Integrity.
Go to John's Brinkster Home Page.

The United Free Church of Scotland General Assembly 2001 Panel on Doctrine Report on Baptism, chapter 5.

This page is a copy of the text of www.ufcos.org.uk/ga01/panel05.htm

The baptism of children: New Testament evidence

First half of this chapter: Children and Little Children

Household Baptisms (oikos is translated by both 'household' and 'family')

General considerations

When we read through the Acts of the Apostles we discover that whole households received baptism. It is true that the number of reported instances of household baptisms is not large. There are two for certain, those of Lydia and the Philippian jailer (Acts 16.14f; 34), and the possibility of Cornelius (10.44ff). In addition there is the certain instance of Stephanas recorded in 1 Cor 1.16. The following observations are worthy of note.

(1) The number of actual instances of Christian baptism recorded throughout the New Testament is itself small. There are eleven in total. It is significant that in three out of the eleven there is an explicit reference to the baptism of households and, as G Bromiley points out, there is no reason to believe that these three were exceptional [Children of Promise, Wipf and Stock Publishers 1998 (Eerdmans), p6]. Three out of eleven is more significant when we take into account that in two of the eleven baptisms personal circumstances ruled out the possibility of household baptisms, i.e. those of the Ethiopian eunuch travelling alone on official business and of Saul at the home of Ananias after he had been led there blind by his fellow persecutors. In the remaining instances there is nothing to rule out the baptism of families.

(2) There are references in the New Testament where the household or family clearly includes children, e.g. 1 Tim 3.4-5,12; 5.4 [The Message of Acts, IVP 1990, p 263].

(3) It is useful to bear in mind that oikos is used much more frequently in the New Testament in its literal and original sense of 'a house'. The fact that it is also used in a metaphorical and derivative sense of the people who live in the house has some relevance to our theme. When we are told that Lydia "and the members of her household" were baptised and that the jailer "and all his family" (literally, all his) were baptised, it is unnatural to exclude children on the basis that they were not of an age to exercise personal faith. That is especially so in the cases of both Lydia and the Philippian jailer where there is no indication that members of the household, apart from the head of the household, exercised personal faith. It is much more likely that children would be included as they were in Jewish families under the Old Covenant.

(4) To claim,a priori, that there would necessarily be no children present in the families baptised, either of the head of the house or of servants is a claim too far. It does not reflect the reality of family life among the people in that part of the world at that time and, more particularly, the reality of family life among the people of a covenanting God. It can neither be proven nor justified. On the contrary, as the Church of Scotland's Special Commission states, "It is in accordance with Biblical usage to speak of households as including children (Gen 17.12ff; Exodus 12.16-27; 1 Samuel 1.21ff; John 4.53) …" [The Biblical Doctrine of Baptism, a study document issued by the Special Commission on Baptism of the Church of Scotland (Convener, Prof T F Torrance), The Saint Andrew Press 1958, p46]. The same Report further observes, "they would be most unusual households for the Levant if none of their members had young children" [Op. cit. p46].

While we cannot prove conclusively that there were infants in the households referred to above, we concur with the conclusion of J Murray: "Every consideration would point to the conclusion that household baptism was a frequent occurrence in the practice of the church in the apostolic days. If so, it would be practically impossible to believe that in none of these households were there any infants. It would be unreasonable to believe so. The infants in the households belonged to the households and would be baptised. Presumption is, therefore, of the strongest kind, even though we do not have an overt and proven instance of infant baptism" [Christian Baptism, Presbyterian and Reformed 1980, p65f].

The response of those who hold to a contrary position is, very often, to take each instance of a household baptism and seek to prove that children were not baptised. Such is to attempt the impossible. Moreover, the approach is wrong. We begin not with the examples of household baptism in the Book of Acts but with the inclusion of children within the covenant. As C Buchanan points out, "The occurrence of household baptisms is exactly what we would have expected from our survey of both the antecedents of Christian baptism and the New Testament theological matters. And, sure enough, here they are – we ought to feel like the astronomers who discovered Neptune first of all by plotting it from the statistics of its 'pull' on Uranus, and secondly by turning their telescope to the part of the sky the calculations indicated. The two fitted – the object they found could not but be the new planet. So with us – the case is strong even before we look for the actual phenomenon, it is vastly increased when we find it where we would calculate it should be" [A Case for Infant Baptism, Grove Books 1973, p20].

Particular instances

A closer though brief look at each of the household baptisms will be useful in that each of the accounts has something to tell us that is relevant to our study.

(1) The case of Lydia and her household (ho oikos autes); Acts 16.14-15. A significant emphasis in this account is that of God's initiative with respect to Lydia's conversion. As I H Marshall has it, "Her conversion is attributed to the fact that the Lord opened her heart … Luke underlines that conversion is due to the action of God who opens hearts …This view of things is exactly the same as we find in Paul who says that people do not believe because their minds have been darkened by the god of this world (2 Cor 4.4), but that they are converted when the gospel comes to them … in power and in the Holy Spirit … (1 Thes 1.6)" [The Acts of the Apostles, IVP 1980, p267]. Interestingly there is no pre-requisite for a confession of faith. The fact that Lydia was subsequently regarded as a believer does not negate this point. We are simply told that after the Lord opened her heart "she and the members of her household were baptised" following which she invited Paul and his companions to stay with her at her own house. The fact that she was the head of the house does not mean that she had not married and that she did not have children. She may well have been a widow and a mother, or even a grandmother with children and grandchildren [The Acts of the Apostles IVP 1980, p268; G W Bromiley, Children of Promise, Wipf and Stock Publishers 1998 (Eerdmans), p7; F F Bruce, The Book of Acts, Marshall, Morgan and Scott 1968, p331; C Buchanan, A Case for Infant Baptism, Grove Books 1973, p20].

(2) The case of the Philippian jailer and 'all his' (hoi autou); Acts 16.31-34. In this account the jailer is directed to believe in the Lord Jesus, the consequence of which would be that he and his household (all his) will be saved. Immediately after the wounds of Paul and Silas had been bathed the jailer and his family were baptised. There seems to be little time here for every member of the jailer's household to be personally evangelised or counselled or instructed. According to the NIV Luke's account concludes with the statement that the jailer "was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God – he and his whole family." In fact the NIV is misleading because, as Jeremias and others have pointed out, the text does not lend itself to that translation [Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries (tran. David Cairns), SCM 1960, p22f]. That every single member of the jailer's household personally believed is an assumption. Longenecker has to say: "To judge by their actions, the jailer and his family believed in Christ …" [The Expositor's Bible Commentary Vol 9 John-Acts, (Ed. F E Gaebelein), Zondervan 1981, p 465 (italics added)]. A better translation is that of the RSV, "the jailer rejoiced with all his household that he had believed in God." The verbs translated "rejoiced" and "believed" are both in the singular. We may concur with Francis Schaeffer when he writes, "No matter what interpretation we, individually, may hold concerning this passage, certainly God here does show that He deals with families not only in the Old Testament but in the New Testament as well" [Baptism, Cross Publishing 1973, p19].

(3) The case of Cornelius; Acts 10.44-48. Again the emphasis here is on God's initiative (v44): "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message." Moreover, as with Lydia there is no pre-requisite of faith. It is not faith that enables grace but rather grace that enables faith. Even faith is a gift of God's grace otherwise salvation would be "of works" and those exercising it would be able to boast (Eph 2.8). Baptism is primarily the sign of God's intervening and saving grace, not of our personal faith. As Bromiley observes, "What calls for attention is the endowment with the Holy Spirit. This, of course, would bring faith into it but plainly did not lie within the range of human possibilities, whether infant or adult. It was miraculous in character – a mighty act of God" [Children of Promise, Wipf and Stock Publishers 1998 (Eerdmans), p6]. Although there is no mention of Cornelius' household in the Acts10 narrative, John Stott clearly regards this as the first "household baptism" [The Message of Acts, IVP 1990, p263]. He describes the baptism of Lydia as the 'second household baptism". In a footnote he lists Acts 10.33 as the first, and not without reason. When Peter subsequently explained his actions to the church in Jerusalem he related how an angel had appeared to Cornelius declaring that he and all his house would be saved through Peter's message (Acts 11.14). The Baptist theologian Kurt Aland in his response to Jeremias' Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries and opposing the baptism of children wrote: "If Acts 11.14 speaks of the salvation of the oikos, this salvation, so far as the slaves belonging to the house or children are included, is understood indirectly; the conversion of Cornelius will have the effect of making theirs to follow, or even embraces theirs: the 'house' is saved when the head of the house is saved" [Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?, SCM 1961, p 91]. Ina footnoteA land acknowledges the same pattern as applying to the conversion of the Philippian Jailer. If the salvation of Cornelius in some sense "embraces" the salvation of his household, and if in some sense "the 'house' is saved when the head of the house is saved" why should the household not be baptised? Is this not exactly the position which pertained under the Old Testament covenant and which is "filled out" in the New Testament covenant?

Household baptisms – in conclusion

Throughout our consideration of infant baptism our approach has been that it is impossible to prove conclusively from the New Testament either that children were baptised or that they were not baptised in the New Testament era. It certainly cannot be decided solely from a consideration of household baptisms. In any case that is not the correct starting place. We have stated previously the necessity of taking into account the evidence of the whole Bible, Old and New Testaments; the importance of circumstantial evidence; the meaning and significance of baptism; that the case for the baptism of children is of a cumulative nature; and that the evidence has to be presented as a consistent whole. Before commencing our study of household baptisms we considered the Old Testament background, the idea of covenant and of family solidarity, the teaching of Jesus, and the significant connection made by Peter on the Day of Pentecost between the promise of the old covenant and the fulfilment of the new. We have taken issue with the excessive individualism that has developed in this part of the world and with the failure to give sufficient weight to the all-pervading, all-prevailing reality of solidarity in the ancient world. In this respect we agree with Michael Greenwhen he says, "We have become so infatuated with individualism that we find this hard to appreciate … The solidarity of the family in baptism, as in all else, is the decisive factor" [Baptism, Hodder and Stoughton 1987, p 70]. It is in the light of all this that we should have expected the baptism of entire households and that the baptism of these households would have included the baptism of children. Adults brought from darkness to light, whose hearts the Lord opened, on whom the Spirit of Christ descended, would have taken it for granted that their children would be included and would have been nonplussed by their exclusion. So should we! In fact what we ought to have anticipated is what we find in the household baptisms in the Book of Acts and in 1 Corinthians 1. Moreover there is nothing in the New Testament to suggest that our anticipation was false or that the children of disciples should not be baptised.

Next chapter: Extra-Biblical.

Go to the index of other articles to do with Baptismal Integrity.
Go to John's Brinkster Home Page.

This web page was last updated on 15th April 2004.