Family Baptism

Rev. Ronald Hanko

Rev. Hanko is a minister in the Protestant Reformed Churches in America and has authored a number of books, including (among others) the following: Doctrine According to Godliness: A Primer on Reformed Doctrine (2004), The Coming of Zion’s Redeemer: Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi (2015). He was also the joint author of Saved by Grace: A Study of the Five Points of Calvinism (1995) and its accompanying study guide (all of which can be purchased at http://www.cprc.co.uk and http://www.rfpa.org).

*          *          *          *          *          *

[Previous section: “Infant Baptism and the Promise of God”]

The argument from the repeated mention of family baptism in the New Testament is one of the clearest and easiest proofs of infant baptism.  As we have pointed out, of the nine references to actual baptisms in the New Testament, five make reference to households or families. 

Acts 16:14-15

              

And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.  And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

This passage is one of the principle grounds for household baptism and speaks of something the Baptists do not and cannot practice.  The whole question of whether or not Lydia was married and had children is beside the point.  That example and the example of the Philippian jailor are clear warrant for household baptism, and some households inevitably will include children.

We are willing and even eager to baptize households on the basis of God’s sure family promises.  No Baptist can do it, because baptism, in his opinion, must follow upon the faith and repentance of the individual.

Our willingness to baptize households or families, therefore, follows in part from what is sometimes referred to as “covenant” or “federal”  theology—that is, the belief that God does not deal with men individually, but always in their relationships to others, as members of the family, of the church, of a nation, even of the human race (cf. the whole doctrine of original sin), of the body of Christ, or of an elect and redeemed world (John 3:16).  Covenant theology is always federal and communal.

              

Acts 16:29-34

              

Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?  And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.  And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.  And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.  And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

              

Our arguments with respect to the Philippian jailor are similar to those with respect to Lydia and we will not, then, repeat what we have just said.  It needs to be added here, however, that this is another passage that shows that God’s sure and immutable promise is the real basis, first for assurance of the salvation of the children of believers (though not all of them), and then also for infant baptism as a seal of that salvation.

Note please that Acts 16:31 neither says nor implies: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house, if they believe.”  Not only that, but any Baptist who insists that the order in such verses as these is always temporal, ought to be troubled by the fact that here the baptism of the jailor’s household precedes any mention of their faith.

The two examples given in Romans 9 illustrate the unfailing character of God’s promises to save His people and their children and are examples where only one child in the family was saved.  Both in the family of Abraham and Sarah, and in the family of Isaac and Rebekah, there was only one, and these are the examples Paul uses to prove that the promise and word of God are not without effect!

Acts 10:48, Acts 18:8 and I Corinthians 1:16

              

And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.  Then prayed they him to tarry certain days (Acts 10:48).

And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized (Acts 18:8).

And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other (I Cor. 1:16).

              

With reference to the households of Cornelius, Crispus and Stephanus we would only add in addition to what we have already said, that in speaking of households, it is not uncommon in everyday speech or in the Scriptures that the household (or larger group) is described as doing something when in fact not every single member is doing it or capable of doing it.  Nevertheless, the main point of the reference to Crispus is that it proves both household salvation and household baptism and underlines what we have already said along those lines.

We prefer, therefore, to describe our practice and belief in relation to baptism as “family” or “household” baptism, rather than as “infant” baptism.  There are several reasons for this:

1. We do not only baptize infants.  Those who are converted later in life and have never before been baptized, we too baptize as adults.

2. In baptizing infants or adults, the baptism of families is our practice wherever and whenever possible.

3. Family or household baptism is the kind of baptism Scripture describes when speaking of those who ought to be baptized.

      

4. Speaking of “family baptism” serves as a reminder of how and why such passages as Acts 16:14-15, 31-34 are proof for the practice of baptizing infants as well as adults.

      

Thus too, these passages are used to support the practice of baptizing the children of believers.  It is true, of course, that we do not know if there were small children in any of these households (it is unlikely that there were no infants at all in all four of these families).  Nevertheless, if family or household baptism is the pattern laid down in Scripture, it is impossible to practice such without baptizing infants, since most households do include them.

      

We would add that if “believer’s baptism only” is the rule of Scripture, family or household baptism becomes an impossibility.  Even if it so happens that different members of the same family are converted and baptized at the same time in a Baptist church, they still are not baptized as members of a household or family, but as individuals, each as a result only of his own profession of faith.

       

That we baptize households and families follows from our belief in God’s family covenant, i.e., that He sovereignly, graciously, and unchangeably promises salvation to families and households, promising to be the God of believers and their children (Gen. 17:7; Acts 2:39).

      

Our practice does not, however, mean that we presume to think that every member of a household is necessarily saved.  But baptism, even of those who profess faith as adults, can never be, as such, a guarantee either.  Never does baptism prove or say that the person baptized is certainly saved.

      

That we baptize families or households, following the clear example of Scripture itself, is a memorial to the fact that God Himself is a Family—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—and to the fact that He magnifies His grace and reveals Himself in sending salvation to families.  He is indeed the God of families:

              

Yet setteth he the poor on high from affliction, and maketh him families like a flock (Ps. 107:41).

              

Regarding these passages we wish to make another point using Acts 10:44-48 as an example.  Baptists insist that those who were baptized in the house of Cornelius were those who heard the Word and upon whom the Holy Spirit came (v. 44)—in other words, those and those only who were old enough to respond in faith to Peter’s preaching.  It should be noted, however, that the language of the passage does not exclude infants or the possibility that there were infants as well as adults baptized on this occasion.

In everyday speech, we include in statements of this sort those to whom the statement does not always strictly apply.  I might say, for example, “We are driving to the store and shopping for groceries.”  That does not imply that everyone who goes to the store is actually capable of driving, selecting items and paying for them.”  Thus, when verse 48 speaks of “them” being baptized, we understand that there were those who were capable of responding to Peter’s preaching, but may not assume that every single baptized individual was.

Family baptism is the rule of Scripture, a rule that can only be obeyed when families, including children are baptized!

[Next section: “The Blessing of Jesus”]