Baptism

by J. Miller | Category: Baptism | Dec 1953

But let us examine this matter of Household Baptism and see what the Holy Spirit has caused to be written for our learning. We have

(1)the household of Cornelius (Acts 10),

(2)the household of Lydia (Acts 16.),

(8)the household of the Philippian Jailor (Acts 16.),

(4)the household of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1. 16; 16.15).

In regard to the house of Cornelius the case is crystal clear. Peter recounts in Acts 11. the reason for his going to the house of a Gentile and preaching the gospel there. He says that the angel said to Cornelius, "Send to Joppa and fetch Simon, whose surname is Peter; who shall speak unto thee words, whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house " (verses 18 and 14). We are told that " while Peter spake these words" - "every one that believeth on Him shall receive remission of sin "-" the Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard the word." Whereupon Peter asks the brethren who were with him, "Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized." Darby says that "the state of individuals in their souls has nothing to do with it," whereas those whom Peter commanded to be baptized were believers in Christ indwelt by the Holy Spirit. All in the house of Cornelius who heard the word believed and were baptized. There were no infants or unbelievers baptized there.

As to the house of Lydia the purple seller, we have few details to judge from, but those that we have are simple and clear enough. Lydia we are told had her heart opened by the Lord to give heed to Paul's ministry. Then we read, "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." "Her household" and "my house" show quite clearly that she was not joint-owner of the house with a husband. She could not have said with propriety "my house" if she had had a husband. The onus of proof is on the shoulders of such as say that she had a husband and had an infant or young children or unsaved servants in her household. Could Lydia, knowing well the apostle's gospel preaching, that personal faith in Christ was necessary to salvation and discipleship, have tolerated the thought of being baptized as a believer along with an unconscious infant or an unbeliever? and would Paul have tolerated this either. I know not!

Now we come to the jailor of Philippi, in whose case there was a wondrous intervention of divine power and grace. A clearer statement of how salvation is received could not be made than what Paul and Silas said to him, "Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house" (Acts 16.81). Clearly the passage means, and all Scripture attests it, that the way the jailor would be saved was equally the way in which all the members of his house would be saved, and that was through believing on the Lord Jesus. It would be wresting the Scripture to say, that if the jailor was to be saved then he must believe on the Lord Jesus, but all the members of his house need not necessarily believe on the Lord Jesus, for they would be saved by proxy, saved because the jailor the head of the house had believed, and personal faith in Christ was in no wise needed on the part of the members of the household.

Then we are told that Paul and Silas "spake the word of the Lord unto him, with all that were in his house " (Acts 16.32). If there were infants in the jailor's house, then they were marvellous and precocious infants that could have the word of the Lord spoken to them. Note the force of the words-" with all that were in his house." They spoke the word of the Lord both to him and to them. The result of this speaking to them all the word of the Lord was that after the jailor had washed their stripes he and all his were baptized immediately. It is a serious reflection on Paul, his work and teaching, to allege, and they are not wanting that do so, that there were infants and ungodly sinners amongst the number that he baptized. In consequence of what had happened in the jailor's house that night, and it was a wonderful night indeed, a night of salvation! he spread the table for the two preachers and rejoiced greatly with all his house. To translate that "he rejoiced householdly" does not in any way weaken the fact that the whole of those in the jailor's house were exulting in their new-found joy. He believed in the Lord Jesus and so did they. How could there have been a household joy in that house, if the jailor only was freed from the burden of his sin and none of the rest had tasted the joy of salvation?

Then as to the household of Stephanas whom Paul baptized (1 Corinthians 1.16), this case is easily dealt with, for 1 Corinthians i6. 15 clears away any possibility of infants or sinners being baptized in that household, for we read, "Ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have set (addicted, devoted or appointed) themselves to minister unto the saints." There is neither sinner nor infant here, neither was there in the households of the jailor, Lydia nor in that of Cornelius. To say the opposite of this, as many Exclusive brethren do, is simply to justify their following the ways and teaching of their leader, who was never baptized himself, and that leader was J. N. Darby, who, on his own confession said, "I was christened" and that sufficed.

But there is one further point to which we may allude with profit, and that is to the baptism of Israel unto Moses in the Red sea (1 Corinthians 10.2). Some of the Exclusive teachers have thought they have a good case here for the baptism of infants, in that the children of the people of Israel were all in the sea and under the cloud as well as their parents. They appear to forget, willingly or wilfully, that all the infants of the children of Israel were under the blood in Egypt as were their parents, and that had they not been under the blood all the firstborn male infants would have perished on the passover night. But not only were the firstborn infants sheltered by blood, the cattle also of the children of Israel were also sheltered by blood, for the divine sentence was, that God was going to destroy the firstborns of both man and beast throughout the land of Egypt. These cattle which were saved from judgement by the blood of the passover also passed through the Red sea, as did their owners, so, logically, if the passing of the infants of the Israelites through the Red sea is justification for the sprinkling or baptism of infants ~ then so should the cattle of believers be baptized also. Where would we get to if we followed the inferences of the logic of our own minds? Some seem to forget that principle of interpretation of the shadows of the past, that the law had a shadow of the good things to come not the very image of the things (Hebrews 10. 1).

Into what a maze the erroneous teachings of men bring believers when once they depart from God's plain word, which was written to give wisdom to the foolish things of this world, for such were those for the most part whom God chose. The clear command of the Lord is make disciples and baptize them (Matthew 28.19) and the record of the earliest carrying out of this command is, "They then that received his word were baptized " (Acts 2.41). This is the invariable rule disciples made through the reception of the word and then baptism.

"Cease, my son, to hear instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge" (Proverbs 19.27).

J. Miller | Dec 1953
Baptism