Baptism: Whose Children?

A debate exists among Presbyterians as to whether baptism or not ought only to administered to the children of parents who are communicant members. The debate rests upon some very crucial points such as the nature of the visible church and its membership and the nature of the profession that qualifies a person for membership in the visible church. The issue matters not just in its practical outworking but because it affects our view of the visible Church, its membership and the nature of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

The visible church and its membership
Separatism of the Independent and Congregational variety has tended to view the visible Church as solely made up of regenerated persons who are received into a gathered congregation (which is often the only kind of visible church they tend to recognise) as regenerated persons who have given some evidences of their experience to indicate that this is the case. Those who believed in the baptism of children were not always sure about what to do with them but regarded them as part of the visible church in a secondary sense or else did not regard them as in any sense within the visible church. The difficulty of applying baptism only to the children of the regenerate is that, apart from not knowing categorically who are and who are not regenerate, we cannot assume that the children of the regenerate are themselves regenerate. To say that children belong to the church but not in the same sense as their regenerated parents is to create two visible churches in effect. We will come back to this (DV) in a separate post at another time.

Scottish Presbyterianism, with the Westminster Standards, has distinguished between the church as viewed in its visible aspect and as viewed in its invisible aspect. There are not two churches but the same universal church can be viewed in these two aspects. They were careful in this regard because they could see that Scripture uses the word for church in a flexible way that may refer to the Visible Church or to the Invisible Church, or to both (although one of them is usually foremost). The context in which the word is found makes the interpretation clear. As James Durham notes, it is common to find references to both together, as “when an epistle is written to a Church, some things are said of it, and to it, as visible, some things again are peculiarly applicable to believers, who are members of the Invisible Church in it”. According to the Westminster Confession, the Invisible Church is the “the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all”—a number which no man can number and whose members are only ultimately known by God.

It is a fundamental mistake therefore to confuse the two together and require invisible evidences for a visible profession required for visible membership in a visible Church. We cannot look into men’s hearts. Thomas M’Crie summarises matters well in stating that “all who make a profession of the faith compose the Church considered as visible, while those among them who are endued with true faith constitute the Church considered as invisible. The former includes the latter; and it is sometimes spoken in Scripture under the one and sometimes under the other view”. The Lord Jesus Christ makes it clear that “many are called (visible Church) but few are chosen (Invisible Church).”

The order and government of the Church, as appointed in Scripture have nothing to do with the Invisible Church but rather concern the Visible Church. The Visible Church, according to the Westminster Confession of Faith, “consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God”. Christ has entrusted it with “the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world” (25:3-4). The Scottish Presbyterian view was a vision of covenanted and discipled nations made up of parishes where the truth was taught and the ordinances administered rather than a gathered church.

The difference between the Congregationalist and Presbyterian views of the visible church and its membership are easily seen by contrasting the definition from the Westminster Confession with that of the Savoy Confession. The latter reads: “The whole body of men throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel and obedience unto God by Christ according to it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are, and may be called the visible catholic church of Christ; although as such it is not entrusted with the administration of any ordinances, or have any officers to rule or govern in, or over the whole body”. That is to say that the visible Church is simply the membership of particular congregations aggregated together without mutual government or any other mutual relationship. The London Confession of 1689 adapted this language but refused to speak of the catholic visible Church.

The Visible Church involves visible office-bearers administering the visible ordinances appointed by Christ to those who have a visible profession of the true religion as distinguished from the rest of the world. It is the means used to gather the Invisible Church. The Visible Church is a great house containing vessels of honour and dishonour (2 Tim. 2:20). It is Christ's vineyard (Is. 5:1), sheepfold (John 10:1-16), barn floor (Matt. 3:12), and dragnet (Matt 13:47). The Visible Church is also “the light of the world”. It is "the city of truth" and "the righteous nation that keepeth the truth" (Zech. 8:3; Is. 26:2). A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid” (Matt.5:14).

One may, however, belong to the visible Church but not to the invisible Church and vice versa. This mirrors the covenant of grace which has an outward administration and membership but also a real, inward, efficacious administration and membership by God’s grace and Spirit. There is therefore a right to church privileges in the eyes of the Church and a right to church privileges in the eyes of God

The nature of profession needed for initiation
The Confession speaks of those who profess the true religion as opposed to those who profess the false religion or indeed have no formal religion at all. It does not speak of those who truly profess the true religion but simply of those who make profession of it. It doesn’t say those who make a profession that they are regenerated but those who profess the true religion. This is an objective matter and something that can be tested. The language of the Confession echoes and reflects Scripture itself in passages such as 1 Cor 5:12 where the assumption is that ordinary hearers of the word (those hearing the letter read) were within not, without the visible Church. Those without were pagans not professing the true religion who could not be judged because they did not come under the word in any sense at all.

This is of course the nature of profession in the Old Testament Church. They avouched the Lord to be their God and entered into covenant with him (Ex. 19:5-6; Deut 26:17-19; Deut 27:9-10). Mostly this was done en masse (Deut 29:10-13; 2 Chron 15:9-12). All were received as disciples to be taught “they sat down at thy feet; every one shall receive of thy words” (Deut 33:3). Gentile proselytes were admitted into the Old Testament Church upon making a serious profession of the true religion and expressing willingness to subject themselves to the institutions commanded by God.

Circumcision was for all who were born within the visible Church and whose parents had not been cut off from God’s people. In Joshua 5 we read of circumcision being administered to all of the children of the generation who perished in the wilderness.  They were circumcised as in covenant with God because born within the visible Church and part of the covenant community even though their parents ultimately gave no evidences of real grace or true faith.  The Lord speaks of the children of the visible church as having been born unto him Ezekiel 16:20, even though they were the children of rebellious parents, this did not cancel that external relationship. Esau was circumcised, even though we read that he was hated by God.

It is expressly commanded in Genesis 17:10 that every man child shall be circumcised. There was some restriction on this, certain conditions and tribes were restricted from coming into the congregation for several generations. It was, however, a default position that unless there were necessary restrictions the children of all within the visible Church making a serious profession should be circumcised. We would ask: where is the command and warrant now to restrict the breadth of this command under the New Testament? The tendency of the New Testament administration of the Covenant of Grace is to widen privileges, not restrict. Women and Gentiles are now brought onto the same footing in terms of formal admission into the visible Church and receiving the seal.

Sometimes the observation is made that circumcision automatically qualified someone for the Passover with the implication that the same standard ought to be equivalent for baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  Children were not automatically qualified for the Passover meal, however. There were conditions, moreover, under which the circumcised were restricted from partaking of the Passover. This might be defilement or being prevented by some matter such as being on a journey. (They were not debarred from circumcision for their children by this).

The equivalent to this in relation to the Lord’s Supper is worthy partaking, discerning the Lord’s body and self-examination (see Larger Catechism Q171). Something more than what is required for baptism is in view here. Someone may be eligible for baptism but not for the Lord’s Supper. If we compare Larger Catechism Q166 and Q171 we will surely see that this can in fact be the case. Indeed we never find in the New Testament that those who are given baptism are to examine and try themselves regarding their inward state and condition as is necessary for the Lord’s Supper; this is because the qualifications for both ordinances are different. The Supper is a seal of nourishment and growth in Christ not of initial engagement to be Christ’s.

The Reformed understanding of the sacraments following Calvin has generally distinguished between baptism as the sign and seal of entrance into the visible Church and the Supper as the sign of confirmation and growth. The Larger Catechism distinguished clearly in answer to the question 177 “Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper differ?” “A. The sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ, in that Baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord's Supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves”.

The tendency to view the two sacraments as almost mutually convertible will have a seriously detrimental impact upon the preciousness of the Lord’s Supper as a means of grace. One sacrament deals with our state in an objective sense, the other deals with our condition in a more subjective sense. This is why there are situations where even those that are regenerated cannot rightly and worthily partake of the Lord’s Supper, due preparation is required, it is not an automatic assumption that they must partake of that sacrament in whatever condition they may be found.

Baptism was instituted by Christ for discipleship; the commission was to disciple the nations. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 28:19).That Commission can be rendered “Go, make all nations disciples”. As David Dickson notes, “those are made disciples whosoever are given up to Christ, to be taught and governed by him, whether by themselves or being brought be others who have power of them, as parents and masters are dedicated and consecrated to Christ, who has said of children elsewhere: “Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not’. All those may and should be taken charge of, admitted into the Church as disciples, and baptized, for he says ‘Go, make disciples of all nations and baptize them’”. This was to be done by teaching and baptizing. It is evident that no one but God can make someone a disciple if we restricted the meaning of the word to those who are regenerated. It is clear also that nations as nations are to be taught and made disciples. Baptism was for the initiate disciples whether older or infants. What were they to teach? The gospel and the fundamentals of Christ and the Trinity but also the commandments of Christ to which disciples are to subject themselves willingly.

It is instructive to compare Pentecost with what we have noted of a people covenanting en masse with the Lord together with their children. Baptism was administered en masse on the basis of a sincere profession but we do not imagine that there was opportunity to interview all 3,000 individuals before baptism was administered particularly if their children were also baptised at the time.

Those who received the outward call of the word, professed belief in Christ and were willing to subject themselves to his institutions were baptised, together with their children. Theirs’ was the promise and therefore they received a seal of their right to that promise. “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:38-39).

The profession accepted by the apostles for baptism is a straightforward profession of discipleship, and baptism took place speedily without any delay. The apostolic practice was that those who gladly received the word were baptised (Acts 2:41). As we know, this probably included Ananias and Sapphira who turned out to be other than their profession indicated. Likewise we read that Simon Magus believed the word and was baptised yet was still in the bond of iniquity (Acts 8:13 and 23). In the same chapter we read of the profession made by the Ethiopian Eunuch which was very basic and straightforward. “And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him” (Acts 8:37-38). The Philippian jailor was baptised “straightway” (Acts 16:33). The baptism of Saul of Tarsus may have extraordinary features in the background, particularly the way that Ananias was sent to meet with Saul, but, being administered without delay, it completes the picture in terms of apostolic practice in relation to baptism.
No evidences of grace were required in any of these situations. It is hard to imagine that even some of the most careless of kirk sessions would admit someone to the Lord’s table so quickly, solely upon this type of profession.

Confusion introduced by Subjectivity
Errors in relation to baptism mostly derive from trying to connect the ordinance with regeneration in some way, not just an ex opere operato baptismal regeneration position, but also a presumptive regeneration position, or a view that all elect children are regenerated at the time of baptism. There is also the view that in order for baptism to be real - regeneration must already have taken place prior to the ordinance being administered. This is of course the Anabaptist position. Baptism has its basis, integrity and validity in the subjective response of man rather than the objective promise of God. It is grace offered that is being sealed not grace received; a sign to grace not a sign of grace. It is the promise of God that is the basis for baptism. The integrity of baptism does not depend upon our subjective response.

Calvin anticipates an objection in the Institutes, "Therefore you will ask do the wicked by their ingratitude make the ordinance of God fruitless and void? I answer, that what I have said is not to be understood as if the power and truth of the sacrament depended on the condition or pleasure of him who, receives it, That which God instituted continues firm and retains its nature however men may vary; but since it is one thing to offer and another thing to receive, there is nothing to prevent a symbol, consecrated by the word of the Lord, from being truly what it is said to be and preserving its power, though it may at the same time confer no benefit on the wicked and ungodly".

In 1 Corinthians 7, the apostle Paul addresses a vexed question. The issue there is to do with whether a believer should divorce their pagan unbelieving spouse on the grounds that the marriage is not sanctified. Pagan Gentiles were unclean but Christian Gentiles were not, they had a covenant holiness which extended to their children who were also in the covenant and within the visible Church. If the covenant root is holy, so also are the branches. “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy” (1 Cor 7:14). Paul is not speaking of a real holiness here but of covenant holiness, dedication and separation to God and his service from the world, and as the word partly signified in the Old Testament, being acceptable for presentation to God in his temple. The language reflects that which is spoken of Israel in the Old Testament, they are a holy nation. It is profession of Christianity as opposed to paganism that is in view here. Baptism puts a visible difference between those within the Church and those that belong to the world. As RL Dabney puts it, we must treat all baptized persons as bona fide members of the visible church unless their membership is legally severed or else accept the Anabaptist theory of the church. We cannot treat them as pagans and heathen.

The need for Objectivity
This is where we return to the visible profession that must be assessed by those admitting to the ordinance of baptism. They must inquire as to the knowledge and profession of the truth made and ask whether or not there is anything that they are aware of and obvious to them that would contradict the reality of a serious visible profession. Rather than disposing of the matter rapidly by the simple test of whether the person is or is not a communicant member a session must take each case on its merits and deal sensitively but thoroughly with the individual using it as an opportunity to counsel and exhort them. We are told of a danger of creating hypocrites if we proceed on this method of administering baptism, we do not believe that to be the case since there is no claim to prior regeneration and on a serious profession there is every hope that the vows will be fulfilled and blessed to the parent themselves. It is surely a sin, however, says Rutherford to break the bruised reed and quench the smoking flax of one who wishes to profess Christ openly and secure a blessing for their children but whose self-examination does not lead them to coming forward to seek acceptance for the Lord’s Supper.

M'Crie on Baptism #1

Although over 200 years old (published in 1801) Thomas M'Crie's Lectures on Christian Baptism remain a useful classic work on this subject. He describes it as "the result of the readings and reflections of many years". M'Crie is not so much writing in order to advance polemic as to state his case clearly. "On the subject in general, it is to be feared much ignorance and misapprehension prevail. The first and simplest of the Christian institutes has been involved in a labyrinth of metaphysical subtlety and theological discussion, the very aspect of which deters many from examining it." His intention is to provide a discussion "in a plain, popular, and practical manner, adapted to the comprehension of all". What is particularly noteworthy is the gracious manner in which he approaches the subject. "It is extremely difficult to speak on the point at all without offending cherished prejudices; and it is our special unhappiness in this question, that we are brought into collision with brethren whose personal piety and public zeal in the cause of Christ entitle them to the highest praise. But the interests of truth (and this seems eminently a part of " the present truth ") require that we should take up the question under this disadvantage; and it has been the author's intention, however he may have succeeded in carrying it out, to avoid all uncharitable invective and needless irritation".

He concludes his preface in the attitude of prayer using "one of the Prayers anciently used at the celebration of baptism in the French and Scottish Churches:— 'Hear us, Father of mercy, that so the Baptism which we dispense, according to thy institution, may produce its fruit and virtue, in such sort as thou hast declared to us in thy Gospel!'"

Is this not the spirit to approach this and all such similar controversies?

why good and necessary consequences are good and necessary: part 2

We have seen that what is meant by "good and necessary consequence" is not human wisdom but "reason captivated and subdued to the obedience of Christ" (George Gillespie). The consequence must be necessary, that is to say it must be demanded by a relevant Scripture passage. This means taking premises stated in the Scripture and using sanctified reason in order to draw their inexorable conclusions which although not expressly stated in a particular verse are nevertheless entirely warranted as the conclusions of such a process.

Historic limitations of the regulative principle

In the 17th Century some sought to limit this even with regard to doctrine, specifically Arminians and Socinians. Erastians and Anabaptists sought in different ways and with different purposes to limit it in respect of the regulative principle. There were members of the Assembly that sought to defend the old Anglican view of Richard Hooker that gave "indifferent things" such as Church government to the monarch so that they could control the church, this is sometimes called Erastianism after Erastus who articulated the theoretical basis. Thomas Coleman was one of the Erastian Westminster divines, although their views were not prevalent in the eventual documents of the Assembly, they made themselves heard, as when Coleman preached to Parliament (July 1645) that the Assembly's agenda ought to be "Establish as few things by divine right, as well can be".
Divine right or jus divinum meant scriptural warrant. But if we do not give the authority to the Divine scriptures we give it instead to men, the king or individuals, human reason or prejudice or mere pragmatism and cultural influence. Although Coleman's principle may seem plausible it was crafted to serve his own agenda: he made it clear in the same sermon that the only thing that he wanted to establish by divine right was the King's/Parliament's authority by divine right. The attitude of the Scots commissioners to the Assembly on the other hand was "establish as much as possible by divine warrant".

The Anabaptist argument was that the regulative principle could only use explicit warrant. Zwingli pointed out the problems with those to Anabaptists in his day. They believed that Acts 19 contains a rebaptism by Paul of those followers of John the Baptist who had been initially baptized by Apollos. Zwingli argued that the Scripture does not tell us explicitly that Apollos baptized, so, following the explicit warrant principle, Apollos didn’t baptize. Yet it was quite obvious otherwise that Apollos did.

The limitation of the regulative principle by Anabaptists in the 17th Century to explicit warrant transpired in the popularity of some rather odd views by the standards of modern antipaedobaptists. The first antipaedobaptist in England, John Smyth, did not read from a translation of the Bible. Instead he read the original languages and sought to translate on the hoof. There is of course no explicit warrant for translating the Scriptures into written form. Only good and necessary consequence will establish our warrant for it. His congregation also ended up as Seventh-day Baptists. This was quite a popular controversy amongst 17th Century Baptists. There is of course no explicit statement in the New Testament that the day has been changed. References to meeting on the first day in the book of Acts or to the Lord's Day in Revelation do not satisfy this explicit warrant requirement. Only good and necessary consequence will establish our warrant for it. The Smyth group also wound up keeping the Old Testament feasts and ceremonial laws.

Few antipaedobaptist congregations in the 17th century had congregational praise. They didn't believe that there was an explicit statement commanding congregational praise. All the usual verses were understood as addressed to individuals. Prophetic solos were acceptable but not congregational praise.

Contemporary limitation of the regulative principle

This is the final way in which there is an attempt to limit the scope of application of good and necessary consequence in Scripture is by excluding it from the regulative principle. This is at the crux of the arguments in a book by a modern antipaedobaptist, Fred Malone. It is entitled 'The Baptism of Disciples Alone'. The book is of course highly polemical but Malone carries it to a degree that topples into being offensive and hostile. The title of the book for instance is explained as the explicit assertion that the rejection of infants as proper subjects for baptism is on the same level as the 5 solas defined by the Reformers as critical to salvation.

Malone identifies two main bulwarks to his book against paedobaptism. 1) the regulative principle and 2) biblical interpretation.

Malone refers again and again to the regulative principle of worship (RPW), although his discussion of it is rather thin. He does not refer to any writers apart from John Frame, in order to show that the regulative principle prohibits drama and dance in worship. The regulative principle is about more than this. Once antipaedobaptists start applying the regulative principle consistently and with rigour in the areas of festivals and holy days, their warrant for composing and using hymns, musical accompaniment and the like we might be able to accept that they are not just being selective in applying the regulative principle. It seems that when it comes to baptism matters are very tight and there is only one valid mode. What about their practice of the Lord's Supper, however, do they have one loaf as Scripture prescribes? Do they have one cup of wine as Scripture prescribes? Where is the warrant for medicine glasses of juice?

Malone refers to the confessional definition of the RPW but defines it differently himself in order to accuse paedobaptists of forsaking the regulative principle for the normative principle. The WCF and 2nd London Confession of Faith both define it as 'the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture'. In order to understand what limited by God's revealed will means we must go back to the first chapter of the Confession which defines the whole counsel of God as express statements and what may be deduced by good and necessary consequences. This, contrary to Malone, does set good and necessary consequence on the same level as explicit Scripture statements.

Malone defines the regulative principle as only based on explicit statements or approved examples drawn from the New Testament. In the previous post we pointed out that the regulative principle is an Old Testament principle which cannot be derived from New Covenant passages. Good and necessary consequence must not only be used in applying the regulative principle but in identifying it itself as a New Testament principle.

It is important to note that as the whole Scriptures are the "word of Christ", anything positively instituted by Christ as the author of Scripture in the Old Testament, which is not abrogated in the New, remains instituted and binding. We must conform ourselves to the way that Scripture is written and not limit God by limiting His revealed will. Peter Edwards, the 18th Century Particular Baptist minister who saw through the inconsistency of these arguments and renounced antipaedobaptism notes that the demand for explicit warrant 'it seems to dictate to the ever-blessed God in what manner he ought to speak to his creatures. Since it is so where contained in his word, and he knows best how to communicate his mind to men, it little becomes such creatures as we are, to lay down rules by which he shall proceed...it supposes we cannot understand what God says, but when he speaks to us in one particular way.' The whole of Scripture is given to us as authoritative and is profitable for doctrine and practice.

Malone refers to paedobaptism as a sacrament and then says that cannot have a whole distinct sacrament added without positive institution. We are not talking about a distinct sacrament we are talking about two sacraments, the Lord's Supper and Baptism and the issues that arise after establishing this is who should receive them (proper subjects) and how?

In terms of the Lord's Supper. We do not have a positive command or historical example to administer it to women. Yet noone denies it to women. This question has been put to antipaedobaptists for nigh 500 years without satisfactory answer. Every answer involves an inference. Appeal is made to 1 Cor 11:28 “Let a man [Anthropos] examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, &c.” The argument has been that anthropos in Greek is a generic term and not specific to males. Peter Edwards entirely demolishes this assumption with nineteen instances where anthropos is distinctly male, http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sacraments/baptism-edwards4.htm. Malone actually cites Exodus 12:1-4, 16 as support for women partaking of the Lord's Supper (entirely contrary to his line of reasoning) which only refers to every man and not to women and makes no mention of the Lord's Supper. Malone says that because the previous pericope introduces women that they must be understood here. That is an argument from inference and not from clear positive institution and explicit warrant. Besides there is no logical connection, Paul might easily move between various matters, some of which only apply to one sex or the other.

Peter Edwards points out that the principle which antipaedobaptists assert, 'A person who has a right to a positive institution, must be expressly mentioned as having that right' is found nowhere expressly stated in Scripture. They have created it themselves. It is also abandoned by antipaedobaptists as soon as they are pressed for proof of women being admitted to the Lord's Supper.

There is no explicit and direct command in the New Testament to baptise only confessing adults to the exclusion of infants. Malone cannot produce this but proceeds as though he has. Would it not be clearer to proceed on the basis of what Scripture states clearly about children in the New Covenant than assumption? There is explicit inclusion of Christian children in the new covenant promises (Dt. 30:6, Jer. 31:36-37; Acts 2:39), explicit inclusion in the church (Eph. 6:1-4, 1 Cor. 7:14), and explicit inclusion the kingdom (Mt. 19:14, Mk. 10:14, Lk. 18:16). There is of course no express command that says 'Baptise children'. Neither is there a direct command that states what is to be done with the children of the visible church, that they are not to receive the signs and seals of the covenant. We can only proceed by good and necessary consequence from Scripture and it will not be good consequence unless it accords with the explicit principles stated above. Antipaedobaptists will go to passages that say connect baptism with faith and point out that infants cannot exercise faith. But of whom is the faith required? Of (pagan) adults. It is fallacious to take a statement with adults in view and say that infants cannot meet the requirements when infants were never in view in the first place. The inference that is usually drawn must be fallacious also. Peter Edwards covers this matter in detail http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sacraments/baptism-edwards4.htm.

Malone reads into Matthew 28:18-20 what he calls the baptism of disciples alone. It does not teach this at all. It requires the nations to be discipled. It shows how discipling is to be done. Baptise and then teach. The grammar of the text is against Malone's contention. He says that it states we are to make disciples from all nations. The text says disciple all nations. In the Greek "nations" is the direct object of the verb "disciple" (which is not a noun). Gregg Strawbridge details the only possible grammatical reading at http://www.wordmp3.com/files/gs/malonemore.htm and says: 'It is beyond dispute that the grammatically precise rendering is simply "disciple the nations and baptize them (nations)." ' The Commission considers nations as nations and is not simply looking at individuals. Strawbridge goes on to note that the Great Commission reflects the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant that in Abraham's seed (Christ) all the nations of the earth would be blessed. He refers also to prophecies that speak of the nations serving Christ (Ps:72:11; Rev 15:4).

What we have seen is that we cannot exclude necessary consequence from the regulative principle and both antipaedobaptists (inconsistently) and paedobaptists are proceeding on this basis anyway. We must take into account the clear Scriptures concerning children in the Church and the New Covenant and realise that their privileges under the Abrahamic Covenant have not been abrogated, especially because this covenant is widened not set aside under the New Covenant. The matter becomes clear by proceeding consistently with good and necessary consequence. As we have before pointed out those who do not hold to Covenant theology (Closed Brethren) can still arrive at this by applying good and necessary consequence consistently.

why good and necessary consequences are good and necessary: part 1

We have seen that if we are to make any kind of doctrinal conclusions from Scripture, we require good and necessary consequence. This is simply drawing out the meaning that is already in Scripture. It doesn't add anything new. It must be what explicit statements of Scripture require and entail inevitably and not contradict the rest of Scripture. It is not reason speaking but the Scriptures themselves. These inferences were foreseen by God and are part of the intended meaning of Scripture. The Holy Spirit is involved in the process of enabling us to identify these consequences “the inward illumination of the Spirit of God [is] necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word.”

In order for consequences to be good, they 'must be truly contained in the inspired statements from which they profess to be taken'. In order for them to be necessary they must be 'unavoidably forced upon the mind, upon an honest and intelligent application of it to the Scripture page'. These are the words of James Bannerman, who goes on to say;

'The extent to which the principle of Scripture consequences is available in gathering up the meaning of the Word of God, is very great. It is hardly possible to conceive of a revelation from God in any form from which no inferences could be drawn, upon which we might legitimately found our faith, equally with its literal or express statements. It is impossible at least to conceive of a revelation assuming the shape found in the Bible, which teaches not by abstract and dogmatic propositions only, but by a thousand methods of historical example and incidental and indirect exhibition of truth, that would be possible or intelligible on the principle that each single proposition must be interpreted by itself and apart from every other, and that no comparison of Scripture with Scripture, and no deduction from the comparison, were lawful in framing our creed'.

The Second London Confession 1677/1689 produced by Antipaedobaptists substituted another phrase for 'good and necessary consequence'. The phrase was 'necessarily contained in Scripture'. This, however much people try to argue that it means the same, is not the same thing. It tells us nothing about the sound and logical method of drawing consequences - it tells nothing about any method. There may be a large body of truth necessarily contained in Scripture but we don't know how to draw it out. The definition of necessity may be as loose or tight, objective or subjective as we wish. It only leaves us with questions. How is it necessarily contained in Scripture and how do we distinguish this?

It amounts to less than the fully formed, defined and confessed Reformed doctrine of Scripture outlined the Westminster Confession and leaves Antipaedobaptists without a confession of this indispensable principle. This, despite the fact that it is clearly taught and demonstrated by the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles.

We are left with various options in relation to good and necessary consequence.

Option 1. To deny that it is legitimate to identify good and necessary consequences.

The first difficulty with this is that since this principle is nowhere expressly stated in Scripture, one must derive the principle itself only by good and necessary consequence.

The second difficulty is a very practical one. We can only have assurance and personal faith by good and necessary consequence. In order to say that such a promise, a warrant or offer belongs to me I must make use of good and necessary consequence. Boston writes 'Refusing to admit good and necessary consequences from scripture, overturns all religion, both law and gospel, faith and practice. For how shall it be proved, that John or James are obliged to obey the law, and believe the gospel but by Consequence ? where will they find an express text for these ? Only the law speaks to all, the gospel to every hearer of it, and consequently they oblige thee and me'.

A prohibition on making use of the Bible for good and necessary consequences is a prohibition of making any use of the Bible apart from reading it. Thomas Boston says: 'Good and necessary consequences are such as the word is designed for. What is deduced from them, so is indeed the sense and meaning of the words; and if you have the words without the meaning of them, or without the full meaning of them, in so far ye come short of the true intent of the words. If I bid a man draw near the fire, do I not desire him to warm himself, though I speak not one word of his warming himself" Were not the scriptures written for that end, that 'we through patience and comfort of them might have hope ?' Rom. xv. 4. But this cannot be obtained without the use of consequences. Are they not profitable for doctrine,--'that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works ?" 2 Tim. iii. 16. But can this be had without the use of consequences?'

The third difficulty is that by simply quoting verses out of context you can arrive at a theology that although only based on Scripture texts is against the teaching of Scripture. For instance your doctrine of justification might be 'by works a man is justified, and not by faith only' James 2:24 but this would not be a fully scriptural doctrine cf. Galatians 2:15-16 - 15.

Rejecting good and necessary consequence is impossible therefore. In previous posts we have shown its scriptural basis.

Option 2. To restrict the scope of application of good and necessary consequences.


We have seen that we cannot restrict consequences simply to doctrine they must be applied to practice as Christ and the apostles have done. We have seen that we cannot avoid making personal application of good and necessary consequence. If we restrict the scope of good and necessary consequence we are saying that the Bible must not speak into these areas or that the only way the Bible can speak into these areas is by express statement and preachers cannot make application in these areas. Again we must have an express statement for this prohibition. It is arbitrary and unworkable.

Option 3. To restrict good and necessary consequence to the New Testament.

Once again we must ask of the Marcionite adopting this as to where his Scripture warrant from the New Testament is for this. The practical consequences will be that we have no limitation of consanguinity and affinity in marriage, little to go on against abortion etc. etc. It means that the Old Testament is reserved for illustration only and not for faith and life or practical application. The regulative principle of worship is also proved from the Old Testament and where Christ asserts it in the New Testament against the Pharisees, this is in an Old Covenant context.

To be continued...

No Consequences, No Creed

The Early Church saw the need very quickly of deriving doctrinal formulations from Scripture by the method of good and necessary consequence, which, other than producing a list of verses that may be variously interpreted, is the only way of producing a doctrinal formulation or creed. One of the classic and most critical creeds of the early Church was the Nicene Creed. The critical terms used in the creed such as “homousias” to define the divine nature of Christ are not derived by a churchly magisterial fiat but by good and necessary consequence from the Scriptures. J.D. Kelly writes concerning the usage of such terms, “... it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish scriptural basis. A striking illustration is the difficulty which champions of novel theological terms like houmoousias’ (‘of the same substance’)... experienced in getting these descriptions of the Son’s relationship to the Father, or of God’s eternal being, generally admitted. They had to meet the damning objection, advanced in conservative as well as heretical quarters, that they were not to be found in the Bible. In the end they could only quell oppositions by pointing out (Athanasius in one case and Gregory of Nazianzus in the other), the meaning they conveyed was exactly that of Holy Writ.” in Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1978) pg. 46.

The term “Trinity” was not found in the Scriptures, but it is a theological correct term which describes the doctrine that may be derived from Scripture by good and necessary consequence. Gregory of Nyssa displays how the method of good and necessary consequences was used in relation to the doctrine of the immortality of the soul in drawing out the principles of Scripture.

“we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings. We...we will adopt, as the guide of our reasoning, the Scripture, which lays it down as an axiom that there is no excellence in the soul which is not a property as well of the Divine nature.” –Gregory of Nyssa, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers II V. 5, p. 439.

John Leith notes that: 'All theology is in some measure dependent on this method, as all theologians have known since the time Augustine reflected upon the theological task'. In De Doctrina Christiana Augustine emphasized that good and necessary consequences were necessary in the interpretation of Scripture. In Book Two he discusses the extent to which the Christian should make use of other aids (such as history, natural science, dialectics, and rhetoric) in interpreting Scripture and formulating Christian doctrine. Chapters 31-35 discuss logic or reasoning. “The science of reasoning,” writes Augustine, “is of very great service in searching into and unraveling all sorts of questions that come up in Scripture....” Augustine notes that logic is not a human invention but ordained of God. “[T]he validity of logical sequences is not a thing devised by men, but it is observed and noted by them that they may be able to learn and teach it; for it exists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origin with God.”

John Calvin taught that teaching “drawn from Scripture” was “wholly divine.” (Institutes IV.x.30). Turretin contended also that the perfection of Scripture implies only the exclusion of traditions, and that the doctrine of the perfection or sufficiency of Scripture includes “besides the express word of God, evident and necessary consequences are admissible in theology.”(Institutes I.xii.2;6-7,8). Reformed scholastics viewed Scripture doctrines in two ways: kata lexin,
expressly, or kata dianoian, implicitly and as to the sense. Systematic theology or the formulation of doctrine depends upon this. BB Warfield noted that “the plea against the use of human logic in determining doctrine...destroys at once our confidence in all doctrines, no one of which is ascertained or formulated without the aid of human logic.” In the introduction to his Dogmatic Theology William G. T. Shedd stated that “the proper mode of discussing any single theological topic” is twofold: Exegetical and Rational. “The first step to be taken is, to deduce the doctrine itself from Scripture by careful exegesis; and the second step is, to justify and defend this exegetical result upon grounds of reason.” “When the individual doctrines have been deduced, constructed, and defended by the exegetico-rational method, they are then to be systematized.”

John Gill defended this theological method also in his Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity. “Systematical Divinity, I am sensible, is now become very unpopular. Formulas and articles of faith, creeds, confessions, catechisms, and summaries of divine truths, are greatly decried in our age; and yet, what art or science so ever but has been reduced to a system?” “Nor is every doctrine of the Scripture expressed in so many words; as the doctrine of the Trinity of persons in the Godhead; the eternal generation of the Son of God, his incarnation and satisfaction, &c. but then the things signified by them are clear and plain; and there are terms and phrases answerable to them; or they are to be deduced from thence by just and necessary consequences”.

Creeds and Confessions are necessary for the defence of the faith, instruction in the faith and making public confession of it. I Corinthians 2:10 commands believers that they all "speak the same thing." In Matthew 10:32 Christ says: "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." How can we confess the divinity of Christ without good and necessary consequences? “No Creed but Christ” cannot have anything much to say about Christ at all. Thomas Boston notes 'The great fundamental article, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, before the New Testament was written, could not be proved to the Jews by express scripture testimony, but by good and necessary consequence; yet Christ tells them that there could be no salvation for them without the belief of this. 'If ye believe not that I am he (the Messiah),' says he, 'ye shall die in your sins.' John viii. 24'.

Christ promised the illumination of the Spirit to help the Church draw the principles of Scripture forth John 16:13: "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come." We are to give an answer or defence of the truth which will involve reasoning from the Scriptures (I Peter 3:15).

II Timothy 3:16, 17, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Scripture is profitable for doctrine but we cannot have the teaching of it and the application of it let alone the systematising of doctrine without good and necessary consequence. Preaching and teaching encourages believers like the Bereans to search the Scriptures to see if the things taught in them are true (Acts 17:11). Paul did more than read the Scriptures, he reasoned from them in a way which could be confirmed by private examination of Scripture. 1 John 4.1 warns: ‘Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they be of God’ - this requires reasoning from Scripture. Bannerman, in his second volume on the Church of Christ shows how heretics or those in error have always insisted on explicit statements in Scripture rather than the inferences that may be drawn from them. “Errors are covered by an appeal to the letter of Scripture, while the real sense and meaning of it have been evaded or denied.”

William Cunningham wrote:

It has been the generally received doctrine of orthodox divines, and it is in entire accordance with reason and common sense, that we are bound to receive as true, on God’s authority, not only what is “expressly set down in Scripture,” but also what, “by good and necessary consequence, may be deduced from Scripture”; and heretics, in every age and of every class, have, even when they made a profession of receiving what is expressly set down in Scripture, shown the greatest aversion to what are sometimes called Scripture consequences,- that is, inferences or deductions from scriptural statements, beyond what is expressly contained in the mere words of Scripture, as they stand in the page of the sacred record.

B. B. Warfield noted that the method of good and necessary consequences 'is the strenuous and universal contention of the Reformed theology against the Socinians and Arminians, who desired to confine the authority of Scripture to its literal asservations; and it involves a characteristic honoring of reason as the instrument for the ascertainment of truth. We must depend upon our human faculties to ascertain what Scripture says; we cannot suddenly abnegate them and refuse their guidance in determining what Scripture means. This is not, of course, to make reason the ground of the authority of inferred doctrines and duties. Reason is the instrument of discovery of all doctrines and duties, whether ‘expressly set down in Scripture’ or ‘by good and necessary consequence deduced from Scripture’: but their authority, when once discovered, is derived from God, who reveals them and prescribes them in Scripture, either by literal assertion or by necessary implication.

It is the Reformed contention, reflected here by the Confession, that the sense of Scripture is Scripture, and that men are bound by its whole sense in all its implications. The re-emergence in recent controversies of the plea that the authority of Scripture is to be confined to its expressed declarations, and that human logic is not to be trusted in divine things, is, therefore, a direct denial of a fundamental position of Reformed theology, explicitly affirmed in the Confession, as well as an abnegation of fundamental reason, which would not only render thinking in a system impossible, but would logically involve the denial of the authority of all doctrine of the Trinity, and would logically involve the denial of all doctrine whatsoever, since no single doctrine of whatever implicitly can be ascertained from Scripture except by the process of the understanding. It is, therefore, an unimportant incident that the recent plea against the use of human logic in determining doctrine has been most sharply put forward in order to justify the rejection of a doctrine which is explicitly taught, and that repeatedly of a doctrine which is explicitly, in the very letter of Scripture; if the plea is valid at all, it destroys at once our confidence in all doctrines, no one of which is ascertained or formulated without the aid of human logic'.

Why do anti-household baptists reject the apostolic method of interpreting Scripture?

It is very evident that the apostles follow Christ in his method of good and necessary consequences in interpreting Scripture.

In Acts 2:25-32, Peter argues for the resurrection of Christ from Psalm 16 a passage which does not state the resurrection of Christ. Peter infers that since David died and remains dead he must be prophesying about Christ and his resurrection in Psalm 16. Paul did similarly in Acts 13 in drawing inferences out of Psalm 2 and Psalm 16:10 concerning the resurrection. The reference to the second psalm is similar to Paul's statement in Romans 1:4, that Christ was declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead. This is an inference, however. Paul also quotes Isaiah 55:3 'I will give you the sure mercies of David'. We may ask how do these words prove the resurrection of Christ? They presuppose it but do not state it. The reasoning is that since an eternal kingdom was promised to David, the Son of David who would be Ruler of this kingdom could not remain under the power of death.

Paul proved that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, by reasoning with the Jews out of the Old Testament Scriptures Acts 17: 2-3. He 'reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ'. This was a reasoning process, drawing good and necessary consequences and connecting them with Christ. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul brings together passages that reflect the resurrection obliquely. For instance in v27 he infers from Psalm 8:6 that since all things are put under Christ's feet, death must also be put under his feet. In verse 45 he quotes Genesis 2:7 that Adam was made a living soul in order to develop the doctrine that we shall have resurrected spiritual bodies.

Paul defends the right of ministers to payment in 1 Cor. 9:9 by quoting Deut. 25:4 which forbids muzzling an ox treading corn. The principle is drawn that the labourer is worthy of his hire. In verse 13 he refers to the scriptural provision for the priests to eat of the sacrifices and infers that v14 'Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel'.

In 1 Cor. 10:26, he quotes Ps. 24:1 to support the practice of buying meat without asking questions since the Christian has a free use of all creatures because all belong ultimately to the Lord. This is obviously an inference.

Heb.1:6 proves that Christ is greater than the angels and divine by the fact that Psalm 97:7 includes an instruction to the angels to worship him. The verse says nothing of the divinity of Christ, this must be inferred.

Without entering into the details it ought to be obvious that the way that Paul reasons using the Old Testament Scriptures concerning justification by faith in Romans and Galatians depends upon good and necessary consequence.

The claim has been that those who defend good and necessary consequence are undermining the sufficiency of Scripture. Does Christ do this when he practices it? Or do the apostles? Nay, rather we establish the sufficiency of Scripture. Good and necessary consequence shows how far the Scriptures are sufficient rather than limiting them and allowing human ideas to take over completely where we must do something but cannot find an explicit command. “All Scripture” is declared to be “profitable for doctrine, for reproof; for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:15-17. These purposes cannot be obtained without good and necessary consequences, however. "Legitimate consequences, indeed, only bring out the full meaning of the words of Scripture; and as we are endued with the faculty of reason, and commanded to search the Scriptures, it was manifestly intended that we should draw conclusions from what is therein set down in express words" (Thomas Boston). If we are forbidden to make such consequences, then cannot apply or use Scripture at all – only read it.

Why do anti-household baptists reject the Saviour's method of interpreting Scripture?

The Lord Jesus Christ's method of interpreting Scripture is evident from his frequent references to Scripture in the Gospels, particularly in responding to the Scribes and Pharisees. An example from Scripture is the way in which Christ charges the Sadducees with unbelief in relation to Scripture. He cites Exodus 3:6 concerning the resurrection of the dead. This does not speak about the resurrection, however, it only implies this doctrine because Christ asserts that since this was said to Moses long after the patriarchs were dead that they were still living and that God is the God of the living. This is based upon the tense used (present tense), Christ's charge against the Sadducees is based not on the express statement of Scripture but for not drawing the good and necessary inference or consequence from Exodus 3:6 (cf. 3:1-10,12).

As Thomas Boston observes, Christ 'does not seek after a text that said in express words, that the dead shall rise again, but proves it by good consequence, yet no less firmly than if he had produced an express text for it, Matt. xxii. 32'.

Christ responded to a charge of blasphemy made by the Pharisees (John 10:36; see v. 33) with a quotation in John 10:34 from Psalm 82:6, which refers to human magistrates as 'gods'. He is noting that Scripture contains the principle that individuals can be given a general divine title by virtue of their divine commission (vv. 34, 35a). This cannot be blasphemous. He adds, "the Scripture cannot be broken" (v. 35b), what Scripture has said cannot be blasphemous. If it is not blasphemous, therefore for individuals to be given this title, how much less blasphemous is it for Christ who is divinely commissioned to use his divinely given specific and unique divine title, the Son of God. In effect Christ asked, "How can you accuse Me of blasphemy when I, too, claim the divine title rightfully?" It is evident that Christ is making inference from a passage that does not expressly state his point.

Another example is in Matthew 19:4,5 where Christ, quoting from Genesis 2:24, is being questioned on the matter of divorce. "And he answered and said unto them, 'Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." The text says nothing about divorce but Christ is drawing out a necessary inference concerning divorce.

In Matthew 12 Christ defends the disciples eating ears of corn on the sabbath by referring to the example of David in 1Sam 21:1-6. 'But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?' (vv3-4). It is likely on a comparison with the ceremonial law that this took place on the sabbath, but the point that Christ is addressing is the principle that it was more important to preserve life and indeed the life of the Lord's Anointed by giving the shewbread which was not lawful for any but the priest and his household to eat. How much more should Christ's life be preserved by means of such food as the disciples partook of? In other words God's commands are never meant to be at the expense of or in conflict with works of mercy. Hence Christ refers to Hosea, 'I will have mercy and not sacrifice' as a verse that brings out the same principle. John Gill comments 'Now our Lord's argument stands thus, that if David, a holy, good man, and, the men that were with him, who were men of religion and conscience, when in great distress, through hunger, ate of the showbread, which was unlawful for any to eat of but priests, the high priest himself assenting to it; then it could not be criminal in his disciples, when an hungred, to pluck, rub, and eat a few ears of corn, which were lawful for any man to eat, even though it was on the sabbath day'.

He also refers to the fact that the ceremonial law required work of the priest that would be a breach of the sabbath by anyone else. It was, however, a work of mercy and an act of worship to provide sacrifices and offerings for those who needed their sin to be ceremonially cleansed. 'Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple' (vv.5-6). Christ is greater than the temple and he is Lord of the sabbath. If the priests could work on the sabbath and be blameless in their works of mercy, how much more could Christ in his healing? The disciples also had a ministerial work to do and were justified in sustaining themselves for it. 'Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath' (v12). It will be evident that Christ is drawing out principles and inferences in all of this in relation to practice as well as doctrine.

In John 7:23 Christ defends his act of healing on the sabbath by the fact that they practiced circumcision on the sabbath if it coincided with the eighth day in obedience to the law of Moses. If this physical 'wounding' was permitted because of its spiritual significance, why not Christ's physical healing with its spiritual significance.

It is evident that Christ used good and necessary consequence in order to interpret Scripture. Anti-household baptists have rejected this and while adopting most of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the 2nd London Baptist Confession deliberately omitted the reference to 'good and necessary consequence'. This is because good and necessary consequence is used to make the case for household baptism.

Household baptism in the Old Testament

Household baptism is a New Testament term and it may seem strange to associate it with the Old Testament. There are indeed five household (oikos) baptisms in the New Testament(Cornelius’, Acts 10:48; Lydia’s, Acts 16:15; the Philippian jailer’s, Acts 16:31; Crispus’, Acts 18:8; and Stephanus’, 1 Cor. 1:16). These five
household baptisms illustrate a principle seen throughout Scripture that, the obedience of the entire household is required as part of the obedience of the head. This is due to federal responsibility thus when the head of a household believed, baptism of his whole household followed.

As a note of interest at this point, these five baptisms are among only nine where baptism is specifically mentioned. In Acts there are 7: the Ethiopian eunuch, Simon Magus, Saul of Tarsus, Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer, and Crispus of Corinth. In 1 Corinthians there are 2: Gaius and Stephanas. Of these nine baptisms, there are two where no household was present: the Ethiopian eunuch and Saul of Tarsus. We are not informed about the households of two others: Simon Magus and Gaius. In the other five cases, the entire household was baptized. There is a clear principle that in every case where the apostles administered baptism to the head of a household, they also administered it to the entire household as well. For the Jews, the conversion and baptism of proselytes was on a household basis. In the case of the Philippian jailer the grammar emphasises the head of household’s action through singular verbs "rejoiced" and "believed" (Acts 16:34).

In addition to baptised households, there are also references to household
salvation: Zacchaeus’, Luke 19:6-10; the official’s, John 4:53; the 3,000 believers on Pentecost Sunday who were told that the promise of salvation was “for you and for your children,” Acts 2:38-39; and Onesiphorus’, 2 Tim. 1:16.

The solidarity of the household or posterity with the head is explicit in all the Old Testament covenants. It is made clear to Noah (Gen. 7:1; Heb. 11:7), to Abraham ("I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him", Gen. 18:19), to Jacob (Gen. 47:12), to Israel (Exod. 1:1), and to Rahab (Jos. 6:25). The word for household in Greek ,Oikos is used in the Septuagaint (the Greek translation of the OT) of Noah's family (Gen 7:19), of the covenant with Abraham and the circumcision and instruction of his household (Gen 17:13, 18:19), regarding the families in Passover (12:27), and David's descendants in the Davidic covenant (2Ch 21:7).

The household reference is frequently made:

- Gen 7:1 – Noah
- Gen 17:12-13, 23, 27 – Abraham
- Ex 12:27 – Passover
- Num 3:15 – Levites numbered according to household membership
- Deut 29:10-13 – Covenant renewal
- Joshua 24:15 – “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

There are also promises made to heads of households: Deut. 4:37-40; Psalm 78:4-7; 100:5; 102:28; 103:17-18; Isa. 44:3; 54:13; 59:21; 65:23; Jer. 32:38-39; 35:19; Ezek. 37:25; Zec. 10:6-7.

We should note, however, that there are also many instances in which God judges households in relation to the sin of the head of that household:
- Gen 20:17-18 – Abimilech
- Ex 20:5, 34:7 – Punishments for breaking the law
- Joshua 7:15, 24-25 – Achan
- 1 Sam 3:12-14 – Eli
- 2 Sam 12:10 – David

We should note also that neglect of the commandment of circumcision (the sign of household solidarity) incurred judgement (Gen. 17:14). The family is an organic unity, in which, if the head sins, all the parts of the organic unit are held to be sinful with it.


There is a particular ceremony in the Old Testament that parallels household baptism. It is the sprinkling of blood that was done at the time of the Exodus from Egypt. Pharaoh was willing to let the men go, but not the little ones (Ex. 10:7-11).

- It was a ceremony performed by the head of the household not for their own benefit but for the firstborn son who was liable to destruction as part of the nation of Egypt and under Pharaoh's dominion. The firstborn son did not do it for himself.
- It was a household action, lamb was to be taken by the head of the household and slain for the household who would partake of it. Noone feasted alone.
- It was a token or sign of the covenant which signified spiritual realities
- It was a family token.
- It distinguished the firstborn of Israel from the firstborn of Egypt (Ex 11:7).
- It solemnly signified that the firstborn of Israel belonged to a holy and ransomed nation.
- It signified the deliverance of Israel as houses (Ex 12:27) and their being gathered to serve and worship the Lord as a corporate unit.
- It was done in faith (Heb 11:28)
- It signified the blood of Christ and his merits and offered it to them(1 Cor 5:7)
It signified being under God's protection
It signified separation unto God from sin and the world. Not a hoof was to be left behind.
- It was the basis of instruction: Exod. 12:26 : "And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service? That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, when he passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt; when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses."
-It was open to Gentiles. Exod. 12:48: "When a stranger will sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males ba circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land. One law shall be to him that is home-born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you."
- It was a corporate action of the Church. The slaying of the lamb is ascribed to the "whole assembly of the congregation", because it was to be slain by their order, and in their name, for their use and in their presence (Ex 12:6).
- It signified deliverance from national judgement (as with the baptism of John the Baptist cp. 1 Cor.10.1 ff, exodus from Egypt; 1 Pet. 3.19-21, of the flood)
- It was like circumcision a sign of God's judgement if the stipulations of the covenant (including circumcision) were not kept. Thus a solemn judgement is also signified if baptised people do not enter into the reality of the blood of Christ and trample it under foot as an unholy thing.
- It was a seal of God's ownership.
- It was effected by sprinkling as with the purifications elsewhere described in Scripture (Exodus 24:1-8; Leviticus 14:4-7, 16, 49-53, 16:19; and Numbers 8:5-7,
19:18, 19; Hebrews 12:22-24; 1 Peter 1:2). The Old Covenant sprinkling of blood has been replaced by the New Covenant washing with water.
- It meant that the firstborn were sanctified and sacred to God
- It meant a general, external adoption of the nation to be God's firstborn (Exod 4:22)

The mode of baptism as defined by John the Baptist

John the Baptist prophesied that the disciples being baptised by fire by the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit in the future.

Matthew 3:11: I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Mark 1:8: I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

Luke 3:16: John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

John 1:32-33: And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

When we look at the fulfilment of this on the day of Pentecost, we read:

Acts 2:1-3: And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

John Gill comments: "Through this baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire, the apostles became more knowing, and had a greater understanding of the mysteries of the Gospel, and were more qualified to preach it to people of all nations and languages. The Holy Spirit, in his gifts and graces, is compared to fire, because of its purity, light, and heat, as well as consuming nature; the Spirit sanctifies, and makes men pure and holy, purges from the dross of sin, error and superstition; and enlightens the minds of men, and gives them knowledge of divine and spiritual things; and fills them with zeal and fervour for the glory of God and Christ, and the good of his church and interest, and for the doctrines and ordinances of the Gospel; as well as fortifies them against their enemies, whom he consumes"

The company gathered was the 120 disciples which is significant, 12 the number of the church multiplied by 10 - the number of completion. This was symbolic of the baptism of the Church by the Holy Spirit.

But what do we read of this fire? Did they have to walk through it? Did it utterly engulf them? Rather it was merely cloven tongues of fire, individual tongues of fire divided and distributed "and it sat upon each of them". Appropriately it would have sat on their heads since it was symbolic of them receiving the Spirit to speak in other tongues. The next verse reads: "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance".

This was a baptism but the element was administered to the head only. This demonstrates that "Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary: but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person" (Westminster Confession of Faith).

Household Baptism – A different approach

As is well known the Brethren are often differentiated into two groupings: Open and Exclusive. The Open Brethren have been largely Independent in terms of government. The Exclusive Brethren reject this Independency and 'maintain that they [the Open Brethren] have lost the truth of the Church and have become a system of independent gatherings quite contrary to the truth of the One Body "fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth"'. They point out that 'there is one doctrine and practice which is held by all Open Brethren assemblies - except perhaps by one or two of exclusive origin - which is that baptism must be only for believers of a responsible age on confession of faith. Most meetings refuse to allow a person to break bread unless he has been baptised as a believer, and if he was baptised as an infant it does not count in their eyes. The doctrine of household baptism is rigidly rejected and no teaching of it would be allowed'. W.R. Dronsfield, The "Brethren" since 1870, London, Chapter Two, 2002.

There are many aspects of Brethren teaching that we cannot accept as scriptural. It is interesting, nonetheless to see how those who are not covenantal in theology but dispensational regarding the New Testament and the Church as entirely separate from the Old Testament do find household baptism within the New Testament. Most of the principles upon which Reformed writers would make their case are entirely the same as those referred to by the Brethren writers. This is because the basic principles of interpreting Scripture have been preserved. It shows that there is evidence enough in the New Testament for household baptism and that the crucial issue in the controversy relating to baptism is how the Scriptures should be interpreted. SM Anglin points out that "it is not a matter of command, but of acting according to the principles which Scripture makes known and establishes. We must remember that principles are not deductions or suppositions; they form an important part of the Word of God, and are for our guidance. We have before seen that there is no command to be baptized, and we have also shown that Scripture lays down no rules as to who should be baptized, but we have Scriptural teaching, principles, and practice to guide us."

It is not always appreciated that J.N. Darby held to household baptism. Volume 2 of his Letters provide some detail on his views. While rejected amongst the Open Brethren, household baptism has generally been held to by the various branches of the Exclusive Brethren. Writers belonging to these branches have sought to draw out some of the principles present in Darby's views. Some of the main writers are SM Anglin, FW Grant and CW Wycherley.

Is there a Command?

Anglin points out How often one hears it said: "We have the plain command of Scripture, 'Believe and be baptized' "; this is the stronghold of many, and yet there is no such expression in the Word, nor indeed any command to be baptized." "There are some who content themselves with asserting that there is no command in the Scriptures for baptizing the children of a believer, as though this settled the matter." This ignores that there is neither record nor command for a child of a Christian to be baptized as a believer. It is not, however, "a matter of command, but of acting according to the principles which Scripture makes known and establishes. We must remember that principles are not deductions or suppositions; they form an important part of the Word of God, and are for our guidance. We have before seen that there is no command to be baptized, and we have also shown that Scripture lays down no rules as to who should be baptized, but we have Scriptural teaching, principles, and practice to guide us. If any will go in for command, there is only one, and that possibly is too comprehensive for them, namely, Matthew 28: 19-20."

FW Grant says of this verse. "Let us notice first more fully the words of the commission: "Disciple, baptising and teaching," show in their order that the teaching is that which perfects the disciple,- necessarily, because a "disciple" is a scholar: the baptism only gives him his place as that; it is authoritative reception into the school. It is the marking off, in a world which has rejected Christ and His words, of those who receive them and thus acknowledge Him. It shows that the kingdom is not territorial, that people are not born naturally into it, that it is individual now, not national, as in the case of Israel. The meaning of it as a symbol shows much more than this. Whether this subjection to Christ is real or not remains to be determined, and is not to be settled beforehand by the baptizer; although, of course, that in which it is professed must not be suffered to lapse from its meaning and be trifled with by frivolous use.

We are told, however, that "Jesus made and baptized disciples" (Jno. iv. i), and that this gives a contrary thought. But, in fact, it only emphasizes what is true, - that it is the Word, the teaching, that really makes disciples, which is of course true. If we think of what is implied in discipleship, the Word is necessarily the fundamental thing, the water but the formal, although that too may have importance. Who would say that the dying thief was not a disciple, although he had no opportunity of being baptized? On the other hand, to say that Jesus "made and baptized disciples" does not necessarily mean that they were disciples first, as the second part of the statement may be explanatory of the former, and needed to complete the idea to be conveyed: as when it is said (Ex. xxix. 7), "Thou shalt pour it upon his head and anoint him," these two things are really one, and not different acts; and the last expression but explains the former."

In relation to Mark 16:16 Anglin comments. "Mark 16: 16 is a favourite passage with those who oppose household baptism, but it proves too much, for according to it a person is not saved till baptized; but these say you must be saved first and baptized after. The fact is, the Lord is there looking at salvation in its full sense, connected with the time we are here on earth as well as with eternity, and for this two things are necessary. The vital and by far the most important one is put first, viz. faith, and the other is baptism; it is not a question of which comes first in point of time, but both must be true of the person before he is saved in the sense spoken of there. We need hardly say that a person is fit for the glory – for heaven – the moment he believes, and, like the thief on the cross, could go straight to Paradise through virtue of Christ's work, but when one remains on earth, it is another thing; there is a place where Christ is professedly owned and the faith of Christ is acknowledged, and if not there previously, such an one should then be brought there. If previously there, of course he cannot be brought there, though not saved till he believes; and if not there when he believes he is not saved (as to his place on earth) till baptized, and thus brought there; and, if the head of a family, it is his privilege to bring his children there also, and train them up in the faith of Christ, counting upon God to give life and faith to them also. When this latter takes place they too are saved, as the two things are true of them – they are believers and are baptized; this is what Mark 16 teaches; but it is not faith to say, I will wait first and make sure that my children have faith and divine life, and baptize them then'; though, of course, if not baptized before they ought to be so then on the ground of professed repentance and faith.The verse, however, is in full keeping with household baptism, as, surely, one part of Scripture must be with another."

Baptism brings onto Christian Ground

Darby writes: "The question as to children is not are they converted, but are they to be left in the devil's dominion, or brought where the Holy Ghost dwells, to be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?" As Darby taught, Exclusive Brethren authors teach that baptism brings a person on to Christian ground. Anglin writes "Scripture presents it to us as reception on to Christian ground, or position on earth, from amongst Jews or Gentiles. It constitutes the person baptized a Christian as to his position here on earth, and introduces him thereby into the outward privileges of Christianity." This is seen in Acts 10 when Cornelius and other Gentiles are baptised. Peter asks: "Can anyone forbid water that these should not be baptized?", etc.

Clearly baptism was connected with privilege in his mind, or else his words have no meaning; but it was not admission to the privileges of Judaism, or he would have said: "Can anyone forbid circumcision?" Thus, I may say, baptism supersedes circumcision, as Christianity supersedes Judaism. Here, again, it is not the obedience to a command by those baptized, but the reception of persons whom Peter saw ought to be received. God had already owned them and given them the greatest gift, making no difference between them and the circumcision, and thus the way to their reception was clear; Peter owns it, and says in substance to those with him (for his remarks and directions are addressed to his companions of the circumcision), bring them in, they ought not to be kept outside'; and this they did by baptizing them."

"When a Jew was thus awakened (as in Acts 2) would he be content to escape from the apostate condemned place himself and leave his family there? Surely not; but, as in Egypt of old, would say "not a hoof shall be left behind". He would not wait till they grew up leaving them to choose between Judaism and Christianity for themselves." (Anglin)

Baptism is connected with Christ's lordship and authority

These writers speak of baptism as "putting on Christ, which is connected with His lordship and authority; and with positional identification with Him on earth; for baptism relates entirely to our position on earth under God's government" (Anglin). As Wycherley points out Galatians 3: 27 says, "As many as have been baptized unto Christ have put on Christ" but the Baptist version of this would have to read 'As many as have put on Christ by faith ought to be baptized'.

In relation to Gal. 3:27 FW Grant writes: "in the words used, we have not, as so many suppose, any implication of necessary activity in the person who "puts on" Christ. The same word, only compounded with the preposition "upon," and in the first aorist middle, exactly as here, is used in 2 Cor. V. 2 for our "being clothed upon with our house that is from heaven," and we might there speak of "putting on" the resurrection body, or here of our being "clothed with" Christ. The responsibility of the baptismal place belongs to the one in it, however the grace of God may have wrought in putting him in. To a child who has been baptized in infancy - allowing for a moment that God has given them the privilege of this,- one could say, "You were clothed with Christ."

The exhortation in Rom. Xlii. 14 is not inconsistent with this. It is, what we have not in English, an in imperative in the past (the aorist), and means, "be as one that has been clothed with Christ."

If baptism is the putting on of Christ, even this does not necessarily imply any voluntary activity; for so it is said that "this corruptible puts on incorruption, and this mortal immortality;" and man in dying puts off his tabernacle". Anglin says that in this passage in Galatians, the apostle "refers to their baptism, and says, as it were, You have put on Christ by your baptism (as many as were baptized), why put on Moses?' They were outwardly identified with Christ by their baptism – had put Him on. Just as of old Israel were baptized to Moses in the cloud and in the sea. All were baptized to him – men, women, and children – and therefore outwardly connected with him, and under his authority. How they might act afterwards was another thing, and whether they had faith or not remained for the wilderness to prove".

Grant writes that in 1 Cor 10 "Baptized unto Moses" has...the force of "set apart to Moses" as disciples. So those who were baptized with John's baptism were John's disciples. So have we found the Lord bidding to "disciple, baptizing." "Baptized unto the name of the Father" is discipled to the truth of what God is. "Baptized unto the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts xix. 5) must be similar in meaning". Anglin also states "Thus Jesus is Lord of all, and baptism is always to Him as Lord (see 1 Cor. 10: 2, "baptized to Moses"), and the one baptized is brought where His authority is acknowledged, and, as baptized to Him, is responsible to own it practically. It is only by His death we can have what is presented and enjoyed in Christianity. Therefore the apostle goes on, in Romans 6, to say, We are buried with Him by baptism unto death".

In relation to the phrase "One Lord One Faith One Baptism" in Ephesians 4, Grant writes: "One faith" evidently means what some would call one creed, not faith as the principle of dependence upon God, in which sense "one" faith would hardly be intelligible. In connection, then, with "one Lord, one faith," we have "one baptism." ..."baptism" by itself naturally means the rite; when used with other applications, other words are added in explanation. Water-baptism also, as we shall find fully as we go on, is that which is connected with the sphere of discipleship, that is, of the kingdom, as that of the Spirit is with the Church."

An Objective Ordinance

Darby resisted the idea that it was a sign that an individual was regenerated. "The state of individuals in their souls has nothing to do with it. It is not communion in the unity of the body, which is by the Holy Ghost". It is an objective ordinance, "it is the outward reception on earth which is before us". "Baptism is a privilege granted, which admits into the number of the faithful and into the great house". "The person is received outwardly into the habitation of God, as set up in this world. Ephesians 2: 22; 1 Timothy 3: 15." Darby believed that the Baptist "principle makes baptism the bond of the unity of the body, and through this they are Baptists – that makes them Baptists – but this very principle is quite false, and contrary to scripture". "It [i.e the 'baptist' system] then – without knowing it – accepts a principle which breaks down Christianity in its foundation, like him who keeps days, but in a more serious case, because they make the oneness of the body to depend on it." "God...has established a dwelling place consequent on redemption, where His blessings are". "Not that all were Israel which were of Israel, but these blessings were distinctively theirs – Romans 9: 1-6 – not amongst the heathen." He writes that "the Lord, and the faith – not personal, but the "one faith" – and baptism are associated. In the baptism of a child there is plain testimony to the need of Christ's death for its admission."

The House is Always Linked with the Head

"Noah's house went into the Ark with him, because they were his house, and because he was righteous (see Gen. 7: 1). If one had been an infant surely he had as much privilege as the oldest, not because of being an infant, but because one of Noah's family.

The Flood was part of God's governmental dealings with the earth, and it was in connection with these that they were thus privileged; but neither their privilege to enter, nor their relationship to Noah would have availed if he had not taken them into the Ark. Nor again, did being in the Ark affect their state of soul, nor give them faith; as we have each taken up afterwards as to their individual state, Shem being blessed and Ham cursed. Abraham acted on this, in his day, and in doing so made no distinction between Ishmael and Isaac. There was a very great distinction in other ways, as regarded personal faith, etc., but not in this. The point was that they belonged to Abraham – formed part of his house, and it was his responsibility – his act – flowing from what God had given and made known to him. He does not wait till Isaac grows up first to see how he will turn out, nor does he refuse Ishmael because he had no faith. Household baptism goes on the same principle.

In Abraham's case it took the form of a command, as afterwards connected with the legal system, but this does not touch the principle, which is just as clearly established in the New Testament. The Lord says of Zaccheus, "This day is salvation come to this house". Peter says, in Acts 2, "The promise is to you and to your children". Paul says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house". (Anglin)

The Head is Responsible for his Household

"God says of Abraham, "I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him", etc. Eli, on the other hand, receives the most withering reproof and judgment from God because he had failed to rule his house according to their position and privileges. Circumcised no doubt they were, and thus brought into what they were entitled to by birth, but now, being there, he was responsible to train them according to the place they were in. He was wrong, not in circumcising them first, but in not training them afterwards. This principle we have also in the New Testament. In Ephesians 6 we read, "Fathers … bring them (your children) up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord". The father is responsible to do this. Eli, as we know, did much; he set his sons a good example, he taught them, and even reproved them; but he did not, for all that, bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and God held him responsible for their wickedness. He might plead, as so many are ready to do, I cannot give my children a new nature, nor create in them desires for what is right and good; I must leave them with God to do that'; I answer, God holds each father responsible, as under the authority of Christ, and subject to Him, and in separation from the world. The whole house must be separated to Christ, and subject to Him. The wilderness might not appear to be such a pleasant place for the young ones who were baptized to Moses, as Egypt was; that was not the question, but their connection with God and with Moses, to whom He had given authority, and their complete separation from Egypt and its rulers. But let us bear in mind that, however attractive Egypt might appear as a place of self-gratification, it was the place of death. It represents the world in its independence of God and under His judgment – a place too of cruel bondage to God's people until delivered from its power.

The children of believing parents ought therefore to be in a distinct place from the world, to be trained up in the fear of the Lord...The children should form part of a Christian household, and baptism is the admission to the place of a Christian outwardly, as well as owning the lordship of Christ in the act. Is not the head of the house then responsible to own the authority of Christ as to every member of his house? Should he not put them on the ground where it is owned, and in the way that God has set forth? To refuse to do so, is either in effect saying that they are not different from the world, or else, to act on the principle of Cain, though unwittingly, in presenting something to God apart from death; that is, to act as though sin were not in the world, and children were not by nature sinful and at a distance from God.

It is another principle, that we cannot be in relationship to God apart from death – from that which sets forth Christ's death of which circumcision under law and baptism under Christianity are the symbols or figures – more fully expressed by baptism, as Christianity is above and beyond Judaism: one being a command as connected with a legal system, the other of grace, and connected with a dispensation of grace flowing from the death of Christ." (Anglin)

Illustrating the Principles

Anglin illustrates these principles by referring to instances in the Gospels where someone is blessed through the exercise of faith on the part of another. "In the first part of Matthew 9 we have the man with the palsy getting governmental forgiveness, and as a consequence perfect restoration to health, through the act of faith in others. It says, "Jesus seeing their faith. Clearly it was their act which manifested their faith, and the man is blessed. Another case is Acts 3, where the lame man is cured by Peter. In verse 16 Peter explains how it was effected. He says, "His (Christ's) name through faith in His name hath made this man strong", etc.; but where was the "faith in His name"? Not in the man, but in Peter. It may have resulted in faith on the part of the man afterwards, but this is not said directly, and certainly his faith is not the ground of his being made whole. It was Christ's name, and faith in His name on the part of Peter; and the blessing received related to God's governmental ways. "

Of such is the kingdom

Darby argues that the children of believers are said to be "of the kingdom of heaven" and therefore ought to be admitted to its privileges. "I know no administrative entrance to it on earth but baptism. It was the prescribed order down on earth". Wycherley wrote similarly: "If then there is an outward sphere, called the kingdom of heaven, and the children are to be received into it; and if the fathers get into this outward sphere by baptism, does it not follow that the children must come in by the same door?"

Now are they holy

Darby believed that there was a lot of clarity as to the status of the children of believers in 1 Corinthians 7:14. "But when I come to 1 Corinthians 7: 14, I think I get the question specifically decided. It is directly the subject. If a Jew married a Gentile he was profaned – not profane, a profane thing cannot be profaned – and was to send away his wife and children – see Ezra and Nehemiah: was it so under grace? No, the converse; the unbeliever was sanctified – opposite to profaned, not holy – and the children were holy, to be received, not cut off. Hence the word is "unclean," the force of which as precluding approach to the house of Jehovah in Israel is well known." "Thus we may see also why, going beyond the law, the children even of a marriage where one remains an unbeliever can be called by the apostle "holy." The words run thus (i Cor. vii. 13, 15) :- "And the woman that hath an unbelieving husband, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by ("in") the wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband. Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy."

FW Grant commented on this verse: "The use of the word "unclean" explains the corresponding word "holy." It is not vital holiness that he is thinking of, but external position. According to the law the children of such a marriage could claim none; but grace goes altogether beyond law. It is not said of the unbeliever that he or she is "holy," as the child is; merely sanctified in the believer. The child has an acknowledged place as " holy" or "clean;" and this he takes to show that the marriage stands; for if the children were unclean, the marriage itself would be. Baptism gives this acknowledged place, a place in the kingdom of God, which under different forms runs through the dispensations.

"Clean" would not express for the Jew the thought conveyed by holy; that is, "consecrated, dedicated, or sanctified to God "; and hagios is the word which would be used in Greek for expressing this. To have said "clean" would have been enough to have proved the lawfulness of the marriage. The "sanctified" and "holy" were both needed in order to express the thought of relationship to God. The use of the two words, therefore, here, is every way significant. "

Wycherley writes: "The point of this scripture is the relative position of the husband and wife towards each other, which determines the relative position of the children towards the sanctuary. ... Under law, the Jew had to put away his strange wife; she was not "sanctified", and the children were illegitimate (unclean). Under grace "the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband". This is, the marriage is valid, and the children are legitimate or "holy", and as such entitled to come into the congregation of the Lord (the outer court)."

Household Baptisms in Acts

Anglin comments interestingly upon the household baptism recorded in Acts 16.
Lydia and her House – Acts 16: 13-15 Anglin points out that while it is said of Lydia "whose heart the Lord opened to the Word" no such fact is recorded of her household baptised with her - that their hearts were opened. ..Lydia is not only brought on to the ground of Christianity herself, but has her house also brought with her, which was no light thing in that day, when surrounded by enemies of Christianity – both Jews and Gentiles. Lydia's house is a distinct case of baptism without the slightest intimation of any confession on their part, or work of God in them, and had these things been true of them as of her, surely it would have been mentioned, and, besides, verse 15 shows it was Lydia's act so to speak, that is, done on her responsibility. It is household baptism, clearly and simply set forth by Scripture, connected with the responsibility and faithfulness (as far as it went) of the head of the house – though a woman.

The Jailer and his House – Acts 16: 25-34. The apostle in answer to his inquiry, "What must I do to be saved?" at once links his house up with him (see also chapter 11: 14). We then have the word of the Lord spoken "to all that were in his house", a term including more than "his house" in the previous verse. In the next verse baptism comes in, and it is himself and "all his" (not all that were in his house) who are said to be baptized; the distinction between the two is very clear and important. The jailer would be responsible for the baptism of his house – "all his", but not for others who might be in his house at the time – other jailers, servants, etc. "All his" would only include only those for who he was responsible on account of their relationship to himself, and would, therefore, take in the very youngest child. It may be said there is no proof he had any children, or, at least, young children. I answer, this does not at all affect the point, which is, that "all his" were connected with him in outward blessing and privilege, and therefore were baptized, and what is insisted on is that this principle includes the very youngest child. It was, as we have already shown, an instance of admitting the house, with the head of it, into the place of privilege. Are they entitled to this on account of their relationship? And if so, they assuredly ought to be baptized; and whether they are adults or infants is not the question, provided they are living in the house, and by relationship under the authority of the head of it.
The rendering of verse 34 in the Authorized Version is not quite correct. It is, in the original, "he rejoiced with all his house, he having believed in God". Note: The words "having believed in God" are in the singular number, and apply to the jailer only, and this is very important to note."

Conclusion

The Brethren case for household baptism is extremely interesting. Most of the principles upon which Reformed writers would make their case are entirely the same. The approach is simply slightly different. These selections represent a broad view of the way in which a non-covenantal Brethren/Dispensationalist interpretation of the Scriptures has found room for household baptism simply because as SM Anglin points out "it is not a matter of command, but of acting according to the principles which Scripture makes known and establishes. We must remember that principles are not deductions or suppositions; they form an important part of the Word of God, and are for our guidance. We have before seen that there is no command to be baptized, and we have also shown that Scripture lays down no rules as to who should be baptized, but we have Scriptural teaching, principles, and practice to guide us." The anti-household baptism position rejects clear scriptural principles that are obvious whether or not one follows the Reformed theology of the covenants. There is enough evidence in the New Testament to demonstrate the case for household baptism.