Baptisms in Acts

Introduction

As an elder of Grace Community Church (GCC) I hear many questions about why we believe in believer baptism and not infant baptism. GCC is a non-denominational church. Our congregation is mix of people with different denominational backgrounds: Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostal and others. They all have different beliefs and experiences with baptism. Over the years, the elders' response to these questions is to encourage the questioner to search the scriptures themselves. Very often we do not hear back from the congregant. However, since I am encouraging believers to search the scriptures themselves, I decided to a study on baptism and to see how it is used in the New Testament.

A full blown study should trace baptism through the Old Testament, the intertestamental period, the Gospels, the Epistles, and church history. However, my purpose is not to write a doctrinal statement for our church, but rather to gather evidence to present to a believer about why GCC believes what it believes. This blog focuses on Acts, First Peter, Colossians, and a little church history. This approach seems justified by the story in Acts 19:1-7 where believers, who were already baptized into John's baptism, were baptized into Jesus. There is a qualitative difference between the baptism of Jesus and the baptism of John. How Jesus and the Apostles defined baptism is unique. Furthermore, I hope by focusing on the scriptures of which most believers are familiar that my arguments would be more accessible and convincing to them.

Research

The following table contains all the passages in Acts that reference baptism. In my conversations with believers who believe in infant baptism and from my reading of theologians who support paedobaptism, the Acts passages are the most widely used passages to defend the practice of infant baptism.

Verses in Acts on Baptism

Verse	Action 1	Action 2	Action 3	Audience
Acts 2:41	Received word	Baptized	n/a	Everyone who heard
Acts 8:12	Believed Philip as he preached	Baptized	n/a	both men and women
Acts 8:14-17	The apostolic team identified believers who were only baptized in the name of Lord Jesus	Prayed that they may receive the Holy Spirit	Received Holy Spirit	Samaritans
Acts 8:34-40	Philip told the eunch about the good news about Jesus	Eunuch requested to be baptized	baptized	eunuch
Acts 9:18	Jesus called Paul	Paul went obediently to Ananias	Scales fell from his eyes and he was baptized	Paul
Acts 10:44–48	Peter preached	Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word	Baptized	Gentiles
Acts 16:14–15	The Lord opened Lydia's heart to Paul's teaching	Baptized	n/a	Lydia and her household
Acts 16: 30–34	Asked what must I do to be saved?	Spoke the word of the Lord to him and his household.	Baptized	Jailer and his household
Acts 18:8	Crispus believed in the Lord, together with his entire household	Corinthians hearing Paul and believed	Baptized	Crispus, household, and some Corinthians
Acts 19:1-7	Heard correct teaching about John's baptism.	Baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus	Paul laid hands on the and the Spirit came upon them.	About 12 disciples of John.

Observations

In each conversion story there are different elements. However, the pattern is the same: belief is first and then a baptism is performed. One interesting case is Acts 8:14-17, which is the story about the Samaritans. This is a special case and there is obviously something different on how the Holy Spirit brought in the Samaritans into the church. However, even in this atypical passage, they believed first and then were baptized.

Lydia's Household

The only possible exception is Lydia's household in chapter 16. It is different from the other passages in Acts because God opened her heart and then Lydia and her household were baptized. No mention is made of whether her entire household believed or not. However, to argue for paedobaptism from this one case seems problematic for several reasons.

First, one would have to argue that she had children too young to believe and that they were baptized. If you look at the word, "household" (Greek, "οἶκος"), it literally means dwelling, but it extends to the people who live there. There is no warrant to assume Lydia had infants in her household. On my block in my neighborhood, there are no infants. We have empty-nesters, families with teenagers, couples who do not intend to start a family or young couples who have not started families. To assert that Lydia's household had infants seems to be a big assumption. We need more evidence.

Second, Luke may have intended to include only the believers in the term "household." For example. at a University of Iowa football game, news announcers always note that all the spectators and players in the stadium turn and wave at the Children's Hospital after the 2nd quarter. Did the announcers mean all the spectators and players in the stadium? People bring their very young children to the games. Did the announcers intend to convey that even infants or the sleeping toddlers turned and waved at the hospital? The announcers meant everyone who understood and was able to wave, waved.

Here is a more similar example. Think about an activity such as a family walk after Thanksgiving. The next day we may report to a neighbor, "Yep, dinner was great and the whole family took a walk in the neighborhood in the afternoon." However, if a particularly nosey neighbor replied, "Everybody? What about baby Julie? She can't walk yet." We would reply with the baby Julie was in a stroller, of course. If the neighbor was even more obnoxious and pointed out that grandma Edna is confined to a wheelchair, we would replied with something like, "Uncle Henry pushed her" or "She stayed home of course". The phrase, "the whole family" meant everybody who could walk went on a walk. Likewise in Acts, the adjective "entire household" may not mean absolutely every single person, but just the people who believed, albeit the vast majority, were baptized.

Third, in Acts 18:8, Luke wrote, "believed in the Lord, together with his entire household." Again, Luke used the phrase "entire household". Did Luke intend the audience to believe that the infants believed too? We just do not know who was in the household. Luke assumed that his audience would understand that infants did not believe at that time. Again, Luke intended the reader to use common sense in reading the the passage just like in Lydia's story.

Fourth, even if Lydia did have her household baptized including infants, Luke does not provide any insight or comments on the baptisms. Would this one instance of infant baptism make infant baptism normative? The question is not whether there were infants baptized, but rather if the whole household including infants were baptized does this single instance indicate a normative pattern of infant baptism? In all the other baptism cases in Acts, those who were baptized believed before baptism. Luke could have assumed that this was a one-off case. Acts is a factual narrative. Luke was reporting how God was working through the Church and he was not strictly concerned with correct doctrinal practice. He was reporting on what happened and he was not stipulating orthopraxy. For insights on the correct practice of baptism, we must turn to the Epistles.

Fifth, there are passages about conversions (Acts 3:6-10, 6:7, 13:48) that do not reference baptism. Luke assumes the reader understood that the converts were baptized at some point. The elements of the conversion story: preaching and hearing the word, Holy Spirit coming upon them, believing in the Word, confession, and baptism are not included in every story. Luke for stylistic reasons or for his own reasons does not spell out all the elements of the conversion in every story. Likewise, for the story of Lydia's conversion, Luke may have skipped the step where he specified the members believed, because he assumed their belief and expected his readers to fill in the gaps.

In summary, the story of Lydia and her household does not endorse or condemn infant baptism. To argue that infant baptism should be a normative practice for the Church from this one passage seems to be an overreach at the very least. Another point, if the household was baptized and not every one believed, does that mean some people were forced to be baptized? Would we practiced that today? If a father heard the gospel and believed in today's culture, would we go back to his wife and teenaged children and make them get baptized?

Other Passages

Let us press on to other passages. Luke does not say they all believed in Acts 16:30-34; however, when Paul spoke to the entire household and after baptism, the whole household rejoiced. "They all rejoiced." This indicates that the entire household believed Paul's message before they were baptized.

One final observation is to highlight in Acts 19:1-7, believers were baptized twice. Once with John's baptism and after Paul laid hands on them, "they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus". Double baptism is not a problem.

Historical Views

Admittedly, the Roman Catholic Church and most of the Reformers argued for paedobaptism. Both branches of the "Church" tied baptism to the washing away of Original Sin. Both the Catholic church and the Reformers persecuted the Anabaptists whose main doctrinal distinction was believer baptism. The following is a list of the various positions throughout history.

Thomas Aquinas
Practically speaking, then, in the case of infants, "baptism should not be deferred. First, because in them we do not look for better instruction of fuller conversion. secondly, because of the danger of death, for not other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of baptism." Thus, Aquinas supported the continuation of infant baptism by appeal to original sin. (Allison, p. 623)

Martin Luther
Ultimately, Luther grounded his position on Scripture. For him the Bible does not explicitly command infant baptism. There would not be an adequate bilbical basis for start the practice were infant baptism not practiced already. But Scripture had enough to say about infant baptism that the church could not discontinue it. In particular, Luther appealed to Christ's command to let the children come to him. To deny baptism to children would be disobedience to this order. Also, Christ commands the church to baptize "all nations" (Matt. 28:19-20), and this all encompassing group obviously includes infants. ... . Thus, Luther expressed hope: "We bring the child to be baptized with conviction and the hope that he will believe, and we pray that God will give him faith. But we do not baptize on the strength of this belief, but only on the fact that God has commanded it. And so Luther continued the traditional practice of infant baptism. (Allison, p. 625)

Calvin
Like Zwingli, Calvin justified infant baptism on the analogy between the old covenant sign of circumcision and the covenant sign of baptism. (Allison, p. 829)

"Infants are baptized into future repentance and faith." (Calvin, Institutes, 4.16.20, LCC, 2:1343)

Baptists
The London Confession of Faith
Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed upon persons professing faith, or who are made disciples. ... . Being a sign, it must answer the things signified; which is, that interest the saints have in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. And, as certainly as the body is buried under water, and risen again, so certainly shall the bodies of the saints be realised by the power of Christ, in the day of the resurrection, to reign with Christ. (as quoted by Allison, pp. 630-631)

Puritans
Hermeneutically; those theologians who argued for paedobaptism placed a great deal of weight on the covenant made with Abraham and its continued significance for the new covenant era. Accordingly, Flavel, whose polemics with antipaedobaptists such as Philip Cary (d. 1710) are well known, argues that the two Testamens should cast light upon one another. Specifically, Christians should not 'undervalue or reject an Old Testament text, as on way useful to clear and establish a New Testament point of faith or duty. In other words understanding the whole law (i.e., the Bible) helps one to know the sense of particular laws. (e.g., paedobaptism).
(Beeke and Jones, p. 36)

Karl Barth
Thus, for Barth, the proofs for infant baptism were a late addition to the doctrine, and thus foreign to any proper doctrine of baptism. The historical reality of infant baptism, and the Reformers' wholehearted acceptance of the practice, compelled them to justify it without ever questioning its legitimacy in the first place. Barth found the Reformers woefully lacking in the attempts to formulate such a bona fide doctrine. (Allison, p. 833)

What does baptism mean?

I admit my conversations with current believers and my reading of past theologians is very limited, but I have not seen the use of any exegesis of the passages in 1st Peter and Colossians, which are the clearest teachings by the apostles on the practice and theology of baptism, to defend the practice. Here are some notes on the key passages.

Colossians 2:11–12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. (ESV)

F.F. Bruce
No longer is there any place for a circumcision performed by hands (which, being restricted to males, was in any case inappropriate for the new order in Christ); the death of Christ has effected the inward cleansing which the prophets associated with the new covenant, and of this Christian baptism is the visible sign.
(The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, pp. 103-104)

...

If, on the other hand, the "circumcision of Christ" is the circumcision which he effects, the inward cleansing brought about by his death, resurrection, and indwelling presence in those who are united to by faith, then the "stripping of the body of flesh" refers to the believer's baptismal experience (described in Rom. 6:6 as the crucifixion of "our old self" and the destruction of "the sinful body"). It involves the reckoning of one's former self with its desires and propensities to be dead, as a necessary prelude to putting on the new nature--putting on Christ himself in his resurrection life. What the believer puts off is "the whole personality organized for, and geared into rebellion against God." (ibid, p. 104)

...

For baptism not only proclaims that the old order is past and done with, it proclaims that a new order has been inaugurated. The convert did not remain in the baptismal water; he emerged from it to "walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:4). Baptism, therefore implies a sharing in Christ's resurrection as well as in this death and burial. (ibid, p. 105)

1 Peter 3:18–22
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. (ESV)

Edmund Clowney
It is significant that Peter goes on to speak of the pledge made in baptism, the pledge of a good conscience towards God. The word for pledge implies an undertaking made in response to formal questions. Peter underscores the solemnity of the commitment made by these new Christians. They pledge the life of a good conscience. (Or, they make pledge sincerely, out of a good conscience.) In that pledge Christians agree with God's judgment on sin, and turn on their own sinful past (4:3). They acknowledge that to turn from their commitment would be to bring upon themselves God's just judgment. Yet Peter's words stress the wonder of the sacrament even more than its solemnity. As Noah was delivered by the grace of God, although only in symbol, so have they been delivered in fact. Christ has saved them, for he died for their sins and gave them life through his resurrection (3:18, 21). ("The Bible Speaks Today", The Message of 1 Peter, p. 167)

Conclusions

The purpose of baptism as specified in the Epistles is the strongest argument against paedobaptism. Both Peter and Paul stressed that baptism is an outward sign of a inward change effected through the Holy Spirit. Christians through their union with Christ died to sin and were raised to a new life. The dunking of a person in water by itself does nothing. Baptism is a one-time ordinance that believers can use to testify how Christ entered their lives and brought them into the Kingdom of God. Peter describes it as "an appeal to a God for a good conscience". Peter is stating that believers getting baptized before others is an appeal or pledge that their repentance is real and they want to live a new life before God through faith. The physical act itself does nothing: the removal of dirt does nothing toward salvation.

The household passages in Acts do nothing to argue for or against infant baptism. Luke is not specifying the order of salvation in his conversion reports. He is just highlighting how the Holy Spirit changed lives through the spread of the Gospel. Infant baptism, if you take away the idea of the washing away of Original Sin, becomes simply a pledge of guardians to raise their children in the Church. This is a good practice, but it is not what baptism is about. There are better ways for a family to do this other than using an ordinance that Christ specified for believers.

Please consider this blog as a beginning point for your own study of the scriptures on this issue. Be noble-minded like a Berean (Acts 17:11). Search the scriptures for yourself!

Appendixes

Bibliography

Gregg Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine, Zondervan, 2011

Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life, Reformation Heritage Books, 2012

F. F. Bruce, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistles to the Colossians to Philemon and to the Ephesians, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984

Edmund Clowney, The Bible Speaks Today, The Message of 1 Peter: The Way of the Cross, Series Editors: J. A. Motyer and John R. W. Stott, Intervarsity Press, 1989

Verses

Acts 2:41
So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:14–17
Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. (ESV)

Acts 8:34–40
And the eunuch said to Philip, “About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus. And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he passed through he preached the gospel to all the towns until he came to Caesarea. (ESV)

Acts 9:18
And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized;

Acts 10:44–48
While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days. (ESV)

Acts 16:14–15
One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us. (ESV)

Acts 16:30–34
Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God. (ESV)

Acts 18:8
Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

Acts 19:1–7
And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. There were about twelve men in all. (ESV)

Acts 22:12–16
“And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, came to me, and standing by me said to me, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight.’ And at that very hour I received my sight and saw him. And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’ (ESV)