Chestnuts

Somehow King David knew he'd always been a believer. In a moment of deep anguish he appealed to God: "you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God" (Ps 22:9-10). This could be hyperbole, but to me it sounds truely meant. And I suppose this does make sense for people who "from infancy . . . have know the holy Scriptures" (like Timothy; 2 Tim 3:15). Generally speaking, we expect the children of believers to themselves be believers, not because they are forced, but because they are chosen - and choose.

Is this, then, what baptism is for? The sign of inclusion in 'the visible church' and of a hopeful expectation of the sincerity of their present faith and its perseverance into the future? It is certainly this much for adults - and more. The book of Acts tells us what that 'more' is: "the norm is that the Holy Spirit is received by believers at conversion and that baptism is associated with the response of conversion as an outward display of an allegiance (trust and repentence) to the Lord Jesus."1 Thompson continues:

In this regard it should also be noted that 'household baptism' in Acts is based on 'household belief'. Thus the emphasis in the account of the Philippian jailer is that if he believes he will be saved and the same goes for the rest of his household (probably including servants). Therefore, the word is preached to 'all the others in the house' (16:31-32). The implication is that they were all baptized because they all believed (16:33-34). The deliberate similarities of belief, household, baptism and hospitality between the Philippian jailer and Lydia indicate that the same is intended in her case. She is a believer and is baptized (16:15). However, what is implicit in the case of Lydia is made explicit in the case of Crispus, the synagogue ruler. Not only Crispus, but also 'his entire household believed in the Lord' (18:8; cf. also 11:14).2

Baptism is more than being part of a church, more than a positive expectation for someone's future spiritual state. The recipient isn't passive in it: they must first believe. Which makes me wonder if there were babies or little kids in the jailer's, Lydia's or Crispus' households? I do think the natural way of things in a communal society would have been to include the complete family unit, kids, babies, aunties, uncles, grandparents, cousins, the lot - but Christianity doesn't always follow the natural way of things (or Gentiles like myself would still be without hope). If belief that was the crucial thing, my guess is that Lydia, Crispus and co would have explained the Gospel to the kids old enough to understand, got them to say if they believed what they had just been told, and baptised them if the answer was "yes".

Of course, like King David, kids growing up in Christian homes can be given belief from the first day of their life. And yet I would find it hard to count little baby Jimmy among the household members who "believes in the Lord". I think I'd want to hold off on baptism until his fourth or fifth birthday to be sure he'd really understood the message and knew his own mind - but I suppose when he was two or three years old I could be convinced by the sincerity of his simple faith in "Gob".


1 AJ Thompson, The Acts Of The Risen Lord Jesus: Luke's Account Of God's Unfolding Plan (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 142.
2 Ibid, 142-42 footnote 60