Is the Baptism of Lydia's Household In Acts 16 A Biblical Example of Infant Baptism?
Lydia of Philippi Believes in Jesus
This is another huge story for our missiology as Christians. Paul and Silas went on the Sabbath down to the river out to see if there were any Jews meeting there. Sure enough they ran into Lydia, a wealthy woman, who dealt in expensive purple cloth. She was a God seeker, and when she heard Paul's message, she believed, and she and her WHOLE HOUSEHOLD were baptized.
Why is this story important?
1. A influential woman comes to faith and leads her whole household to Jesus. Later, the church of Philippi becomes a major and influential in the 1st century church. This is one of the first instances of a woman playing a leadership in the church. This gives credence to the idea of women being in leadership of the church. There are others instance of women playing key wrongs in the growth as well in Acts too. Remember Galatians 2:20 "In Christ there is no Jew nor Greek, slave or free, male or female, but all are one in Christ Jesus!" This was radical to the highly patriarchal environment Jesus and Paul lived in.
"The idea wasn’t that the Gospel flattens humanity into a raceless, genderless mass. Rather it was to emphasize the colourful mosaic of the Kingdom, made up of men and women from every ethnic and social background, all with equal access and standing in Christ." (Focus on the Family)
2. Her whole household was baptized. Did everyone of them come to faith exactly at the same time she came to faith? Were there young children in the household who were baptized? These questions give a scriptural basis for infant baptism? Though one could argue this doesn't definitively make a biblical argument for infant baptism, most who read this passage in a straightforward manner assume there were either infants, young children, or children younger than the age of accountability (12-13) in her household. Your interpretation of this might be based on the church you grew up in and were taught in your whole life.
If you grew up in a Baptist home, you might say this is not a definitive argument for infant baptism. If you grew up in a Lutheran home and have read Martin Luther's many arguments for why infant baptism in is biblical, you would say this passage is in support of it.
So here is the most important question I would challenge you with! When you read the bible with fresh eyes and allow the Holy Spirit guide you, as the Scripture promises the Spirit will guide you into all truth. This is not to say that Tradition is bad or not useful, but in this case there are two major denominations who diametrically oppose each other, so either they are both right, or is wrong on this important Christian doctrine?
In addition one of the most important principles in biblical interpretation is to use the whole counself of scripture. I.e. Let the bible interpret itself. For instance the overarching New Testament teaching is, "Whoever believes and is baptized WILL be saved!" Mark 16:16
Note one thing it does not say. It does not specify the order, only that one needs to believe and be baptzed. Remember too that the thief on the cross was not baptized, and Jesus said, "Today you will be with me in paradise!" This is not an argument against baptism, but an example of how God is bigger than the box we sometimes put Him in.
For those of you who are interested in an excellent article concluding that these passages give excellent biblical precedence for "infant baptism" feel free to read this article.
Comments
Post a Comment