Were Children Baptized in Household Baptisms?

Our church has been thinking a lot about baptism, the Lord’s supper, church membership and how all of them tie together.  One of the areas where this raises big questions is concerning children.  Should children be baptized and brought into membership and the Lord’s supper?  As always, we turn to God’s word for our answer.  Were children baptized in the New Testament?  There is no statement in the New Testament that gives us the age of the people baptized, which means every argument for child baptism will be an argument from silence.  An argument from silence is not a strong argument.  However, the one place where people will point to concerning the possibility of the baptism of children is in the accounts of household baptisms mentioned in the New Testament.  There are five household baptisms mentioned, and it would seem likely that there would have been a child in at least one of those households.  Is this a reasonable assumption that would support child baptisms?  Below are four reasons why household baptisms are not a good argument for baptizing children. 

First, the household baptism of Lydia is a unique situation, in which we should not assume children were present.  Lydia was one of those special ladies that could thrive in a man’s world as a seller of purple.  This was an extravagant product sold at great profit and somehow she had established herself in this industry and done well.  This was evidenced by her large house which hosted the missionary team.  For our issue, what is notable is that Lydia is the head of this house.  It is her household and she says it is my house.  There is no reason to assume she is married with children, let alone young children.  The household that is being baptized would be slaves that help her run the house and business.   

Second, in the household baptism of Stephanus, we see a level of maturity that does not fit with children.  In 1 Corinthians 1:16, Paul tells us that he baptized the household of Stephanus, but that is not all we learn about this household.  At the end of the book, 16:15, Paul says that this household has “devoted themselves for ministry to the saints.”  This inclines us to see them as mature people.  Children do not devote themselves to ministry to the saints.  They may serve alongside their parents, but devoting oneself is a word about independent decision making.  If there was still doubt about this, Paul speaks a following word which moves us another step further from children.  In verse 16, he says the church should be in subjection to such men and to everyone who serves like this.  This is not a fitting word for children.  Children submit to adults, not the other way around.  It is not wise to assume young children are involved in this baptism.

Third, in the household baptism of Cornelius, found in Acts 10 and 11, we have another unique event.  This was the very first totally Gentile audience that Peter preached to.  It took a special word from God, along with a vision of all kinds of animals lowered in a sheet, to assure Peter that this was alright.  The final and ultimate confirmation, the one that sealed this reality into Peter’s thinking, was that the Holy Spirit came upon all those who were listening, and it was evidenced by all of them speaking in tongues.  All the way back in 10:2 we were told that the whole household feared God, and now we see the whole household saved and filled with the Spirit.  

Is there something in this event that leans us away from thinking children were present?  Not really.  While a fear of the Lord is certainly a weighty description, it is not impossible for children to have this.  So no, there is not any particular detail that would incline us away from children.  Instead, what we have here is verifiable, unquestionable evidence of new birth and the indwelling of the Spirit.  If there were children present, then they were speaking in tongues with the rest of them; that is an experience we don’t have any more.  If we had this today, that at the moment of spiritual new birth a person began speaking in tongues, then we wouldn’t have any question about children.  We would know without a doubt that a child was born again because we could listen to him rattle off Japanese that he previously did not know.  Because we don’t have that kind of verification, we have to look for other evidences.  What would those be?  Along with a credible profession of faith in Christ’s death for sin and the fruits of repentance, we also need to look for a degree of maturity, a real understanding of the cost of following Christ, an independence that demonstrates that this is their own faith and not mimicking parents and peers, and a desire and ability to be a member of the body of Christ with all the responsibilities and accountability that comes with that.   These are the evidences we must look for because we don’t have the verification of speaking in tongues.  

Fourth, in the two other household baptisms, that of the Philippian Jailer in Acts 16 and of Crispus in Acts 18, we have only a very brief word about them.  But that brief word is a conclusive word.  In both of those household baptisms, we have apostolic authority that every single person in each household believed.  If there were children in those households, they truly believed and were born again.  We don’t know for sure that there were children there, but if they were there they were truly saved.   Again, this is something we don’t have today.  If we had apostolic authority that a certain child who said he loved Jesus really did have saving belief, then we would baptism him.  We do not have that today.  

Household baptisms were a special work of the Spirit, but they are not good places for advocating for child baptisms.  Therefore, we must wait until the immaturities of childhood that make true faith hard to evaluate have passed away.  We do not want to baptize children when they are still defined by the unstable, often-changing, highly-dependent, parent-pleasing, experience-lacking nature of childhood.