Thanks for all of your insight and willingness to wrestle in the text. I resonate with your confusions regarding cessationist gymnastics. I myself am in line with your thinking of a more continuationist interpretation.

Regarding baptism, as I re-read your thoughts on rebellious children and pondered Leithart’s metaphor of “water as words”, I believe our view points both intend to love and disciple children well. Grace and peace my brother! May The Lord bless your family and ministry!

I was proceeding with the timeline of Acts 10/11 because you seemed to rely on it initially. In the post prior to mine you said, “However, the EFFECT of this gospel resulted in the baptizing of Cornelius’ entire household.” I was merely stating that if we we’re looking at cause / effect, then we’d need to notice the causation of baptism appears to be the Holy Spirit’s indwelling.

I am a non-tongues speaking continuationist who does happen to believe that cessationism is a curious turn of events for PBers; as they seem to rely heavily on the use of descriptive passages for prescriptive purposes unless they are talking about speaking in tongues. As many of the same passages used to commend baptism also commend tongues speaking in a similar way, this often results in some interesting gymnastics.

Regarding the FV, I’m picking up what you are laying down. Let’s put it this way, if baptism is meant to be an evangelistic morality play that mom and dad keep pointing their kiddos back to (Leithart) – if that is the purpose of baptism, and was the purpose of circumcision, then the FV approach is the right one.

So I think we have arrived at “agree to disagree-ville”

The purpose of the article was merely to state that:

For those of us who tend to see baptism as something else entirely, we have lots of other evangelistic devices to employ.

These approaches also happen to be the ones that godly PB parents employ with far greater emphasis than baptism.

Thank you for building up the straw man, I’ll do my best to discern the differences. I can see how you read Acts 10/11 differently and that you have a genuine interest and place for children in the families of believers.

I want to address the narrative structure of Acts 10/11, however, before that there is something I’d like to point out.

In Acts 11, as Peter retells the narrative of Acts 10, he focuses on a promise given to Cornelius that “[Peter] will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.” (14). The word “household” here can also be translated “your descendants”. The idea of descendants, depending on your perspective, may mean Cornelius’ relatives alive in the 1st Century (which we would both be hard pressed to discern their ages) or any and all who come from Cornelius’ line. This word “household” and the promises given to Cornelius are repeated elsewhere in Acts 16 in the stories of Lydia and the Philippian Jailer.

Lydia’s Story:

“And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer, and we sat down and spoke to the women who had come together. 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.” (Acts 16:13-15)

Philippian Jailer Story:

“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.” (Acts 16:30-34)

What I’d like to point out is that in all three narratives (Cornelius, Lydia, and the Philippian Jailer) preaching comes first due to a lack of gospel knowledge among the Gentile people, however the EFFECT of this gospel is the baptism of entire HOUSEHOLDS. The word here again meaning “one’s descendants”. The reason this is significant in redemptive history is because in Genesis 12:3 God informs Abraham that, “I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” The blessing, found IN Abraham (not through) is to be experienced by families.

The word “IN” found in Genesis 12:3 and repeated in Ephesians 6:1-4 speaks of blessed families that are IN Christ (the location of the New Covenant blessing).

I want to assure you that I am not defending a Roman Catholic view of baptism, as I do not believe PB results to regenerate babies. All must walk by faith and repentance. I simply agree with Peter Liethart, Luther, and Calvin that babies can trust. (http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rite-reasons/no-47-do-baptists-talk-to-their-babies/).

Regarding the order of the narrative in Acts 10 (preaching, Holy Spirit, baptism, etc.) I want to point out that there is another element being ignored in Acts 10- speaking in tongues. If we are going to keep close to the text’s linear fashion would it not validate a Pentecostal view of Spirit Baptism. I don’t know what your convictions are regarding speaking in tongues (or other Spirit indicators), however from my perspective it is not normative for Christian families today. Just a few thoughts.

Let me address something from a practical perspective first. There’s a hyper-individualistic, decisionistic CB straw man that I want to ensure you aren’t thinking of with this interaction. My article describes God’s purposes for households. In other words, I am copacetic with the concept of household conversions in general and actually endorsing that sort of thing as something God prioritizes. Your future children are advantaged by God’s purposes within the concept I’m describing as gospel proximity. And none of us (CB/PB) would argue that this is the effectual advantage (if there is one predestined for that particular child). CB parents are called to stand on these promises. PB parents wind up spending the majority of their parenting experience standing on the same promises.

I think you can imagine how I read Acts 10/11 differently.

These folks were commanded to be baptized because they were baptized in the Spirit (regeneration). In fact, doesn’t Peter leave out water baptism in his retelling? He leaves it out because it wasn’t a covenental issue.

This kind of conversation is repeated in Acts 15. The circumcision party wanted the Gentiles to be circumcised. How did the apostles respond? “Well, actually, they don’t need to be circumcised because they were baptized.” No, they respond, “fellas – they have the spirit.” Thus my article’s statement re: the Holy Spirit’s presence being the sign. I realize this is partially an argument from silence. But ahem… that’s not always a rhetorical 666 is it?

Back to more solid ground… Back to Acts 10/11 – Peter commanded them to be baptized because they were saved (evidenced by the Holy Spirit’s baptism).

Seems pretty clear that they were baptized because they received the Holy Spirit. (10:47)

The only wiggle room I’m seeing here for a PB/FV use would be that “they” means two different things in the same use.

They received the Holy Spirit (everybody but the little kids that PB’s assume were there).

They were baptized (everybody including the little kids that the PB’s assume were there).

Beyond what seems to me to be a pretty clear cause / effect relationship (regeneration then baptism), I think that assumption is an important thing to pay attention to. Why are we imagining Mr C’s house to contain little ones? I am 38, my wife and I have 3 teenage children. That’s our household.

If Peter visited our household with an effectual message for all of us (11:14), then we’d all receive the Holy Spirit and would then all be baptized.

Another side issue: How far off was Mr C in Acts 10? (see 10:1-2)

Now back to Acts 10/11. The first effect we see of the gospel being preached is holy spirit baptism (11:15)

Great, now I’ll be up all night thinking about the garden typology! Thanks for sharing.

Regarding the narrative of Act 10-11, I agree that the story demonstrates that the gospel was preached (too a people far off). However, the EFFECT of this gospel resulted in the baptizing of Cornielus’ entire household. To be clear, I am not arguing for a regeneration infant baptism, but rather a FV view of the covenantal family.

To Mike, how do you think through the use of the word “Gentile” in 1 Peter? Does this not imply a redefinition of Israel and Gentiles, among the “tribal” terminology of a new temple?

Incense Altar (bridal robe)

Lampstand (Peter’s eyes opened)

Bronze Altar (animal skins)

We see the same thing in the New Jerusalem descending upon the mountain, as seen by John. It’s the union of heaven and earth, the baptismal, four-cornered “city” robe covering and glorifying the circumcised body (the Lamb).

God isn’t telling Cornelius that Peter will come and tell them they will all be saved. God is telling Cornelius that Peter will bring a message by which they will be saved. I see a preaching emphasis. Thus v. 15, “…as I began to speak…”