Does the Bible teach believer's baptism/credobaptism?

It is therefore by the authority of the Lord, and according to the example of His Apostles, that believers are now to be baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Pious persons sometimes baptise unconscious infants, and unbelieving households; but there is no word in the New Testament to warrant such practices, believers alone being the proper subjects of Christian Baptism. This to an unprejudiced reader is demonstrated by the fact that in every New Testament instance, baptism follows upon the hearing of faith. "He that believes and is baptised" — note the order. Baptism is in contrast with circumcision generally and not a complementary rite carried over into Christianity from Judaism; although by way of likeness, this may be noted, that as every circumcised Jew of necessity had natural life before circumcision, so in every case now real spiritual life precedes true Christian Baptism. But in the consideration of Christian Baptism it is absolutely essential that we keep the Lord Jesus Christ Himself clearly before us, so that the ordinance does not hide the Saviour, Whose death and burial, alone give point and meaning to it.

Take the order of the words in Mark 16:16: He that believes and is baptized shall be saved," and does not the order here favour the view we have already given? Would not a Baptist have written it: "He that believes and is saved shall be baptized"? This is not, however, what our Lord said. The order of the words here indicates that Baptism itself is in someway connected with salvation, and does not simply represent that a person is saved. To be saved, in the sense meant here, he must not only believe but be baptized. Not because he is saved but to be saved. The reason why Baptism is omitted in the second clause is easy to understand. Damnation has to do with the future. But Baptism has only to do with the present course of things, and salvation too has a present aspect.

Acts 2:38. "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." The revised version has "unto the remission of your sins," and Weymouth translates the word for "unto" as, "with a view to." Have we not here the same thought? Not Baptism merely retrospective, but in view of something. And this even after Christ's ascension to glory and the coming of the Holy Ghost.

Here also we have the interesting fact of the terms in which Ananias called him to 'get baptized' or submit to baptism, on which a few words may be well, as to some there is no small difficulty. The reason of the departure from the Authorized Version, as well as the Revised, however slight, is an endeavour to express the force of the Middle Voice, as it is called, in Greek. This, however, is independent of the (to some) doctrinal difficulty in calling on the apostle to have his sins washed away in baptism. Why should this seem hard? It is what baptism always means, though indeed it means yet more, even death to sin, as the apostle himself treats it in Rom. 6:3-4. Baptism is the sign of salvation, as another apostle teaches, who carefully lets us know in the same context that the effectual work rests on Christ's death and resurrection (1 Peter 3:21-22). Without faith no doubt all is valueless before God; but, however precious may be that which faith receives through the word, the outward sign has its importance. So much is this so, that no one stands on the external ground of a Christian, who has not been baptized with water to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. To refuse baptism is to despise the authority of the Lord, as unbelief slights His grace. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, he that believes not, even if baptized, shall be damned (or, condemned).

The same strange confusion pervades the remarks on Acts 8:12: "What did they believe? The things concerning the kingdom and the name of Jesus Christ. They were then baptized and so brought into the kingdom, and to the name of Jesus Christ; but whether they divinely believed in Himself is another thing " (p. 9). Did he not know that "the name" is used for the person? (John 1:12; 1 John 5:13.) He writes as though he thought the contrary. Instead of honestly owning the plain proof of his own error (for the chapter distinctly shows that the Samaritans, as believing the things preached, were baptized, contrary to the "doctrine" of the tract), he flies off in a vain effort to disparage the faith of all, because Simon Magus was shown to have been false. "Thus we have in Acts 2 three thousand who were baptized before they believed [an egregious error, already pointed out], and were saved; but in Acts 8 we have one who was baptized after he believed, but was not saved. In the same chapter (ver. 15, 16), we read of those who had been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, but who had not received the Holy Ghost … Whether the eunuch believed before or after his baptism we are not told. But the Scriptures only record that he rejoiced, after that he was baptized" (pp. 9, 10). Does the writer not know that the reception of the Holy Ghost is invariably after faith, not in order to it? Does he not see that Philip preached Jesus to the eunuch, earnestly in quest of the truth already, who, because he believed, asked to be baptized, and not in vain?

Made a disciple, Lydia was baptized as became her (John 4:1). Such was the Lord's command to His servants. Only the males among the Jews were circumcised; disciples, both men and women, were baptized (Acts 8:12). Not only Lydia was baptized but her household also: 'And when she was baptized and her house …' What is meant thereby? We do not hear of children or of husband; she may have been a widow without a family or never married. She had a household, and we hear (ver. 40) of the brethren there, believers therefore, and probably not men only but women. Of little ones we hear nothing; and the divine account, which is full and minutely exact to admiration in other respects, not even implies anything of the kind, so that the temerity of tradition, of intellect, of will, that would from this account extract a ground for supposing infants in this case at any rate, is as bold and manifest as unjustifiable.

Thus it is because to the mind of Jew and Gentile alike, the Baptism of infants and children yet unable to supply the condition for themselves was so natural that Luke records so simply that when Lydia believed, she was baptized "with her household;" when the Philippian jailer believed he was baptized and all those belonging to him. If there were children in these households, these children were baptized on the ground of the faith of their parents."

St. Paul begins with the announcement "Thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Could he tell (even though an Apostle) that there would be personal faith on the part of everyone in the house before ever he had preached to them? Did he know of whom the household was composed? For as yet he had never entered it. Then the Apostle spake unto him the word of the Lord in the presence of his household, and being convinced of the man's faith, baptized him and his household. "And was baptized, he and all his." What an expressive term: "HE AND ALL ms." Here we have our warrant for Household Baptism. "He and all his" represents with a conciseness which leaves nothing to be desired, the divine and gracious principle that runs all through God's dealings with His people. In the light of this interpretation, the words "and thy house," become quite easy of explanation. If Believers' Baptism only is true they are, to say the least, very unintelligible.

Here too I must supply the omission of Lydia in Acts 16:14-15, whose heart the Lord opened to attend to the things spoken by Paul before she was baptized with her house. How can such accumulated proofs of his error be got rid of by an honest man? So, when baptized, "she besought us saying, If ye have judged (κεκρίκατε) me to be faithful to the Lord;" it was not faithfulness, the fruit of faith, given after her baptism, but contrariwise their conviction of her faithfulness implied in their baptizing her.

The next household we meet is that of Lydia "a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira … whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there." (Acts 16:14-15). The Lord opened the heart of Lydia and she opened her house. It is all individual. Her own personal salvation was unquestionable, and so she was baptised. But what about her household? Were the members of it saved? Were there children in it or not? On all this the Scripture is absolutely silent: and it is not silent for the purpose of giving us the opportunity to speculate about these matters. The Spirit of God has another purpose in view in the way He records these various households. So the important thing for us is to note what the Scripture says, and not add our own thoughts: and the Scripture records that Lydia's household was baptized, without any mention whatever of faith, real or otherwise, on their part. The narrative is complete. The Spirit has told us all He wished us to know, and we dare not add to it by reasoning or surmising. As the Scripture records it, Lydia's whole household was baptized on the ground of her faith.

The "house" being included in the head of it, Paul and Silas spoke unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And the account continues: "And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." (Acts 16:33-34). One would suppose from this that all in the jailor's house believed when Paul and Silas spoke the word of the Lord to them: but the Greek New Testament, in the words uttered by the Holy Spirit, does not say this. The Revised Version renders it: "He rejoiced greatly with all his house, having believed in God." The New Translation by Mr. Darby has "he laid the table for them, and rejoiced with all his house, having believed in God." The Greek word "having believed" is nominative, singular, masculine, and can refer only to the jailor. We have seen a very similar example of the rejoicing in the case of the wives and the children in Nehemiah's day: and some of these "children" were almost surely too little to understand the cause of the joy, yet they rejoiced in the joy of their parents. Again we see that the Scripture is totally silent as to who composed the household, and as to their spiritual condition. The faith, conversion and baptism of the jailor are unquestionable, but the verbs rejoiced and believing are both in the singular, and apply to the jailor: though the household rejoiced with him, or "as a household", or, "householdly", if we could use such a term. Do not think it is an accident that the Spirit of God is silent in these cases as to the faith of the households, or who composed them. This silence is intentional, to bring home to us Gentiles, that God's great principle of external blessing for the household on the ground of the faith of its head, also applies to us.

The next household brought before us is that of Crispus. "Crispus, the chief ruler of the Synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house." (Acts 18:8). Here we have the faith of the whole household recorded, in contrast to the silence regarding those we have already looked at. But it is striking to observe that the Scripture says nothing about the baptism of the household of Crispus, though Paul tells us that he baptized Crispus, but says nothing of his household. (1 Cor. 1:14). Please notice carefully that the households not spoken of as believing, were baptized: while another which did believe, is not mentioned as being baptized. Why is this? For surely the Scripture is absolutely perfect in what it relates, and what it withholds. Nobody would question the baptism of the household of Crispus: they all believed, and so of course were all baptized, even though the Scripture does not tell us so. But it might be questioned whether a household, in the absence of faith, had a right to be baptized. We believe that this shows forth the excellence and perfection of the Holy Scriptures in a way that speculations and surmisings never can.