Sermon Tone Analysis
Overall tone of the sermon
This automated analysis scores the text on the likely presence of emotional, language, and social tones. There are no right or wrong scores; this is just an indication of tones readers or listeners may pick up from the text.
A score of 0.5 or higher indicates the tone is likely present.
Emotion Tone
Anger
0.15UNLIKELY
Disgust
0.1UNLIKELY
Fear
0.09UNLIKELY
Joy
0.56LIKELY
Sadness
0.19UNLIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.84LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.47UNLIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.9LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.23UNLIKELY
Extraversion
0.46UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.34UNLIKELY
Emotional Range
0.44UNLIKELY
Tone of specific sentences
Tones
Emotion
Language
Social Tendencies
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
Household Baptisms
Biblical covenant theology does not lead to baptizing babies
No biblical evidence for baptizing babies
Baptism is for disciples alone
3 Reasons PBs left paedobaptism
No command in NT that believers should baptize their children
No compelling evidence for practicing infant baptism
No example of baptizing infants
John Murray “We do not have an overt and proven instance of infant baptism recorded in NT.”
If not command, no example, no evidence why do Presbys baptize their babies?
They say because Bible leads them to
WCF “expressly set down or by good and necessary consequence can be deduced from scripture.”
We don’t have to deduce recipients of Baptism from scripture.
Scripture is clear on this point.
As baptists we do not deduce that infants should be baptized
When Baptists challenge Presbys on biblical evidence of infant baptism they will often use the household baptisms in Acts and 1 Cor.
as examples
But 4/5 actually prove credobaptism.
Only one could plausibly be an example of infant baptism
The argument:
Head of house (covenant head) believes and everyone else in house follows covenant head in baptism.
Infers that infants, as part of the household, are baptised because they are part of the covenant community based on parent’s standing.
3 Assumptions made about these texts when using them to justify infant baptism
The word “household” must mean every individual in the household without exception
other places in bible where “household” is used and it does not mean everyone
“World” doesn’t mean everyone in the world
Hannah, mother of Samuel, wife of Elkanah
1 samuel 1:21
d.
Is Paul saying that even infants are being deceived and led astray by false teachers
e.
We can deduce from these passages that even if infants were part of the “household” they do not have to be included in the action of the household
2. Infants were present in the households and baptized along with all the others
No clear reason to believe infants were baptized in any of the texts
The Bible is very clear when children are present.
Samuel wants the reader to know exactly who was put to the sword
Bible clearly wants readers to know children are present
A
Luke, author of Acts, wants readers to know children are present
What is missing in this verse?
Children.
If they were meant to be included they would’ve been.
Luke does not assume when children are present, yet the Presbys assume they are
3. Household formula is normative in NC.
Primary way God works in salvation is through families
We as Baptists see discontinuity
No longer generation, but regeneration
Emphasis shifts from household to individual in NC
Under OC the father’s (covenant head) actions directly impacted generations that followed
Under NC this is no longer the case
Shifts from the father’s action impacting family to a more individual nature
Jesus also disrupts families
Matt 10:
NC establishes new family
The idea of household moves from physical family to spiritual family
Covenant head of this household is Christ
Household language shifts from YOUR physical family to THE family of God
Remember the Eunuch?
He can’t be head of a household
Household Passages
Cornelius in
Acts 10
Cornelius has a vision to summon Peter
Peter has a vision that declares what was once unclean is now clean
acts
Peter was preaching the Gospel
Who does the text say should be baptized?
those that received the Holy Spirit
Speaking in tongues
Not plus their infant children
Peter explains this to the church in
Acts 11:15-
Allude to
2. Philippian Jailer
Acts 16:
Indicates that the entire household was in fact baptised
Also indicates that whole household believed also
Verb for believe is singular.
Paedos will say this must mean the family was baptized because of the jailer’s faith.
Problem is that the verb for rejoiced is also singular and the rest of the household took part in the rejoicing
Also, how strange is it that if the whole household heard the gospel, but only the head of the household believed it then why would the rest rejoice if they did not believe it?
How can infants rejoice?
Two ways to interpret this:
The whole house believed and whole house rejoiced
One man believed and the whole house rejoiced
3. Crispus and his household
Three parties mentioned here
Crispus, his household and many Corinthians
Believed qualifies both Crispus and his household.
Believing qualifies the Corinthians that heard and believed and also is prior to baptism
4. Household of Stephanus
Not much info here about the household of Stephanas
Paul tells us more about this household at the end of the book
All members are both converts and servants
If you assume infants in the household then they were converted servants which is not possible
5. Lydia and her household
This is the one household account that is somewhat problematic, but not really
Not any info that other members of her household believed.
(this is the paedo argument)
But also not info that there were any babies in the household
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9