I was surprised to find out a few years ago that TW brethren 'officially' hold to 'Household Baptism' - though I was also told it is about 50/50 who actually practice this in their fellowship. I'd be interested to know, how this developed - as I'd assumed most who went with Bexhill in1890 would have been aganst the 'Household Baptism' view .. so was this something they (TWs) all practiced from the start, or has it been encrouaged over time? Also is the reason just to be seen as the adherents of JND, or was there something else?

A few years ago in my exercise to translate 400 of John Nelson Darby 's letters from French into English one of them I put on my website:

Pourquoi je ne Pourrais être Baptiste. – Baptême des Croyants – Baptême des Enfants – Baptême des Familles – la Maison et l’Assemblée

Translated as

http://adayofsmallthings.com/why-i-could-not-be-a-baptist-believers-baptism-infant-baptism-household-baptism-the-house-and-the-assembly/

in it, he used that evocative phrase for unbaptised children = petits païens - little pagans! 

Have a read of it.

Christian greetings

Daniel

I am assuming most of the Brethren were Baptist in their view of baptism...no?

Did they also insist on immersion as the only proper mode of baptism?

About 20 years ago (maybe more) a whole lot of TW's moved from TW's to the Renton's, mainly in Aberdeen ID and Denton TX.  Paul Johnson, Doug Welch and Harold Klassen were leaders.   It seems that they were happy about household baptism.

Yours

Daniel

A Day of Small Things -
https://www.adayofsmallthings.com

@Daniel Roberts - Paul Johnson was my grandfather.  Grew up TW and was baptized in my home; so were all my siblings and cousins.  

David Johnson

davidpjohnson71@gmail.com

"I was surprised to find out a few years ago that TW brethren 'officially' hold to 'Household Baptism' "

Well, first of all, there was no, "officially".  Both views were held amongst brethren from back in Darby's day, and among the TWs, there was full liberty of conscience on the matter.  The household view seemed to be stronger in Canada and the northeastern US, less so in America generally and in the west.  That is a generalization, and you would find exceptions.

In my home assembly (Buena Park), both views were held amicably.  I don't recall a single problem about it.  We did not avoid the topic, either. If it came up in a reading meeting (Bible study), both views were discussed, and the fact that conscience should be respected and that it is not a reason to divide was emphasized.  Among our "older brethren" (elders), both views were held.  I very much respect their mature handling of this needlessly divisive issue.

I think that most in our assembly were household, but others held to believer's baptism (BB).   When one of the BB families announced that one of their children wanted to be baptised, all rejoiced with them.  When a 'household' family baptised one of their little ones, all rejoiced with them.

I believe this is the Scriptural way to handle this issue. It simply should not divide us.

I don't know how things in that area have developed (or degenerated?) in the larger group since the big division ~25 years ago.  Given who is powerful among them these days, I would not be surprised if there is less liberty.

In the smaller group, some years after our big division, my uncle in Canada told me that they were starting to have problems there about it, with childish name calling ("baby dunkers!") going on.   This is a dishonor to our Saviour.