Has your Church baptized anyone under the age of nine?
I don't know exactly, and why nine?
That is as irrelevant now as it was the first time you brought up this point. It has never been our contention that EVERY household includes infants, only that households can and do include infants.
And most do not.
Pot, meet kettle.
is that NO household includes infants,
Straw man, I never said that, I said most do not, making the assumption that infants were baptized in the NT a shaky one.
because you implicitly deny that infants might be included in your interpretation of Acts 16:31. Were Paul and Silas introduced to the jailer's family before they were incarcerated? When Paul declared to the jailer that he would be saved, he AND his household, if HE believed in the Lord Jesus, it was a fact then as it is now that households can and do include infants. Paul knew that and yet he didn't make his statement conditional as you do with your man made tradition.
Does your Church also exclude the mentally disabled from baptism?
I don't know, why?
A good summary of my position from another forum I'm on:
"There are five cases of household baptism recorded in the New Testament.
1. Cornelius' Household (Acts 10)
2. Lydia's Household (Acts 16)
3. The Philippian Jailer's Household (Acts 16)
4. Crispus’ Household (Acts 18)
5. Stephanas’ Household (1 Corinthians 1)
In each case, however, there are additional factors mentioned which seem to discourage the idea that infants are in view in these particular uses of
oikos.
1.
Acts 10:2 provides direct context for the upcoming events, by informing the reader that those of Cornelius’ household—at least those being referred to—were devout, active, God-fearing people. It’s also stated that the subjects of Peter’s command to be baptized (v.48) had all heard his Gospel message (v.44), and had then received the gift of the Holy Spirit (v.47). These same people are also said to have previously engaged in speaking in tongues and audibly praising God (v.46).
2. Many commentators note that the circumstantial details given concerning Lydia (e.g. she appears to have been a traveling businesswomen) suggest she was probably an unmarried woman. As such this particular household likely wouldn’t have had very young children in it, but rather would seem to be comprised of her and most likely, considering ancient Mediterranean cultural norms, some fellow women business associates. Supporting this notion is that Luke exclusively references women as being at the riverbank (
Acts 16:13), and then clearly implies that Lydia and those comprising her household were baptized there.
3. We again find the hearing of the gospel being attributed to all of the subjects involved in this account (
Acts 16:32). It is sometimes pointed out that the only description of personal faith actually having been exercised is individually connected to the jailor (v. 34), as the ESV and some other translations convey. Without getting too technical, this is due to the fact that the form of the Greek word for “believe” here (
pisteuo), is in the singular and masculine form (
pepisteukos). Some then insist that this fact, combined with the knowledge that his family was indeed also baptized, proves that infants (and apparently others) can and should be baptized by virtue of a head-of-household coming to faith.
However, such a stringent interpretation seems to go beyond what is actually stated, exegetically demanded, or even contextually suggested. Even while only the jailor’s faith is specifically mentioned, in order to be taken as some peadobaptists do, the following improbable points would necessarily follow: 1) The whole household heard Paul’s salvation message. 2) The jailer believed the gospel, but the rest of the household didn’t. 3) They were all baptized anyway, regardless of whether they were infants, adolescents, or other adults. 4) The entire family was overcome with joy that only the head-of-household had believed and acted upon a message that the rest either weren’t capable of comprehending, or had willfully ignored or rejected.
Thus it seems more reasonable, to me, to think that while the jailer’s personal salvation may indeed have been the object of the household’s joy most specifically being referenced, this could very well be on account of his instrumental role in the rest of the family then also being introduced to the gospel as well. (Or maybe, given the nature of his occupation, the jailor had been a “rough” individual, and the family realized that through his conversion he was a changed person..?) Notably, a number of literal translations do prefer the household conversion perspective, such as the NASB, where verse 34 reads: “And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.” (See also NKJV.)
4.
Acts 18:8 simply states that Crispus’ household believed, as was the case with other Corinthians who were then baptized.
5. Outside those related in Acts, the Apostle Paul makes the only other mention of household baptism in the New Testament (
1 Cor. 1:16). We again get a more complete picture when we put all of the relevant information together, whereby we learn that the members of this household were the first “converts” in Achaia, who were active in serving the saints (
1 Cor. 16:15). It also seems likely that Stephanas’ household may have been among the “believers” whom Luke refers to alongside Crispus’ household in
Acts 18:8, in that Corinth was the capital city of the Roman province of Achaia.
In conclusion, from contextual information found in all of these household passages it seems that only those old enough to comprehend, receive, and experience the transforming effects of the gospel are specifically being talked about. (I also find it at least notable in this regard that in
Acts 8:12 Luke only specifies that baptism was given to men and women, while infants are not mentioned.)
Again, I realize that there are other substantial and arguably weightier issues involved in the Reformed justification of infant baptism. But these household passages are in fact frequently invoked as comprising very strong support for infant baptism. For myself, I have had to agree with the conclusion of this writer on the matter:
George Beasley-Murray (1916–2000; English Baptist):
“Luke, in writing these narratives, does not have in view infant members of the families. His language cannot be pressed to extend to them. He has in mind ordinary believers and uses language only applicable to them. Abuse of it leads to the degradation of Scripture.”
(
Baptism in the New Testament, 315)"
