WarriorAngel said:
No, it does not say babies specifically, but it says 'households'.
We can surmise babies lived in the households. As well as slaves and their children.
When we have a household, altho not all have infants, but many people include their infants in a household count.
Peace!
Angel, regarding the household baptisms, three such baptisms are recorded in the Bible. Saint Luke mentions two of them in Acts: the household of Lydia, Acts 16:15 and the household of the Philippian jailer, Acts 16:30-33. Saint Paul mentions the third: the household of Stephanus, 1 Corinthians 1:16. It's important to note that in none of these baptisms are infants mentioned. That alone doesn't suffice to prove that infants weren't baptized. But in the case of the jailer, Saint Luke specifically says that "they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house."
How does one speak the word of the Lord to an infant? One cannot. Even this doesn't prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the term "household" excludes infants, but it does demonstrate that a household does not
necessarily include infants. Thus, the usage of this term can no longer be used as a proof of infant baptism in apostolic times.
Of course, you could also argue that the word of the Lord was only preached to the adults and older children in the jailer's home. But by such logic, I could just as well say that when households were baptized, the baptized individuals included only adults and older children. So we'd run into the same problem.
Now, some infant baptizers compare baptism to circumcision. They claim that baptism is the sign of God's covenant with the church, and just as Abraham's children were circumcized, so too should our infants be baptized. But there's a problem: one must be a
believer in order to be a part of the church. In other words, the "membership requirements" for the true Israel of God (the church) are somewhat different than for physical Israel. In the days of the Old Covenant, anyone who was born to Israelite parents was a child of Israel, a Jew, and an heir to the promise to Abraham. Such people were bound to the Sinai Covenant, regardless of what they believed. But the New Covenant in Christ's blood depends on faith, rather than on works of the Law. Thus, faith in Christ is required for one to be a child of Abraham, and a part of the true Israel (that is, the church). A baptized infant who grows up to be a godless atheist is not a child of Abraham, but a child of the devil. Yet the sinner on the cross, who was never baptized, became a child of Abraham by faith in Christ. Thus, if you happen to believe that baptism is like circumcision, then the logical conclusion of that belief is that the ordinance should only be given to those who are capable of having faith in Christ.
No, I don't know who you are referring to. There is no need to be defensive about this.
