Are Catholics "born again"?

[dalcent]

Whole households were reported to be baptized in the bible yet this is overlooked, why?

Obviously this is one of the strongest scriptural arguments for pedobaptism but we have no proof even one of these households contained any infants (below the age of reason) only probabilities.

Actually in fairness when I was at Pentecostal bible school they gave a very even rendition of both sides of the argument for infant/believer’s baptism. What they did leave out though was mention of the recorded historical practice of the early Christian centuries.

As they are so convinced by the necessity of having a coherent comprehending faith they aren’t going to change doctrine through a probability. They would need undeniable proof which leaves them speechless. For them to accept the believer’s baptism doctrine it is demanded of them they accept a sacramental theological world-view. This is a massive change.

Most of these people won’t even change their doctrine when faced with totally definitive biblical texts: such as Acts 2:38’s enunciation of ‘baptismal regeneration.’

 

[dalcent]

It is an odd concept isn’t it? Someone shuffling in and filling the preacher’s ear with the sins he committed, and the preacher then telling him he is “back in”. It would presume that the preacher not only knew the condition of the confessor’s heart, but it would also presume that the preacher knew Jesus mind.

You are very mocking here JW: “back in” “odd” “filling the preacher’s ear”, etc. This was the method God put in place for the Israelites. Even if you can’t yet accept this continues in the New Covenant I think you’re stepping over the mark criticising the genuine God-given OT practice of confessing sin to a priest!

 

[rbarcia]

Honestly, I dont know He never mentions babies. But, He does mention one has to believe, repent. The logical conclusion is that babies cannot do this yet.

I agree. In some verses, it seems to indicate that there were no infants, for example, look at Acts 16.

**

Acts 16

32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

**

In verse 32, he spoke with everyone in the house, it would seem odd to speak to infants. This is strong enough evidence, but after being baptized in verse 33, verse 34 says the whole household ** believed **. Obviously, an infant cannot believe yet. Here we have an example, with context, of the whole household believing. So it is quite obvious there was no infant.

 

[JohnWilliams]

You are very mocking here JW: “back in” “odd” “filling the preacher’s ear”, etc. This was the method God put in place for the Israelites. Even if you can’t yet accept this continues in the New Covenant I think you’re stepping over the mark criticising the genuine God-given OT practice of confessing sin to a priest!

I believe that confessing sin to a Priest is fine. To bretheren too. My criticism was lodged in regard to a Priest’s ability to tell you whether Jesus does or does not forgive you, for the two obvious reasons I stated. Perhaps a Priest doesn’t tell you whether you are back in or not.

 

[Damascus]

Honestly, I dont know He never mentions babies. But, He does mention one has to believe, repent. The logical conclusion is that babies cannot do this yet.

I must ask you why the parent can not affirm this for the child until the child can.

Be careful before you jump to an answer here. Think it through first.

 

[JohnWilliams]

I must ask you why the parent can not affirm this for the child until the child can.

This is what is done in lots of Protestant Churches.

 

[Damascus]

This is what is done in lots of Protestant Churches.

Thats my concern here really. All for Him seems to have confused me. There are so many interpretations of the Bible and implementations of beliefs of those or lack thereof.

 

[MariaG]

I am sure you will agree that ALL** false** doctrine is extra-scriptural.

False doctrine certainly would be extra-scriptural, examples of this would be the book of Mormon which are claimed to be further revelations of Jesus Christ. All new public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. New understanding of that which has been revealed continues.

False doctrine can also be improperly interpretated scripture, placing a meaning that is was not taught by the apostles. The teaching of a believer ONLY baptism, excluding infants is one such false doctrine.

I don’t know and indicated thus. I dreged up a couple of verses without much help. Do you know of the composition of one such household to which you alude in which an infant is present?

As I said, this would be implicit by “whole households” and as I indicated, I personally do not find those as compelling as Paul’s words comparing baptism to circumcision.

Do you have any scripture to support that infants were baptized? This is what I have been asking about re this subject.

I and others have shown you the scripture that supports infant baptism. I could go into the reasons again of circumcision and baptism, but it comes down to this. I say scripture supports the Catholic interpretation of being born again through baptism and being born again into the body of Christ is not limited to adults.

You claim otherwise and claim only adults can be baptized and use scripture.

We both use scripture and both would claim the leading of the Holy Spirit. So who is correct? And why can’t you look into the history of Christianity (first 3 centuries even) and see for yourself who interpretation is correct?

Perhaps you could review the whole thread.

It may have escaped your notice, but I have been with this thread since almost the beginning, and read every post before and since the 30th post of mine.

So far you are the only one who makes a claim that it keeps the little children from being born again. Can you support this?

Respectfully, I do not think you truly understood what we have been saying. The Catholic Church and most protestant churches for that matter, teach that one is born again through baptism. Therefore, if one chooses not to baptize infants, one is in fact, keeping the little children from being born again into the body of Christ as infants.

I understand that some do not believe one is born again through baptism but born again solely through belief must be present first, but as I said earlier, we both will cite scripture, think the other cannot see the truth because it has not been revealed to the other as it has been revealed to ourselves by the Holy Spirit. So show me in early christian history where ANY Christians at all did not believe we are born again through baptism and that infants were not supposed to be given this new life in Christ also.

con

 

[MariaG]

con.

I judge doctrine in part by it’s fruit.

As for the fruit you keep referring to, let’s look at the fruit. Look at the thousands of Catholic Charities and catholic groups that serve the Lord through ministery to the poor. And let’s also look at scripture. Scripture tells us that to let the weeds and wheat grow together. That also tells us that there will be bad people among the Christians. So yes, definitely look at the fruit. There is much good fruit in the Catholic Church. There is also bad. To think that only good fruit comes from a Church is to ignore scripture that tells us the weeds and wheat will grow together.( :bible1: Mt 13:24-30 )

Shouldn’t I be comfortable in having been baptized when I recieved Christ as my Savior?

Comfortable? Not a word I usually use with my born again experience as an adult but to each his own. Should you have comfort? Yes. But should you be comfortable in your interpretation in confining this baptism and becoming part of the body of Christ to adults keeping the little children from Him? Definitely not and a simple look at the writings of Christians for over 1600 years will show you who is the one has been misled.

Comfortable sitting in your belief that yours is the biblical interpretation? No. Especially when if you are correct, there are millions who misled into baptizing their infants when a simple fix on your part is to show me and others the historical writings that interpret as you do.

I can show you many who interpret and believe scripture and the apostles taught infant baptism. I am just asking for some early christians who claim infant baptism is contrary to the teachings of the apostles and scripture. Should be easy if you are correct. Early teachings on infant baptism

The Catholic Church is the church that anybody claiming to be christian belonged to for over 1000 years. No christians were not Catholic.

It is beholden upon you to show that your INTERPRETATION of scripture is the accurate one and in fact you are not part of those who have come along as scripture warns. Scripture AND the Early writings (writings for 1600 years!) all support infant baptism.

We are born again through baptism. This gift is not confined to adults but is freely given to even infants. One must continue to walk in the grace given as one grows, but that does not in anyway diminish the miracle of being able to be born again into the body of Christ even as an infant.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[Damascus]

Did anyone bother to read Gregory’s Posts here?

 

[MariaG]

EXACTLY. Now, would it have been a more comfortable decision for me to decide that a pastor took care of baptism for me when I was an infant and had not a clue what was going on? Was it more “comfortable” for me to make a grown-up decision for my Savior, and believe I had a need to be baptized based on Scripture?

The gift of salvation does not need adult understanding.

And which is more comfortable, sticking with what you believe to be scriptural interpretation that is actually an interpretation of a fairly recent invention, or taking a look at christian writings that interpret scripture other than what you understand now and realize God might have other plans for you?

I have not tried to make a case against infant baptism in this thread. I am sure that Jesus would look on this as an effort to please Him. I have tried to make a case FOR a conscious decision for Christ, and then baptism. Nobody seems to want to hear it as much as I have tried.

IF one is an adult, then one must make a conscious decision for Christ. Believe, Repent and be baptized. But the gift of salvation is not denied to infants.

One is born again through baptism. Baptism should not be denied to infants or one is denying them the gift of being born again into the body of Christ.

The problem is not that we disagree ( or are not listening) with you as how to an adult is born again into the body of Christ. The problem is you lack the fullness of truth that infants may also recieve this gift.

You asked if Catholic are born again. The answer is yes. And infants and children may also be born again into the family of God.

Are you against baptism after a person makes a decision for Christ and repents

Why would I be against this and how on earth can you get this from my posts? That is as ludicrous as me asking you if you are against infants recieving the gift of salvation and being born again into the body of Christ. (Although the question should be asked of what do you think happens to children who have not yet been born again into the body of Christ?)

Again, if one has never been born again into the body of Christ, and chooses to repent and be baptized, this is a cause for rejoicing.

It is also a cause for rejoicing when the little children/infants are born again into the family of God. God is not stingy with His gift and does not deny the children His mercy.

The problem is that we do not disagree with you in that an adult is born again into the body of Christ when they repent and are baptized. The problem is that you do not seem to understand that infants can also be born again into His family and can continue to walk in His grace without ever needing to baptized again once they do have an adult understanding.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[MariaG]

If you read this thread I think you will find that the verses that have been used to support infant baptism have pretty consistently backfired on those who brought them. And I repeatedly suggested that I am confident that the Lord would look fondly on the practice.

As to whether an adult is comfortable leaving it with their infant baptism, is up to the individual. If they have a genuine life in Christ it likely doesn’t matter. If somebody believes they are born again as an adult, simply because they were baptized as an infant I would not be personally comfortable with.

The decision to be made is to repent and live your life for Christ (it could be the moment you are chosen). Let me be more specific regarding the condition of the heart that is necessary for salvation:

Romans 10:9+ That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

This is circumcision of the heart and is reinforced through baptism. Repentence leads to salvation:

John 3:3 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Some of the baptized:

Mat 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
Mat 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Aha. Maybe we are not as far apart as I thought.

First off, though, respectfully, I disagree with you on the scripture “backfiring”. And also respectfully, you need to show where your interpretation is consistent with Christian teachings. We have showed several sources that show that Christians did(do) interpret the scripture to include infants. You have shown nothing but your own interpretation of scripture and no other source to confirm this interpretation.

However, I bolded the statement in your post.

The Catholic Church does not teach, nor has it ever taught that one can be baptized as an infant and be saved if they never choose to walk with the grace given to them as an adult. Being baptized and going to Mass every week is not enough. One much have a deeper conversion so one is not a lukewarm Christian that Christ will spit out of His mouth.

But again, you then give us YOUR interpretation of Scripture. We have given you ours as well as references to early Christians who clearly taught that infants were also to be baptized into the kingdom of God. Please, do some research and show us where in history, any Christians interpret scripture as you do confining baptism only to adults.

We do not deny your understanding of how an adult is born again into the family of God. We reject that little children/infants may not also partake of this gift. Salvation is not dependent on adult understanding but is a free gift from God.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[dalcent]

The logical conclusion is that babies cannot do this yet.

First you accepted some evangelical axioms as self-evident: God saves people through the fiduciary faith alone of the recipient.

Then taking this as established fact you interpret the rest of Scripture to fit in with your a priori belief. Truly, evangelicals ‘do not hesitate to read between the lines if such a reading is needed to preserve their position, a position that precedes their scriptural interpretation’: and then they call this the “logical conclusion”!

This is the real reason “Bible-believing” Christians interpret many verses wrongly. It’s why you reject Scripture’s clear teaching on the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:29) or baptismal regeneration (Acts 2:38).

Regarding infant baptism you should remember the important of headship. The whole human race died through the headship of Adam. The whole human race can be redeemed in the headship of Christ. And a non-sentient infant can be brought in God’s covenants through the headship of his own father/parents. Examples of the importance of headship could be multiplied. The fate of children is usually tied in with their parents.

Romans 5:
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned–
13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

 

[JohnWilliams]

As I said, this would be implicit by “whole households” and as I indicated, I personally do not find those as compelling as Paul’s words comparing baptism to circumcision.

But you completely misunderstand that Paul was speaking of a circumcision of the heart, and not about a literal circumcision at all. Your verse reinforces baptism after a believer has made a decision for Christ, and has a circumcision of the heart. You continue to blatantly misinterpret to suit your doctrinal goals. I understand doctrinal scales on eyes. I was among the indoctrinated until last spring. Again, your verse:

col 2:11-12
11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

You wrote:

“It is quite clear that Paul is comparing circumcision to baptism. When did most Jews get circumcized? As 8 day old infants.”

The opposite is “quite clear”. You completely misunderstood this verse. Circumcision made without hands. This would be a circumcision of the heart.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Then taking this as established fact you interpret the rest of Scripture to fit in with your a priori belief. Truly, evangelicals ‘do not hesitate to read between the lines if such a reading is needed to preserve their position, a position that precedes their scriptural interpretation’: and then they call this the “logical conclusion”!

Hello,
You are on slippery ground here because we can say the same thing about the CC.

This is the real reason “Bible-believing” Christians interpret many verses wrongly. It’s why you reject Scripture’s clear teaching on the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:29) or baptismal regeneration (Acts 2:38).

Again we can say the same thing about the CC

The fate of children is usually tied in with their parents.

I agree, but we are told to raise our children up the way they should go and they will return(paraphrasing, in Proverbs somewhere)If you are a saved parent of course you are going to raise that child to love and know who Jesus Christ is and what He did for us. What happens when a person is baptized in the CC and then their parents dont teach them a thing about the CC(it happens)and they join a cult and committ suicide. You are telling me that person is going to go to heaven because they were baptized as a baby in the CC. Do you really believe that? According to the bible there has to be a profession of faith/believe and true repentance. A baby cant do that until they understand and are taught by their parents(or someone else)what it all means

Romans 5:
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned–
13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

AMEN, yes and we all have sinned and we all can be regenerated by believing in Christ. I think Im missing your point of these verses in regards to your argument.

 

[JohnWilliams]

Aha. Maybe we are not as far apart as I thought.

First off, though, respectfully, I disagree with you on the scripture “backfiring”.

That’s because your eyes are scaled over when, even as your own support for your position failed, you couldn’t see it.

And also respectfully, you need to show where your interpretation is consistent with Christian teachings. We have showed several sources that show that Christians did(do) interpret the scripture to include infants. You have shown nothing but your own interpretation of scripture and no other source to confirm this interpretation.

I even used your own favorite verse to reinforce baptism after a circumcision of the heart but you clearly will not see it.

However, I bolded the statement in your post.

The Catholic Church does not teach, nor has it ever taught that one can be baptized as an infant and be saved if they never choose to walk with the grace given to them as an adult. Being baptized and going to Mass every week is not enough. One much have a deeper conversion so one is not a lukewarm Christian that Christ will spit out of His mouth.

But again, you then give us YOUR interpretation of Scripture. We have given you ours as well as references to early Christians who clearly taught that infants were also to be baptized into the kingdom of God. Please, do some research and show us where in history, any Christians interpret scripture as you do confining baptism only to adults.

We do not deny your understanding of how an adult is born again into the family of God. We reject that little children/infants may not also partake of this gift. Salvation is not dependent on adult understanding but is a free gift from God.

God Bless,
Maria

I believe infant baptism is fine and likely the Lord appreciates the gesture.
I don’t believe we have to pretend that it is based in scripture when it is, at best, elusive.

 

[JohnWilliams]

con.

As for the fruit you keep referring to, let’s look at the fruit. Look at the thousands of Catholic Charities and catholic groups that serve the Lord through ministery to the poor.

Per capita the Evangelical Christian Church beats the pants off the Catholic Church in helping the poor, and money is not extorted from parishoners. (For example the Church needed the 1040 income tax return of a friend of mine, and told him he had to tithe in order to put his kid in a Catholic school.)
By contrast my evangelical church grew from 2 families to 18000, with an annual budget of 33 million dollars in the 20th year, without ever taking an offering or preaching a single sermon on financial stewardship.

But then we have to look at bad fruit as well as the good. The Crusades, the Christians killed in the reformation, or try a Yahoo to find the hundreds of millions of dollars the Church has paid to thousands of plantiffs - for a problem the nature of which does not exist in the protestant church.

And let’s also look at scripture. Scripture tells us that to let the weeds and wheat grow together. That also tells us that there will be bad people among the Christians. So yes, definitely look at the fruit. There is much good fruit in the Catholic Church. There is also bad. To think that only good fruit comes from a Church is to ignore scripture that tells us the weeds and wheat will grow together.( :bible1: Mt 13:24-30 )

Comfortable? Not a word I usually use with my born again experience as an adult but to each his own. Should you have comfort? Yes. But should you be comfortable in your interpretation in confining this baptism and becoming part of the body of Christ to adults keeping the little children from Him?

You are the only one so far that makes the preposterous claim that not baptizing an infant keeps the baby from Christ. Does you particular parish also sell absolution? And baptism’s perhaps?
And you continue to beat the disingenuous drumbeat that I am against infant baptism, when I am not.
Has infant baptism displaced adult baptism? Yes. Is it a good thing that older children and adults don’t get baptized after they make a decision for Christ?

Definitely not and a simple look at the writings of Christians for over 1600 years will show you who is the one has been misled.

Comfortable sitting in your belief that yours is the biblical interpretation? No. Especially when if you are correct, there are millions who misled into baptizing their infants when a simple fix on your part is to show me and others the historical writings that interpret as you do.

I can show you many who interpret and believe scripture and the apostles taught infant baptism. I am just asking for some early christians who claim infant baptism is contrary to the teachings of the apostles and scripture. Should be easy if you are correct. Early teachings on infant baptism

The Catholic Church is the church that anybody claiming to be christian belonged to for over 1000 years. No christians were not Catholic.

It is beholden upon you to show that your INTERPRETATION of scripture is the accurate one and in fact you are not part of those who have come along as scripture warns. Scripture AND the Early writings (writings for 1600 years!) all support infant baptism.

As do I. I also support baptism after one makes a decision for Christ. Would you like it if I said over and over ad nauseum that “MariaG is against adult baptism”? Do you wonder why you continue to want to tar me with a brush that doesn’t apply? Increasingly I seem to sense jealousy toward my relationship with my Savior in this forum. A really good read for folks here is “Peace Child”. This is about a missionary couple with a 5 month old son who were dropped off in the middle of a tribe of head-hunters. It is a course in salvation 101. Might be refreshing for some here.

We are born again through baptism.

We are born again through a circumcision of the heart. God removes our stony hearts and replaces them with a heart of flesh.

This gift is not confined to adults but is freely given to even infants. One must continue to walk in the grace given as one grows, but that does not in anyway diminish the miracle of being able to be born again into the body of Christ even as an infant.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[djrakowski]

Per capita the Evangelical Christian Church beats the pants off the Catholic Church in helping the poor, and money is not extorted from parishoners. (For example the Church needed the 1040 income tax return of a friend of mine, and told him he had to tithe in order to put his kid in a Catholic school.)
By contrast my evangelical church grew from 2 families to 18000, with an annual budget of 33 million dollars in the 20th year, without ever taking an offering or preaching a single sermon on financial stewardship.

Knock it off with the incendiary rhetoric and produce some facts. You’re comparing a worldwide church that encompasses 1 billion believers, among them the very poorest of the poor, to your large, wealthy American congregation and its understandably large budget. Furthermore, you’ve produced no statistics to justify this claim.

You also know that the parish that supposedly demanded a 1040 to prove whether your friend was tithing, if this is a true story, was doing something that is horribly wrong and decidedly not in line with Church teaching. But I could also tell you that my sister-in-law used to attend an evangelical church in which you couldn’t be a member unless you gave 10% of your gross income and volunteered in at least one ministry. Were they wrong? Of course! Does every evangelical church deserve to be placed in the same category as this one? Of course not.

But then we have to look at bad fruit as well as the good. The Crusades, the Christians killed in the reformation, or try a Yahoo to find the hundreds of millions of dollars the Church has paid to thousands of plantiffs - for a problem the nature of which does not exist in the protestant church.

Oh, you DON’T want to go there, do you? Take a few minutes to read the following:

Sexual Abuse in Social Context
Sexual Abuse of Children by Protestant Ministers
Voice to Stop Baptist Predators

Oh yeah, but this is a problem “the nature of which does not exist in the protestant church.” (which makes me wonder - what is *the *Protestant church? There really is no one Protestant church, is there?)

Ever heard that saying about people who live in glass houses? This is one of those areas in which neither of us should be making accusations.

 

[Mickey]

Per capita the Evangelical Christian Church beats the pants off the Catholic Church in helping the poor, and money is not extorted from parishoners. (For example the Church needed the 1040 income tax return of a friend of mine, and told him he had to tithe in order to put his kid in a Catholic school.)
By contrast my evangelical church grew from 2 families to 18000, with an annual budget of 33 million dollars in the 20th year, without ever taking an offering or preaching a single sermon on financial stewardship.

But then we have to look at bad fruit as well as the good. The Crusades, the Christians killed in the reformation, or try a Yahoo to find the hundreds of millions of dollars the Church has paid to thousands of plantiffs

Careful with the stones you throw, my friend. There are many sins from all sides throughout history–we are called to hate the sin and love the sinner.

God removes our stony hearts and replaces them with a heart of flesh.

And when this happens, only love remains.

 

[jim1130]

While you wrote this in regard to Acts 2:38+ I don’t find support for your baby assertion.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Act 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls.

Same word in the interlinear:
(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) Acts 2:39 umin <5213> {TO YOU} gar <1063> {FOR} estin <2076> (5748) {IS} h <3588> {THE} epaggelia <1860> {PROMISE} kai <2532> {AND} toiV <3588> {TO} teknoiV <5043> {YOUR} umwn <5216> {CHILDREN,} kai <2532> {AND} pasin <3956> {TO ALL} toiV <3588> {THOSE} eiV <1519> {AT} makran <3112> {A DISTANCE,} osouV <3745> an <302> {AS MANY AS} proskaleshtai <4341> (5667) {MAY CALL} kurioV <2962> o <3588> {[THE] LORD} qeoV <2316> hmwn <2257> {OUR GOD.}

When I was baptized a few young men of maybe 8 or 9 that I would characterize as children had made a decision for Christ and were being baptized as well.

Strong’s

** children**
New Testament Greek Definition:
5043** teknon {tek’-non}**

from the base of 5098; TDNT - 5:636,759; n n
AV - child 77, son 21, daughter 1; 99

1. offspring, children
   1a) child
   1a) a male child, a son
   1b) metaph.
   1b1) the name transferred to that intimate and reciprocal
   relationship formed between men by the bonds of love,
   friendship, trust, just as between parents and children
   1b2) in affectionate address, such as patrons, helpers,
   teachers and the like employ: my child
   1b3) in the NT, pupils or disciples are called children of
   their teachers, because the latter by their instruction
   nourish the minds of their pupils and mould their
   characters
   1b4) children of God: in the OT of “the people of Israel” as
   especially dear to God, in the NT, in Paul’s writings, all
   who are led by the Spirit of God and thus closely related
   to God
   1b5) children of the devil: those who in thought and action are
   prompted by the devil, and so reflect his character
   1c) metaph.
   1c1) of anything who depends upon it, is possessed by a
   desire or affection for it, is addicted to it
   1c2) one who is liable to any fate
   1c2a) thus children of a city: it citizens and inhabitants
   1c3) the votaries of wisdom, those souls who have, as it
   were, been nurtured and moulded by wisdom
   1c4) cursed children, exposed to a curse and doomed to God’s
   wrath or penalty

Luke 18:15 – Jesus said “Let the children come to me.” Did this exclude children who were not of the age of reason?

Look (source: scripturecatholic.com/baptism_qa.html)).

Acts 2:39. Peter says that baptism is for children as well as adults. The Greek word used for children is “teknon.” This is the same word used to describe eight-day old infants in Acts 21:21.

Acts 16:15. Lydia’s household (again, in the Greek, “oikos,” which includes children) was baptized based on Lydia’s faith.

Please show for me the verse that excludes infants from baptism. You have never shown that. You have made a presumption over your own interpretation.