C
CRW
Guest
Who would be so blind as to limit this expression of God’s grace and mercy to adolescents and adults and to exclude infants and children?. If John the Baptizer could be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1: 15), and if Jesus could say (Matt. 18: 6), “Whoever offends one of these little ones (Gk.“toddlers”) who believe in Me, it were better that he were drowned in the depth of the sea,” and if the Apostle Peter could say on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2: 39), "The promise is unto you and to your children," what mere mortal dare declare so gracious an invitation to be invalid for infants, or forbid the continuance of the Baptism of infants for coming generations? Quote my OP - link.CRW,
Let’s look at the quotes you cited…
Praise God, the whole family was saved! That verse does not prove anything for infant baptism. I assure you, if Paul baptized the whole household of Stephanas, there were no infants implicated.
Which words would be toward the effectually salvation of Peter, and subsequently his whole household (1 Corinthians 7:16). As is qualified by verse 16.
Apparently her whole family was saved. In fact, verse 40 refers to the household of Lydia as “brethren”, and Paul and Silas “comforted” them in Lydia’s house.
Yes, the jailer was baptized with his house… but in verse 30 he asked what shall I do to be saved. in verse 32 the gospel was shared with him… AND HIS HOUSE.
In verse 34 we see evidence that he and his whole house had believed the gospel that was preached to them…
I see no evidence for Infant Baptism in any of the quotes you cited… Dennis Kastens misinterpreted scripture I think.
Justin Martyr was absolutely right… Baptism IS the circumcision of the New Testament…
Would you like to discuss this relationship between circumcision and baptism further?
John
www.gideonsword.net