Lazerlike42:
That may be true of adults, but I would say that when Paul baptized whole households he must have baptized the children. There is an interesting parallel to today’s Catholics. Today, if parents wish their child baptized, they must promise to raise the child in the faith. So in the passages you refer to, the people had to have a faith. However, the Church doesn’t hold it against babies that they just so happen to be too young to understand, especially since we believe baptism saves us (so denying a child would be cruel). So basically, in both cases the baptised person is required to have faith, the only difference is when that faith will be had, now for adults and later for infants.
But see, that’s the whole danger right there, isn’t it? One piece of scripture mentions baptizing an entire household, but who’s to say that this particular household even* had* a baby? Not all that long ago, my house had me, my wife, my cat and two of her friends who were staying over for a couple of months while they looked for a house. Had a Christian come to my household to baptize our lot and come away saying s/he baptized everybody in the household, are we to assume that my cat was baptized as well? Might seem like a silly notion, but my cat would know just as much about the saving grace of our Lord than an infant would, which is to say nothing.
It sounds like you might be thinking about the concept of baptismal regeneration. The drawback to that concept is that it goes against passages like John 3:16, Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5 which tell us that salvation is by faith alone. Anything above and beyond faith in Jesus Christ as being necessary for salvation is a works-based salvation and faith PLUS works to attain salvation is to say that Jesus’ death on the cross wasn’t sufficient to purchase our salvation. When somebody says that we must be baptized in order to be saved, they aren’t convinced that Jesus’ death alone paid for our sins
(see Romans 5:8 or 2 Corinthians 5:21)…. and faith is about
complete trust in Jesus. Baptism is definitely an important step of obedience AFTER salvation, but by Biblical accounts, it is not a REQUIREMENT for salvation. If it was, the thief crucified alongside of Jesus would have been doomed to hell. But Jesus told him otherwise.
You mentioned,
“Today, if parents wish their child baptized, they must promise to raise the child in the faith.” A Christian mother and father can promise to raise a child in the Christian faith and that child could
still grow up to reject Jesus.
All who read this are, of course, free to disagree with me if they choose, but I don’t personally believe that God would send an unbaptized infant to hell. I don’t see how an infant would be held accountable for their own original sin. It also looks like King David believed as I do. As you may recall, David’s child died, yet he found consolation by saying,
“Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me” (see 2 Samuel 12:23). David knew that he would see his child in heaven one day, so he must have been assured that God would be fair to his child. Again, disagree if you wish, but that’s what many Born Again Christians believe.
