Infant vs. Believer's Baptism

[Phil12123]

As I look back at post #105 dated July 19th (that’s like 14 pages ago, Phil!!!), I just have to ask you:
Does that make you the POT? Or the Kettle???

You’ve been stuck on one passage, for 14 pages and you have the audacity to call me a broken record?

**That one passage is the only one (or main one) from the lips of the Lord Jesus Christ that tells us who should be baptized. If everyone here would have simply believed it and expressed a desire to obey it, agreeing with its simple, unambiguous words, we would not be arguing about it for 14 pages. Personally I’ve been amazed at how tenaciously you and others here have held onto a practice that clearly violates that passage. And think about it—if infant baptism violates Christ’s clear command to baptize only disciples, then it is actually disobedience to His command, and what it that other than sin? So what it boils down to, is holding onto sin and not repenting of it. And it doesn’t matter how long that sin has been going on, because the command of Matt. 28:19-20 has been there all the while, ignored and disobeyed.

I will confess, though, that I did not think that sin occurred as early as the late 1st century, if the information about the catacombs is accurate. That is why I challenged you to show me where the 1st century church did it. That information does not prove to me, however, whether those were isolated incidents or whether the practice was more widespread. The ECF, quoted in various posts, would seem to indicate that many taught and practiced it. But I can’t imagine that no believers until the Anabaptists hundreds of years later recognized the error of that sin and attempted to correct it.

Nevertheless, it is a difficult thing to admit error, but if we see how it really does violate Christ’s command, we should be willing to see it as sin and endeavor to repent of it, no matter who else did not see it as such, or for how long they did not see it as such.

**

 

[NotWorthy]

This post (#299) is one of the reasons why I’ve come to love you so much, Phil!

Forget the rest of the proofs. If anything disagrees with what you have interpreted Matthew 28, then it’s irrelevant.

You actually are claiming to know more than all Christians for 15 centuries. I’m impressed.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

**
What I find even stranger, however, is this statement of yours from a later post:

**Try as I might, I can in no wise get the interpretation from Matthew 28 that you have provided here.

---

I confess I don’t understand that. It baffles me. After reaching excellent conclusions from your very good exegesis, with which I totally agree, you then “can in no wise get the interpretation from Matthew 28” that I have provided? But you just got that interpretation from your exegesis!! I would ask, how else can you interpret those verses other than how you yourself have already concluded from your exegesis that would be differently understood than how I have maintained all along? Other than your conclusion that the baptism, which should be done to all who become disciples, can actually be done before they become disciples, you have reached the very same conclusions that I have.

Help me out here, Grace Seeker. Am I missing something or misconstruing something you said?

I was seeing in the passage that baptism and teaching both have the same relationship to making disciples. (a)Those that were not part of the faith community, but come to Christ we baptize and teach all the things of Christ with after they profess faith in Christ in order to connect them to the body of Christ. (b) Those that are part of the faith community (I assume by being raised in it) we baptize and teach as part of the discipling process.

When I said that can’t get the same interpretation from Matthew 28 that you do, I was referring to the reasons you gave for saying that Matthew 28 is Jesus saying “Don’t baptize babies.” The problem I’m having right now is that I can’t find that post again. I know you didn’t put those words in Jesus’ mouth, but I remember it as something akin to that. Maybe if you can help me find that post or restate it for me (no I won’t accuse you of being repeating yourself, after all I’m asking for it) I can give you a better answer. I know that I don’t see children explicitly stated in Matthew 28, and the way that you described inferring that they were implied was not something that I could see.

 

[onenow1]

Context, contex , context.
Matt.28:
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Lets see : Vs.19, make students [disciples] of all nations,

           Vs.20, Apostles teach after baptism not before.

I’m not the brightesr bulb on the block but thats the way I read it !

Peace, OneNow1,

 

[Phil12123]

This post (#299) is one of the reasons why I’ve come to love you so much, Phil!

Forget the rest of the proofs. If anything disagrees with what you have interpreted Matthew 28, then it’s irrelevant.

You actually are claiming to know more than all Christians for 15 centuries. I’m impressed.

**Yep, and I can feeeeel the looooovvvvveeeee!

Seriously, though, can “the rest of the proofs” really be valid if they contradict Matt. 28:19-20? I mean, can you give me an alternative “interpretation” that is true to what Jesus said in those verses, and consistent with the CCC’s requirement of faith? The CCC views the passage as referring to “adult baptism” and then proceeds to teach infant baptism in later sections. And, as I pointed out in regard to Mark 16, infants cannot be in view there since believing is required (“he who believes and is baptized…” and “whoever does not believe is condemned”). So if you just look at Matt. and Mark, Jesus’ instructions teach, do they not, that disciples or believers are to be baptized, not infants? Right? I mean, I know you want to look at other things, but for just one minute, can we just honestly look at Matt. and Mark and see what they say?

No, I really don’t claim to know more than anyone else. All I want to do is be faithful to the Lord and obedient to Him. I don’t always do that, but that is my goal.
**

 

[NotWorthy]

**Yep, and I can feeeeel the looooovvvvveeeee!

Seriously, though, can “the rest of the proofs” really be valid if they contradict Matt. 28:19-20? **Who says they contradict Matthew 28? You’re the only that is claiming they contradict. Catholics don’t feel that way.

I mean, can you give me an alternative “interpretation” that is true to what Jesus said in those verses, and consistent with the CCC’s requirement of faith? The CCC views the passage as referring to “adult baptism” and then proceeds to teach infant baptism in later sections. And, as I pointed out in regard to Mark 16, infants cannot be in view there since believing is required (“he who believes and is baptized…” and “whoever does not believe is condemned”). So if you just look at Matt. and Mark, Jesus’ instructions teach, do they not, that disciples or believers are to be baptized, not infants? Right? I mean, I know you want to look at other things, but for just one minute, can we just honestly look at Matt. and Mark and see what they say?

If you are able to accuse Faithful Christians of 15 centuries of perpetuating a sin, numerous Christians who demonstrated their love for Christ by dying for Him, then it surely seems like you are claiming to know more than them.

 

[Phil12123]

I was seeing in the passage that baptism and teaching both have the same relationship to making disciples. (a)Those that were not part of the faith community, but come to Christ we baptize and teach all the things of Christ with after they profess faith in Christ in order to connect them to the body of Christ. (b) Those that are part of the faith community (I assume by being raised in it) we baptize and teach as part of the discipling process.

I’m not sure I’m following you. Teaching is something that can be part of making the disciples (as preaching is), as well as something done to instruct new disciples to go out and do the same, making their own new disciples. Baptizing, on the other hand, would not be done both before and after making the disciples, but only after, since baptism, as you pointed out, is not a means of making disciples but a sign connecting the new disciples to the faith community. As such, baptism would not be for infants (not having faith), who would not be baptized until they did believe on their own, at which point they would need to be connected with the other believers.

When I said that can’t get the same interpretation from Matthew 28 that you do, I was referring to the reasons you gave for saying that Matthew 28 is Jesus saying “Don’t baptize babies.” The problem I’m having right now is that I can’t find that post again. I know you didn’t put those words in Jesus’ mouth, but I remember it as something akin to that. Maybe if you can help me find that post or restate it for me (no I won’t accuse you of being repeating yourself, after all I’m asking for it) I can give you a better answer. I know that I don’t see children explicitly stated in Matthew 28, and the way that you described inferring that they were implied was not something that I could see.

I think I made the conclusion that Jesus is saying, “Don’t baptize babies,” by (1) the fact that the infants that were brought to Him were not baptized, but only held and blessed, showing us an example that He set, and (2) His instructions in Matt. 28 excluded infants by saying “disciples” were to be made and baptized, and infants did not qualify as such. They certainly don’t qualify as believers in Mark 16.

 

[NotWorthy]

I think I made the conclusion that Jesus is saying, “Don’t baptize babies,” by (1) the fact that the infants that were brought to Him were not baptized, but only held and blessed, showing us an example that He set, andBut Phil, here’s the rub. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus baptizes nobody. So you can’t use the absence of infant baptisms to justify your theology.

(2) His instructions in Matt. 28 excluded infants by saying “disciples” were to be made and baptized, and infants did not qualify as such. They certainly don’t qualify as believers in Mark 16.

And you still haven’t addressed the paralytic, Jarius’ daughter, the Gentile woman’s child, the Capernaum official’s child, the Centurion’s servant.

All of these people were saved because of someone else’s faith, just as Catholics teach with infants.

 

[Phil12123]

Who says they contradict Matthew 28? You’re the only that is claiming they contradict. Catholics don’t feel that way. Phil, if you look at any number of posts over the last 14 pages, you will see that the CC teaches that the parents of the kids can attest to the childs baptism. We use the “kingdom belongs to such as these”, “whole households (with any exceptions noted) were baptized” and “the faith of others can save you”, and “baptism replaces circumcision” (which occurred at 8 days old) to teach infant baptisms. The CC uses the history of the Church from it’s infancy. There are probably more backings for this teaching, but these have been addressed to you “like a broken record”. They don’t contradict Matthew in the Churches opinion.

I didn’t really think you would do it. Again, can you just for one minute, just look at Matt. and Mark and tell me what those two passages say, without reciting all the rest above? Just look at Matt. and Mark. Do some honest exegesis of those two passages alone, without all the other things you want to read into them. What do they say? Do they say infants? Does the CCC say they apply to infants?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I personally do not believe baptism in any way brings one into a salvation relationship with Christ, BUT I do think it is a bad practice to argue against infant baptism… I’d say in the realm that if the parents are born again regenerate Christians that it is scripturally supportive to do so.

 

[Phil12123]

me: I think I made the conclusion that Jesus is saying, “Don’t baptize babies,” by (1) the fact that the infants that were brought to Him were not baptized, but only held and blessed, showing us an example that He set, and

But Phil, here’s the rub. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus baptizes nobody. So you can’t use the absence of infant baptisms to justify your theology.

But in John’s Gospel, those infants and children are not even mentioned, though we are told Jesus made and, by His disciples, baptized more than John the Baptist. So, should we ignore those infants entirely, since they are not in John’s Gospel? Or do we just say they might have been held, blessed, AND baptized, since no other baptisms are mentioned? Don’t you think it odd that if they were indeed baptized that the Holy Spirit did not think their baptism was important enough to have the synoptic gospel writers mention it? If baptism is the “door” to life and salvation as the CC teaches, why is its mention so strangely absent. Even in Matt. 10 when He sends the Twelve out, no mention at all is made of baptism. Nor when He sent the seventy out in Luke 10, no mention of baptism at all. And yet, supposedly, no one can enter the kingdom without it. Hmmmm… perhaps for another thread.

And you still haven’t addressed the paralytic, Jarius’ daughter, the Gentile woman’s child, the Capernaum official’s child, the Centurion’s servant.

All of these people were saved because of someone else’s faith, just as Catholics teach with infants.

**Weren’t those dealing with physical healing? Wouldn’t they rather be examples of intercessory prayer being answered because of the faith of the one seeking the healing on another’s behalf? Can we really extend that to the salvation of a soul. Can my faith really save my child’s soul? God’s promise to the jailer, through Paul, was to him personally, God knowing that if he believed it would result in his whole household coming to faith as well. And that is exactly what happened. He believed “with all his house” (Acts 16:34). Obviously no infants there. He and his whole house believed. But is there any other scriptural justification for saying I can believe for my infant child and somehow he is then to be considered a “disciple” to be baptized and taught to obey all that Jesus commanded me? No way, Jose.
**

 

[NotWorthy]

**I didn’t really think you would do it. **Why should you? After 15 pages of this thread, you haven’t? Besides, God has blessed me with abundant patience!

Again, can you just for one minute, just look at Matt. and Mark and tell me what those two passages say, without reciting all the rest above? Just look at Matt. and Mark. Do some honest exegesis of those two passages alone, without all the other things you want to read into them. What do they say

Phil, I gave you four examples. Which part of Matt. and Mark are you talking about? “Bring the children to me”? “Go to the nations and baptize”?

Am I just supposed to look at one verse and develop my whole theology on baptism, or am I to look at Scripture as a whole, seeing how the Israelites brought children into the Covenant at 8 days old with Circumcision, and realizing that Baptism brings us into the New Covenant…

That statement “Do some honest exegesis of those two passages alone” seems to point to the whole crux of the matter with you. Catholics aren’t “Sola Verse-ura”. We use all 73 books to develope doctrine.

 

[NotWorthy]

**But in John’s Gospel, those infants and children are not even mentioned, though we are told Jesus made and, by His disciples, baptized more than John the Baptist. So, should we ignore those infants entirely, since they are not in John’s Gospel? **Phil, who came to be baptized in John’s Gospel? Where does it say they in John 3 and 4 that they were not baptizing infants? Phil, you also know that this was not the Sacramental Baptism that the Church was doing after Pentecost, don’t you? That’s why Jesus didn’t baptize anyone in John’s Gospel. Would have simply added confusion.

**
Or do we just say they might have been held, blessed, AND baptized, since no other baptisms are mentioned? Don’t you think it odd that if they were indeed baptized that the Holy Spirit did not think their baptism was important enough to have the synoptic gospel writers mention it? If baptism is the “door” to life and salvation as the CC teaches, why is its mention so strangely absent.**]IT was very important. That’s why the Holy Spririt guided the Church to baptize infants. Where did you get the idea that the Bible was a Catechism? If it were, the whole thing would have been written along the lines of Leviticus.

Even in Matt. 10 when He sends the Twelve out, no mention at all is made of baptism. Nor when He sent the seventy out in Luke 10, no mention of baptism at all. And yet, supposedly, no one can enter the kingdom without it. Hmmmm… perhaps for another thread.

The Kingdom wasn’t here, yet. Baptism before Christ’s death and resurrection would have been Non-Sacramental. It would have created much confusion. “Were you Baptized by Peter? Oh yeah? When? Oh, that was before Christ’s death. You need to be baptized again”. You see the point. The Holy Spirit wouldn’t come to us through baptism until after Jesus’ Ascension.
**

Weren’t those dealing with physical healing? Wouldn’t they rather be examples of intercessory prayer being answered because of the faith of the one seeking the healing on another’s behalf? Can we really extend that to the salvation of a soul. Can my faith really save my child’s soul?

Jesus’ healing of our physical ailments was pre-figuring His healing of our Spiritual Ailments. He draws the link explicitly during the Paralytics healing. All of these healings show what Christ does to our souls when He washes us of our sins.

God’s promise to the jailer, through Paul, was to him personally, God knowing that if he believed it would result in his whole household coming to faith as well.

Luke may have wanted to explain that a little better than, because he said, “Believe … and your whole household will be saved”.

And that is exactly what happened. He believed “with all his house” (Acts 16:34). Obviously no infants there.

Why is it obvious Phil? I don’t see any obvious signs of a childless household.

He and his whole house believed. But is there any other scriptural justification for saying I can believe for my infant child and somehow he is then to be considered a “disciple” to be baptized and taught to obey all that Jesus commanded me? No way, Jose.

**Sorry, Jose agrees with me and has for 2000 years. A Child becomes a Child of God at Baptism. As he grows up, it’s his job to remain a child or he can turn away like the Prodigal Son. He can always return or stay away. Either way, his Salvation is up to him when he grows up. Just because he’s baptized as a child doesn’t mean the Church teaches he’ll remain “saved”.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

since baptism, as you pointed out, is not a means of making disciples but a sign connecting the new disciples to the faith community. .

It is not just disciples that need to be connected to the community of faith, but also children who are raised in that context. Disciple does is not synonymous with believer. Disciple means learner, student. Judas was a disciple, but not a believer. If we are to be baptizing disciples, then we need to be baptizing all who are submitting themselves to being learners, students of the teaching of Jesus, and that includes not just adults who have professed faith, but children who are growing in it.

The purpose of being a disciple is to grow to be like Jesus oneself. Adult believers are no farther along this path than the chidlren we must become like to enter the kingdom of heaven. If we are only to baptize those who have come to true faith, maybe we should wait until we see this required childlikeness in people before we baptize adults.

On the other points, I won’t ask you to repeat yourself by repeating what others have said. I see where you are coming from in that Jesus’ had his disciples baptizing in John and there is no mention that they baptized babies or even children even though we see that he blessed them in Matthew. But it is an argument from silence, and I just don’t find it conclusive, and less so than that Jesus did invite children to come to him and not be kept away.

 

[Phil12123]

Besides, God has blessed me with abundant patience!

Some might call it “incredible obstinacy.” I will say, if there is one thing I’ve learned over the past 15 pages, it is that an ancient church council made up of people like those posting to this thread could easily have decreed that infant baptism was proper, regardless of dissenting voices who maintained it was contrary to Jesus’ command and instructions. The decision to ignore His words would then firmly establish a practice that would last for hundreds of years. So, really, it would not surprise me if it were not until the Anabaptists that a united voice could be heard over all the others, that Christ’s words should be followed and obeyed, regardless of centuries of practice to the contrary. Of course, with the CC in power and with no separation of church and state, to voice that position undoubtedly cost many their lives. But they would have counted the cost and considered it worthy of the sacrifice in order to remain faithful to their Lord and His words of instruction. Neither cruel rack nor fiery stake would silence their voices, still heard today by those who seek to follow the will of God rather than the traditions of men.

Phil, I gave you four examples.

Is that what I asked for?

Which part of Matt. and Mark are you talking about? “Bring the children to me”? “Go to the nations and baptize”?

As if you don’t know.

Am I just supposed to look at one verse and develop my whole theology on baptism, or am I to look at Scripture as a whole,

**All Scripture is important, but what I asked for, as you know full well, was for you to start at the relevant passages in Matt. 28 and Mark 16, and do an honest exegesis of them first. But you refuse. And the reason is obvious. To do so would make you see what you are disobeying, denying, and fighting against. Only when you read into them all the rest, all of which are disputable, can you escape that conclusion. **

That statement “Do some honest exegesis of those two passages alone” seems to point to the whole crux of the matter with you. Catholics aren’t “Sola Verse-ura”. We use all 73 books to develope doctrine.

The debate that has occurred in this thread would seem to indicate that what I think is clear, is not clear to you, and what you think is clear, is not clear to me. Why is that? We are both looking at the same verses. Do they say infant baptism is proper or don’t they? I want to first look at the verses that would tell us WHO Jesus said to baptize, and you want to ignore that and look instead at verses that might say whether baptizing infants was done by the church in Acts (households, etc.) and why it might have been done by them (circumcision, etc.). I say, if we can determine by even only one or two passages WHO Jesus said to baptize, then all the rest is irrelevant. But you reject that, and so our debate lives on. It is not a matter of being “Sola Verse-ura,” but of our different approaches to the issue. I consider what Christ said more important than what the church later did, or years later continued to do, even for hundreds of years.

 

[minkymurph]

What is baptisimal regeneration? Is that the same as passing on your faith in a physical sense? (Bad terminology but that’s how I understand it.)

 

[NotWorthy]

Some might call it “incredible obstinacy.” I will say, if there is one thing I’ve learned over the past 15 pages, it is that an ancient church council made up of people like those posting to this thread could easily have decreed that infant baptism was proper, regardless of dissenting voices who maintained it was contrary to Jesus’ command and instructions. The decision to ignore His words would then firmly establish a practice that would last for hundreds of years. So, really, it would not surprise me if it were not until the Anabaptists that a united voice could be heard over all the others, that Christ’s words should be followed and obeyed, regardless of centuries of practice to the contrary. Of course, with the CC in power and with no separation of church and state, to voice that position undoubtedly cost many their lives. But they would have counted the cost and considered it worthy of the sacrifice in order to remain faithful to their Lord and His words of instruction. Neither cruel rack nor fiery stake would silence their voices, still heard today by those who seek to follow the will of God rather than the traditions of men.

Ah, I see. So in your quest for the understanding of Matthew 28, you simply ignore Matthew 16 and 18, where Jesus gives Peter and the Church the power to bind and loose. Hence, they have the authority to teach what Jesus and the Holy Spirit guides them to teach. And don’t forget the “gates of hell, will not prevail”.
But sadly, your love for the early Christian Church is not very glowing, my friend (sigh).
**

Is that what I asked for?

**And I’m obstinate? I simply was showing that the Church is not “Sola Verse-ura” as you seem to be. These examples show a few reasons why Catholics teach Infant Baptism.

As if you don’t know.

No, Phil. I didn’t know. I give you four examples, and you tell me to reference one of them, without indicating which one. I didn’t want to jump to conclusions and put words in your mouth.
**

All Scripture is important, but what I asked for, as you know full well, was for you to start

at the relevant passages in Matt. 28 and Mark 16, and do an honest exegesis of them first. But you refuse. And the reason is obvious. To do so would make you see what you are disobeying, denying, and fighting against. Only when you read into them all the rest, all of which are disputable, can you escape that conclusion. Phil, I may be obstinate, but I tire of you preaching to me (and to 15 centuries of Christians that we are disobeying. I’ll ask you again, please stop with this accusation. It only belittles you.
**
But in answer to your question…
When I read Matthew 28, I see Jesus saying " Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…" I simply don’t see where it says “baptizing all who are not infants”. I see where it says baptizing them and making disciples of them. As others have pointed out, Baptism is a one time event. Discipleship is a life-time process.
**

The debate that has occurred in this thread would seem to indicate that what I think is clear, is not clear to you, and what you think is clear, is not clear to me. Why is that? We are both looking at the same verses. Do they say infant baptism is proper or don’t they? I want to first

look at the verses that would tell us WHO Jesus said to baptize, and you want to ignore that and look instead at verses that might say whether baptizing infants was done by the church in Acts (households, etc.) and why it might have been done by them (circumcision, etc.). I say, if we can determine by even only one or two passages WHO Jesus said to baptize, then all the rest is irrelevant. But you reject that, and so our debate lives on. It is not a matter of being “Sola Verse-ura,” but of our different approaches to the issue. I consider what Christ said more important than what the church later did, or years later continued to do, even for hundreds of years.**And Phil, what you are looking at is what Christ said IN THE BIBLE ONLY. Is that all that Christ Said? NO. He built a Church, he did not write a Bible. The Church, with his FULL AUTHORITY, instituted Infant Baptism. The verse you cite was not written for 25 years after His Death. John’s Gospel was written some 60 years later. The Bible is not a Catechism, Phil. It is a great tool for teaching Christians to come to know and love Christ!!!

 

[NotWorthy]

What is baptisimal regeneration? Is that the same as passing on your faith in a physical sense? (Bad terminology but that’s how I understand it.)

IMO, Baptismal Regeneration restores our soul to the Sanctified State it was originally intended it to be, before Adam and Eve were involved in “Apple-Gate”.

 

[NotWorthy]

I thought this was a good view on infant baptism. It doesn’t address the Scriptural reasons for infant Baptism, so Phil, you may not like it. But it does help to explain one of the benefits of infant baptism.

• Before holy Baptism, grace encourages the soul from the outside. As a prodigal son myself, I am grateful my parents had the faith and foresight to baptize me. Without that, I may have lacked the grace (from the inside) to return from something I was not brought into as a child.*

Thanks to one of my fellow CA friends on this site for sending this to me.

 

[Phil12123]

me: Can we really extend that to the salvation of a soul? Can my faith really save my child’s soul?

Jesus’ healing of our physical ailments was pre-figuring His healing of our Spiritual Ailments. He draws the link explicitly during the Paralytics healing. All of these healings show what Christ does to our souls when He washes us of our sins.

**Was the paralytic an infant? How do you know Jesus didn’t see the faith of all of them, including the paralytic? "When He saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven.’ " The paralytic, for all we know, had his own faith. He could have objected to being lowered down through the roof, but instead he consented to his friends doing that, believing with them that if he could get to Jesus, he might be healed. I think you might be reading into the passage too much.

Furthermore, you still didn’t answer my questions. Again, can we really extend that to the salvation of a soul? Can my faith really save my child’s soul? Sure, He saves MY soul when He washes ME of MY sins. But can my faith deliver someone else from hell if that other person does not repent and believe the Gospel? Does my faith cancel out the other person’s need to repent and believe on their own?**

Luke may have wanted to explain that a little better then, because he said, “Believe … and your whole household will be saved”

So, what are you saying? If the jailer believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, that alone would save both him and his entire household, regardless of whether anyone else believed??? Do you really think it means that? Is that your interpretation? If you take the verse literally, I suppose you can interpret it that way. But if you are going to take it that literally, then you will also have to say that ONLY HIS believing saved him and his entire family. So their baptisms had nothing to do with their being saved. I would agree with that, but I don’t think you do. After all, the verse does not say, “Believe and be baptized and you and your house will be saved,” does it? So, if you want to take it literally, you can’t say baptism had any role in saving anyone there. They indeed were all baptized, but, according to your interpretation, it was only the faith of the jailer that saved him and his entire family. No one else in the family had to believe anything, including his wife. I disagree. Everyone else in the family had to believe too. And they all did. He believed, “with all his household.”**

**Acts 16:
30. And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’’
31. So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.’’
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. **

It says they all believed, so there could not be any infants there. I never said it was a “childless household,” did I? I said they all believed “the word of the Lord” that was spoken “to him and all to all who were in his house.” There could be children but they believed too. And then they were all baptized. After hearing the word of the Lord, if any member of that family had rejected it, or not believed it, do you think Paul would have baptized them anyway? Of course not. The Lord knows all things and the word that he gave to Paul to say to the jailer was, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” That word was just for that jailer and is not a promise for every household. As I have said before, and will repeat again, many family members grow up rejecting their parents’ faith and remain lost to the day they die. One parent’s, or even both parents’, faith does not guarantee the entire family will be saved. If both are believers, there will be a better chance that all the children will become believers, but there is no guarantee based on Acts 16:31.

A Child becomes a Child of God at Baptism.

**Wrong. Read John 1:11-13, which don’t even mention baptism.
**