I think you’re making the point for us. Scripture doesn’t state your beliefs as strongly as you would have liked, so you feel compelled to insert the word “then” into the text.
… “then” was making my point. Notice:to make a disciple “Learned One” you must teact them
In view of the fact that ‘hearing the word,’ ‘embracing the word heartily,’ and ‘repenting’ precede water baptism (Ac 2:14, 22, 38,*41) and that baptism requires the individual to make a solemn decision, it is apparent that one must at least be of age to hear, to believe, and to make this decision. TRUE, the argument is made by some in favor of infant baptism. They refer to the instances where ‘households’ were baptized, such as the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Crispus, and Stephanas. (Ac 10:48; 11:14; 16:15, 32-34; 18:8; 1Co 1:16) They believe that this implies that small babies in those families were also baptized.
(EXTRA POINT ABOUT HOUSEHOLDS:… not always include babies–"(1 Samuel 1:21-23) 21 *In time the man El•ka′nah went up with all his household *to sacrifice to Jehovah the yearly sacrifice and his vow offering. 22 As for Han′nah, she did not go up, for she had said to her husband: “As soon as the boy is weaned, I must bring him, and he must appear before Jehovah and dwell there to time indefinite.” 23 At this El•ka′nah her husband said to her: “Do what is good in your eyes. Stay at home until you wean him. Only may Jehovah carry out his word.” So the woman stayed at home and kept nursing her son until she weaned him. ALSO "(Titus 1:11) *“It is necessary to shut the mouths of these, as these very men keep on subverting entire households *by teaching things they ought not for the sake of dishonest gain”.)
NOW, FURTHER in the case of Cornelius, those who were baptized were those who had heard the word and received the holy spirit, and they spoke in tongues and glorified God; these things could not apply to infants. (Ac 10:44-46) Lydia was “a worshiper of God, ... and Jehovah opened her heart wide to pay attention to the things being spoken by Paul.” (Ac 16:14) The Philippian jailer had to “believe on the Lord Jesus,” and this implies that the others in his family also had to believe in order to be baptized. (Ac 16:31-34) “Crispus the presiding officer of the synagogue became a believer in the Lord, and so did all his household.” (Ac 18:8) All of this demonstrates that associated with baptism were such things as hearing, believing, and glorifying God, things infants cannot do. At Samaria when they heard and believed “the good news of the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, they proceeded to be baptized.” Here the Scriptural record specifies that the ones baptized were, not infants, but “men and women.”—Ac 8:12.
The statement made by the apostle Paul to the Corinthians that children were “holy” by reason of a believing parent is no proof that infants were baptized; rather, it implies the opposite. Minor children too young to have the ability to make such a decision would come under a form of merit because of the believing parent,** not **because of sacramental baptism, imparting independent merit.
If infants could properly be baptized, they would not need to have the merit of the believing parent extended to them.—1Co 7:14.
It is true that Jesus said: “Stop hindering [the young children] from coming to me, for the kingdom of the heavens belongs to suchlike ones.” (Mt 19:13-15; Mr 10:13-16) But they were not baptized. Jesus blessed them, and there is nothing to indicate that his laying his hands upon them was a religious ceremony. He further showed that the reason ‘the kingdom of God belongs to such’ was not because they were baptized but because they were teachable and trusting. Christians are commanded to be “babes as to badness,” yet “full-grown in powers of understanding.”—Mt 18:4; Lu 18:16,*17; 1Co 14:20.
The religious historian Augustus Neander wrote of the first-century Christians: “The practice of infant baptism was unknown at this period.... That not till so late a period as (at least certainly not earlier than) Irenaeus [c. 140-203C.E.], a trace of infant baptism appears, and that it first became recognised as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is evidence rather against than for the admission of its apostolic origin.”—History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles, 1864, p. 162.
No problem. I understand that Catholic teaching on sexuality is offensive to many. It sometimes is the real reason that someone rejects the authority of the Church under other pretexts. (Just look at the venom directed at the Church by Hollywood and the press.) Not saying that’s the case with you, but it happens.
