First, in every case of household baptism except Lydia, the text makes it clear that the entire household converts: In Acts 10, Cornelius’ household is baptized (10:48) after they all hear the word, receive the Spirit, and speak in tongues (10:44-46). Hence Peter asks, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (10:47). Crispus in Acts 18:8 “believed in the Lord, together with his entire household”-hence the household baptism. In the case of the Philippian jailer’s household in Acts 16, the entire household is invited to believe (16:31), has the word of the Lord spoken them (16:32), and rejoices that salvation has come to them (16:34). I can’t see it as plausible that the family would hear the word of God and summons to believe, fail to respond to it, but then rejoice that salvation had come to them. After Paul mentions that he baptized the household of Stephanus in I Corinthians 1:16, he later commands the Corinthians to be subject to them because “the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia” (16:15).
Thanks, I was unaware about Cornelius. Maybe it was the translation I read. Yes Lydia seems inconclusive that's why I have hope infant Baptism has a case. Does it matter if you've been baptised as an unbelieving infant but then get a second Baptism of spirit after. Surely they are synomonous anyway?
The reason infant baptisim is wrong is because an infant cannot confess Jesus as their Lord & saviour, cannot be born again! It's is a symbol of your faith in Christ's sacrifice
First, in every case of household baptism except Lydia, the text makes it clear that the entire household converts:
In Acts 10, Cornelius’ household is baptized (10:48) after they all hear the word, receive the Spirit, and speak in tongues (10:44-46). Hence Peter asks, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (10:47).
Crispus in Acts 18:8 “believed in the Lord, together with his entire household”-hence the household baptism.
In the case of the Philippian jailer’s household in Acts 16, the entire household is invited to believe (16:31), has the word of the Lord spoken them (16:32), and rejoices that salvation has come to them (16:34). I can’t see it as plausible that the family would hear the word of God and summons to believe, fail to respond to it, but then rejoice that salvation had come to them.
After Paul mentions that he baptized the household of Stephanus in I Corinthians 1:16, he later commands the Corinthians to be subject to them because “the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia” (16:15).
Thanks, I was unaware about Cornelius. Maybe it was the translation I read.
Yes Lydia seems inconclusive that's why I have hope infant Baptism has a case.
Does it matter if you've been baptised as an unbelieving infant but then get a second Baptism of spirit after.
Surely they are synomonous anyway?
Can babies be born again? Jesus said "unless you be born again, you shall not see His Father's kingdom
The reason infant baptisim is wrong is because an infant cannot confess Jesus as their Lord & saviour, cannot be born again! It's is a symbol of your faith in Christ's sacrifice