[Bryanw92]

>>I don’t need any authority to point out there is no child or baby mentioned in the passage.

There are no women explicitly mentioned either.

What does “entire household” mean to you. If a house burns down at you get the entire household out, would you leave the babies behind to burn?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

"There are no women explicitly mentioned either." No need. Believers are to be baptized, regardless of gender. "What does “entire household” mean to you. If a house burns down at you get the entire household out, would you leave the babies behind to burn?" So you are arguing pets should be baptized also now... I do see you have to create a circumstance to try to prove a baby was even present. Yet the teaching of infant baptism requires an invisible baby to be assumed present. Based on what? Many households had babies? Did this one? Ah, unfortunately, back to silence. All we know is that *in this instance*, as recorded history, this "household" was baptized, indicating they believed. Babies don't believe. Even invisible babies. Nor can we hear their cries.

[daniel1212]

What does “entire household” mean to you. If a house burns down at you get the entire household out, would you leave the babies behind to burn?

That no more proves there were infants in the house than texts as Acts 18:8 proves there were. And see 65 above by God's grace. Moreover the baptism of John did not remove sin, but was in regards ("eis") to forgiveness, as forgiveness was always by repentance, and did not require baptism but which signified it.