But an RC can see what they want, and thus 3 simple mentions of household baptisms (Acts 16:33; 18:8; 1Cor. 1:16) is proffered as evidence for paedobaptism, yet the stated requirement is that of repentant wholehearted faith, (Acts 2:28; 8:36,37) which an infant cannot fulfill.
And while we suffer from the effects of Adam's sin, eternal damnation is based upon what one is personally culpable for, not that of our fathers. Dt. 24:16; 2Ki 14:5,6; 2Ch 25:4; Jer 31:29,30; Eze 18:20)
In addition, where more information is provided other than a cursory mean such as "I baptized also the household of Stephanas," then it records or indicates that those baptized were those who could hear the word and thus respond. (Acts 2:41; 8:12; 10:43-47; 19:4,5; 16:32; 22:16)
Did not the early church, which many non-Catholic Christians are purporting to go back to, baptize infants?
If St. Paul states that baptism replaces circumsision in the New Covenant, couldn't he have used a better analogy as to exclude infants from being baptized?
If faith in Christ is needed for salvation what happens if you yourself cannot make a confession of faith in Christ and you die? What if you were 2 years old? Are you condemmed to Hell?