True, it was said in Acts that whole households baptised and that included little babies.
It does mean that? So RCs not only argue from silence in order to support their traditions of men, but also read into Scripture that which is simply not stated?
The actual facts are that the mentions of whole household baptism are very cursory (Acts 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1Cor. 1:16) which does not mean it excludes or includes paedobaptism, though where more information is provided other than a cursory statement 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)
Yet what works to exclude paedobaptism is that the stated requirement for baptism is that of repentant wholehearted faith, (Acts 2:28; 8:36,37) which an infant cannot fulfill.
In addition, you do not make a doctrine on silence and conjecture, as it contrary to the character of the Holy Spirit to fail to record support in Acts for such a critical (according to Catholicism) practice, and you cannot charge God with neglect.
Furthermore, Col. 2:11–12 does makes a casual connection between circumcision and baptism, but this not make the former fully correspond to the latter as regards requirements. Circumcision was an external sign of the Abrahamic covenant that was commanded to be performed to all the household, servants included, but only for the males, and without a personal faith being a prerequisite. (Gn. 17:10-14)
Col. 2:11–12 only refers to circumcision as corresponding to the regeneration what baptism stands for, that of burying the old man and rising to walk in newness of life, (Rm. 6:3,4) with faith appropriating justification. For the Holy Spirit plainly states that the “father of faith, Abraham, "received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: " (Romans 4:11)
Thus what is manifest is that while RCs attempt to wrest support for their traditions of men from Scripture, the fact is that teachings such as paedobaptism do not depend upon the weight of Scriptural evidence for their veracity, and which is not to be the basis for your assurance as an RC. Instead it is based upon the say so of Rome, which leaves you with even less support than your attempt to read paedobaptism into Scripture!
Yet such attempts make them look desperate, and serve as an argument against her traditions being taught in Scripture.
No accuracy to that whatsoever...See post #90.