A couple of times in Acts, there is reference to a whole household being baptized. That would include everyone, even infants.
The burden of proof is on those who reject infant baptism.
“Origen (ca AD 248) reports that “the church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants”.”
Well, no. What he claimed, which is not inspired, is not present in any writing before 100ad. Not from the Apostles teaching or tradition.
“A couple of times in Acts, there is reference to a whole household being baptized. That would include everyone, even infants.”
Never does Scripture say a baby was baptized. Not even a single time.
Origen lied...Origen didn't know any apostles...Origen lists no names, dates, etc...And likely Origen didn't say it at all...It was likely Eusebius, Constantine's right hand man who supposedly gives most all of the history prior to Constantine as hear-say...
A couple of times in Acts, there is reference to a whole household being baptized. That would include everyone, even infants.
The burden of proof is on those who reject infant baptism.
No it isn't, but regardless, that's easy...You have been shown the scripture a number of time but obviously reject what God says...Why is that???
Cornelius' household - Acts 10:1-11:18; 15:7-11
Peter taught these people that God is no respecter of persons (10:34). So whatever anyone in the household did to be baptized, all the rest must have done the same things. Peter did not give two sets of rules, one for babies and another for adults. Notice some things that people in this household did that babies cannot do: all in the household feared God (10:2,35); all came together to hear and receive what God had commanded (10:33,44; 11:1,14); they heard and believed (15:7,9; 10:43), they repented (11:18), and they were told to work righteousness (10:35). No babies baptized here!
Furthermore, since God is no respecter of persons, we are not going to find any examples of conversion in which less was required of people than in the examples we have already studied. Some examples may give fewer details, but no one in any household was baptized without faith, repentance, confession, etc. If such a case existed, God would be a respecter of persons.
Lydia's household - Acts 16:13-15,40
In this case there is no reason to believe that Lydia was even married, let alone that she had little children. The Bible teaches that, if a woman has a husband, he should be the head of the household (Eph. 5:22-25). So whenever the Bible refers to the activity of a household, if the husband is included in that activity, if the wife is mentioned by name then the man is also mentioned. (Notice how the other household conversions demonstrate this. Genealogies also followed this rule.)
Since Lydia's household was baptized, the fact that no man is mentioned would imply that she was the head of the household. Her household may have included relatives, especially older relatives, and perhaps servants, but no husband is implied, let alone children.
Paul later "encouraged" those who were brethren (NKJV), including Lydia's house (v40). Did this include babies?
The Jailer's household - Acts 16:23-34
Before this household was baptized, Paul spoke the word to all in the house (v32), and they believed (v31,34). Again, babies can't do these things, so no babies were included in the number baptized here.
Stephanas' household - 1 Corinthians 1:16; 16:15
Again, what verse says there were babies in this household? Note that Stephanas' house ministered to the saints. Again, people who are baptized must be old enough to be active in God's work as members of the church. This does not include babies.
Infant baptism leads people to believe they are saved when they are not. God requires people to be baptized for the remission of sins when they are old enough to make their own decision about the matter. But many people have been baptized as babies. Then, when they are old enough to be responsible for their conduct so they should be baptized, they refuse because they believe they have already done so. But their infant baptism was not Scriptural. So the person goes through his whole life never having been Scripturally baptized, and therefore he never has received forgiveness of his sins!
All you have to do is provide ONE instance of an infant being baptized in Scripture and you can rest your case.
This tactic of, *It doesn’t say it didn’t happen, so we can presume it did and teach it as truth* is a bunch of unadulterated nonsense.
If someone makes a claim that something happened, they need to provide the proof that it did, not make people accept it on their say so until they prove a negative.
That is the final resort of someone who has NOTHING on which to base their claim.
So it can be summarily dismissed as the baseless nonsense that it is.
The problem is, the ritual of circumcision never saved anyone either and yet there were Jews who thought it was necessary for salvation.
Baptism is a quasi-Christian counterpart for that.
If circumcision does not save, then baptism does not either. No physical ritual religious practice can save anyone as salvation is a heart matter and God does not look on outward appearances but on the heart.
Therefore believers are justified by faith just as Abraham was.
Salvation was by faith before the law, and continued to be that way since then.