[Jvette]

I don’t know how much clearer I can put this.....

Just as they do now, parents speak for their children, the children are under the care and protection of the parents and therefore, if the parent and his HOUSEHOLD became Christian, there is NOTHING, not one thing in Scripture that says it was only the adults in the household.

Just as now, if the parent is a believer and goes to church, studies the Scripture and prays, so do the children.

No, Scripture says that ALL in Lydia’s household were baptized. Period, no distinction for age, or adulthood or anything.

[Iscool]

there is NOTHING, not one thing in Scripture that says it was only the adults in the household.

No one on this thread has even hinted that only adults get baptized...So that is not and has not been an issue...

I don’t know how much clearer I can put this.....
Just as they do now, parents speak for their children, the children are under the care and protection of the parents...
No, Scripture says that ALL in Lydia’s household were baptized. Period, no distinction for age, or adulthood or anything.

It doesn't matter how clearly you explain your philosophy...Human philosophy does not win out over God's word...

Yes, all Lydia's household were saved...But there were no babies there because we know that one has to make a conscious choice to believe on Jesus to get saved and be baptized...

[count-your-change]

As Acts chapter 16 says, Lydia was made a disciple first, then baptized. There's that pattern again.

Is there any reason to think that procedure WAS NOT followed with the rest of the household given no mention is made of ages?

If that pattern was followed then it would argue for only those old enough to be made disciples were baptized.

So the use of the term “househhold” is not an argument in favor of child baptism.