Is infant baptism from the Bible?

[Hobie]

We have to ask where does this come from as baptism is for a purpose that no infant can understand or accept. Baptism is for those that hear the Gospel message, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and repent of their sins. This must be done before a person can be baptized.

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:38.

"Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." Acts 20:21.

Why do we need to repent to God?

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23.

Only those that receive the Word of God and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ are fit for baptism.

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Acts 2:41

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:15, 16.

"But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." Acts 8:12.

"And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Acts 8:36, 37.

The question must now be asked, ‘Can an infant understand the Gospel, accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior, and repent of their sins?’ Of course they cannot, so therefore according to the Bible they cannot be baptised and any church that condones infant baptism is not following the Word of God.

 

[aha]

The question must now be asked, ‘Can an infant understand the Gospel, accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior, and repent of their sins?’ Of course they cannot, so therefore according to the Bible they cannot be baptised and any church that condones infant baptism is not following the Word of God.

Of course infants cannot, so one of the next reasonable question is,

Question: at what age or status of understanding one need to be baptized?, 7 years old? 14 years old? Or regardless of age, what is important is understanding?

 

[aha]

Of course infants cannot, so one of the next reasonable question is,

Question: at what age or status of understanding one need to be baptized?, 7 years old? 14 years old? Or regardless of age, what is important is understanding?

another thought related to it:

Who will say one is ready to be baptized?

Say: a hoping Parent brought their child or teen is ready, they brought it to the Pastor,

And after the Pastor talked with the child or teen, the Pastor thinks that the child or teen is not ready to be baptized?

That will be tough, i think, to approach the Parent that the child is not ready or got the full understanding of baptism?
A child, or say, even an adult?

 

[ModeratorTeam]

Staff Note: As a reminder to persons following this Infant Baptism thread - there are several denominations that REQUIRE infant baptism. Please do not comment on those denominations by name. We are asking this to try to prevent doctrinal arguing based on member belief systems.

Thank you for your cooperation.


23

 

[aha]

belief systems.

The Moderator's post has it's intention, and am just borrowing two words from it to start a thought i have in mind

Belief System

I believe Christian’s denomination that i know a bit more of , their belief system are Bible, scripture based – and if we only allow ourselves to listen to one another’s belief system: that is scripture based: it can promote understanding of one another.

Infant Baptism has it origin in the scriptures.

As a Bible student, as well i like to think myself as a "student of history" as well , I think:

As usual, even in today, current setting: in a Christian community, small churches here and there: members of the congregations have some question: what if it happen like this, and what if it happen like that.

Baptism is a FORM, a formality.

As always: the "spirit" of the Law is over the Legal FORM.

What is important, and seems to be described as well by the original post: what is important, the "spirit" or the "principle" of it is one Christian’s heart of accepting his sinful state and accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.

Precisely denominations with Infant Baptism has ONE REQUIREMENT AFTER.

A CONFIRMATION rite or ceremony or a "form" when one gets older or reaches the "age of reason" and understand it all about.

 

[bobinfaith]

We have to ask where does this come from as baptism is for a purpose that no infant can understand or accept. Baptism is for those that hear the Gospel message, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and repent of their sins. This must be done before a person can be baptized. The question must now be asked, ‘Can an infant understand the Gospel, accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior, and repent of their sins?’ Of course they cannot, so therefore according to the Bible they cannot be baptised and any church that condones infant baptism is not following the Word of God.

Hello Hobie;

Good topic and will attempt to keep my post within the confines of the forum rules.

The Scriptures you presented in your thread is excellent teaching and discipline of Christians when they get baptized, a public proclamation to follow Christ in obedience. I do agree with you that infants do not understand nor are ready to make the decision to be baptized, and will help distinguish between Baptism and Child Dedication.

This is where the responsibility of the parents comes in and the practice of Baby Dedication is rooted as taught by Moses in this passage;

Deuteronomy 6:4-7, 4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.

When parents have a child, it is a wonderful blessing and gift by God, but Dad and Mom are also entrusted as stewards of the child God has given them to raise and teach them in their childhood to love God and follow Jesus Christ. Since the child is not ready to make their own decision to be "baptized," the parents will decide for their child and ask their Pastor do a Child Dedication before the church congregation as a witness of raising their child by loving God and teaching His guidance in their home.

During the Child Dedication, instead of immersing the infant in water I will lightly sprinkle water over the top of their head, then give a versicle (a charge to the congregation) and they will do a responsorial of prayer and promise of support for the infant and parents.

Most Christian churches perform "Baby Dedications" and will vary in the forms of the dedication because of the autonomy of each church. As the infant grows into a teenager or adult, is usually able to make their decision to be Baptized. At this point is the Scriptures you present.

Only one denomination performs "Infant Baptism" within its universal doctrine.

On a personal note, I never force the parents to make this decision, and there have been times when the parents chose to have their infant wait until they are old enough to decide on Baptism. They hold and share the same position and conviction as you, Hobie, and cannot find Scripture to support Child Dedication.

In my conviction of the Scriptures and Baby Dedication, it is not so much the act, but the parent's heart and dedication of their child to God for His glorification.

God bless you and your family.

 

[Lanolin]

How is a christening different from a baby dedication or an infant baptism, cos some churches do christenings.
Then there's something called confirmation.

Jewish parents perform circumcision, but only on male children at eight days old. The. They have bar mitsvah when they turn 12.

Theres also 'godparents' but I dont know much about that as never had any of the above when I was a child.

 

[Siloam]

Those who practice infant Baptism, at least many I found when researching, view it as a modern (post Christ) 'token' of the intention to bring up the child in the faith, and liken it to the practice of circumcision. When the child reaches maturity, they are then confirmed in the faith.

Regarding 'how old is old enough' to make a personal profession of faith, I would like to mention two other observations I noted over the years.

The first, was (is) the daughter of the pastor at their church. For several years, I was aware that this young lady had asked her father to baptize her. He was hesitant because he wanted to make sure she was not just doing that for parental approval. Many in the church that saw that her faith in Christ was true. She was a joy to watch. I expect that a father living with any young person may confuse the immaturity itinerant with not being adult with not having a true commitment to Christ, or those of us who thought her truly committed could have been wrong.

The second observation was at a church I started attending after one of my moves. The pastor was very young (mid twenties to early thirties). There was a group of young girls, probably middle school age. After one was baptized, it appeared to me that it became the 'in' thing to do, and at one service there were about six young people baptized. I could be wrong about them, I did not know them well, but it did not appear to me that they took what they were doing as seriously as it deserves.

 

[Siloam]

Water baptism seems to mean different things to different believers or groups. Not only in manner, but also in terms of the age of the one being baptized. My understanding is that it is a one time public expression of an inner resolution to follow Christ, trusting Him to guide my paths, endeavoring to show others by example the path to Him.

But even in scripture, there are passages that do not conform to that.
For example:

1 Corinthians 15:28-29 (NASB)
When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.
29 Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?

This passage seems to indicate that believers were being baptized in substitution for the dead, presumably their ancestors.
Just as the knowledge and understanding necessary to accept our Lord is beyond the abilities of an infant, so it would seem that the dead cannot change their fate, nor make any kind of public expression of that change, even if it could be made. I cannot see what benefit either the dead, or those being baptized in their stead, or our Lord for that matter, could derive from the practice. But there it is in 1 Corinthians, presented as a way of associating the dead with Christ.

So I have become a little circumspect in saying that the practices of my brothers in different churches are incorrect in their practices.

 

[Siloam]

[Removed]
Could be a viewed as violation of Staff post #4.
Although no denigration of any denomination was meant.

 

[bobinfaith]

How is a christening different from a baby dedication or an infant baptism, cos some churches do christenings.
Then there's something called confirmation.

Jewish parents perform circumcision, but only on male children at eight days old. The. They have bar mitsvah when they turn 12.

Theres also 'godparents' but I dont know much about that as never had any of the above when I was a child.

Hi Lanolin;

Good question. A Christening is the same term for Baby Dedication. I have not heard the term Christening used in the church that performs Infant Baptism.

Confirmation is when a child is confirmed in the growth process of their personal faith, usually a teen. This is performed in the same church that performs Infant Baptism.

God bless you and your family.

 

[bobinfaith]

Those who practice infant Baptism, at least many I found when researching, view it as a modern (post Christ) 'token' of the intention to bring up the child in the faith, and liken it to the practice of circumcision. When the child reaches maturity, they are then confirmed in the faith.

The second observation was at a church I started attending after one of my moves. The pastor was very young (mid twenties to early thirties). There was a group of young girls, probably middle school age. After one was baptized, it appeared to me that it became the 'in' thing to do, and at one service there were about six young people baptized. I could be wrong about them, I did not know them well, but it did not appear to me that they took what they were doing as seriously as it deserves.

Water baptism seems to mean different things to different believers or groups. Not only in manner, but also in terms of the age of the one being baptized. My understanding is that it is a one time public expression of an inner resolution to follow Christ, trusting Him to guide my paths, endeavoring to show others by example the path to Him. But even in scripture, there are passages that do not conform to that. So I have become a little circumspect in saying that the practices of my brothers in different churches are incorrect in their practices.

Hello Siloam;

You are correct in your first quote. Baptism, or Baby Dedication are both public testimonies of following Christ and to be taken very serious.

In your second quote, this is the pastor's responsibility to minister to the person or the parents of their infant, to understand the decision they are making. The young pastor you mentioned also should have sought counsel from seasoned pastors before performing a Baptism for one or more persons.

In your third quote, is an example of the disagreements of Baptism and the Scriptures interpreted. This is always been a debate within the autonomy of the churches regarding Baptism and Baby Dedication.

It's good to hear from you, again, brother Siloam.

God bless you and your family.

 

[Hobie]

Well, here is a good explanation as to why baptize means full immersion:
"Strangely, the word 'baptize' is the original Greek word. The reason we use the original Greek word rather than our own English words 'submerge' or 'immerse' is because at the time that the King James Bible was being translated, shortly before 1611, a fierce debate was raging about how baptism should be done.
Some felt that it should be by sprinkling with water on the head and that it should be done to babies. Others argued that it should be done only with those who are old enough to believe and decide to be baptised for themselves, and that it should be done by full immersion in water.
Rather than offend either group the translators of the King James Bible chose simply to use the original Greek word 'baptizein' as a transliteration. They just Anglicised the very Greek word itself, to create the word 'baptise' without translating it at all. Then it was up to every man to give it whatever meaning that he believed it had. That was how the King James translators chose to get themselves out of a very tight corner.
There ought not to be any controversy over what the Greek word 'baptizein' means. Its meaning is totally clear and beyond any doubt."....http://www.realchristianity.com/become_christian/baptism_in_water/baptism_full_immersion.html

 

[Siloam]

When our Lord was accused of violating the Sabbath, he responded that the Sabbath was made for man (for man’s edification) not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). It is the same for other ordinances. Their purpose is to provide experiential reinforcement to aid in our meditations and thus strengthen our faith, not to provide a new set of rules.

Thus it is incumbent upon us to understand and teach others the meanings behind our practices. The intent is not to lord our knowledge (or misunderstandings) over others but to enable them to come to a fuller appreciation of the underlying principles. Stressing the forms but giving short change to the meaning behind those forms is does not edify our brothers.

It is so with baptism. The baptism of infants does not fulfill my understanding of the meaning and purpose of baptism, but conformance to my understanding is not the issue. For those that do baptize infants, they point out that one’s Christian name was historically given at Baptism, so when one born into a Christian family, he formally receives his name at Baptism and the newly named member is presented to the congregation.

As far as meaning of the original word, those that do not use full immersion say that the original word could properly be translated as “to dip” as in dipping ones hand or bowl in the act of pouring over the new believer. I am not a language scholar. I am just reporting a contrasting view.

If you are convinced that the ancient forms must be preserved unaltered, I would like to point out that few of us who receive Baptism as adults receive a new name. For that matter, one account of one group of early Christianity specifies that those to be Baptized are to be Baptized unclothed, children first, followed by adult women followed by adult men. Witnesses are presumably expected to school their thoughts and not leer.

Colossians 2:16-17 (NASB)
Therefore no one is to  act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

As we are not to be unduly concerned if someone outside our church criticizes us for how we perform our affairs, we should not be too quick to point at others who feel they are practicing as the Lord leads them.

 

[bobinfaith]

Well, here is a good explanation as to why baptize means full immersion: "Strangely, the word 'baptize' is the original Greek word. The reason we use the original Greek word rather than our own English words 'submerge' or 'immerse' is because at the time that the King James Bible was being translated, shortly before 1611, a fierce debate was raging about how baptism should be done.

Some felt that it should be by sprinkling with water on the head and that it should be done to babies. Others argued that it should be done only with those who are old enough to believe and decide to be baptised for themselves, and that it should be done by full immersion in water.

Hello Hobie;

Your first quote is a good explanation distinguishing between the Greek 'baptizein' and the English submerge/immerse for Baptism and agree with you. Your mention of fierce debate and "how baptism should be done" is again the result of disagreement between Christian churches and their autonomous governance.

In these times the majority of Christian churches that understand autonomous governance, all that we do for Christ, yet follow the authority of the Bible, minimizes fierce debate and refrains from "how baptism should be done" suggesting "works" instead of being prompted by the Spirit. This is where the responsibility and spiritual discernment of the minister should be to counsel the parents on the motive for having their infant receive a Baby Dedication.

Question is, is Infant Baptism Biblical? Throughout the New Testament, especially in the Book of Acts, the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Crispus and in 1 Corinthians the household of Stephanas all received Baptism. The key interpretation of the text is the word household.

Back in the Old Testament God addressed His covenant with Moses and the House of Israel, this included the whole of men, women, and children. Though Scripture in the New Testament does not actually say, "children were baptized," the word household or family in Israel included family as whole including children.

I believe that when these households were baptized, these families had children and were included.

In your second quote is what I was sharing earlier. 99% of Baby Dedications are not immersed full in water, instead their delicate heads are sprinkled with drops of water by the Pastor, and would not immerse them full in water.

When our Lord was accused of violating the Sabbath, he responded that the Sabbath was made for man (for man’s edification) not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). It is the same for other ordinances. It is so with baptism. The baptism of infants does not fulfill my understanding of the meaning and purpose of baptism, but conformance to my understanding is not the issue.

As we are not to be unduly concerned if someone outside our church criticizes us for how we perform our affairs, we should not be too quick to point at others who feel they are practicing as the Lord leads them.

Hello Siloam;

Thank you for sharing. In your first quote you are correct. We are not to slant the Bible to accommodate our personal agenda or doctrine. The same is for all ordinances.

Regarding your second quote, again you are correct. This is vital for spiritual church leaders to understand the authority of what the Bible teaches, and though one church may exercise a Baby Dedication and another may do an Infant Baptism, we should not be quick to judge, (except for obvious, blatant sin in the church) and take the place of God.

God bless you, Hobie and Siloam, and your entire families.

 

[Major]

We have to ask where does this come from as baptism is for a purpose that no infant can understand or accept. Baptism is for those that hear the Gospel message, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and repent of their sins. This must be done before a person can be baptized.

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:38.

"Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." Acts 20:21.

Why do we need to repent to God?

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23.

Only those that receive the Word of God and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ are fit for baptism.

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Acts 2:41

"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:15, 16.

"But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." Acts 8:12.

"And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Acts 8:36, 37.

The question must now be asked, ‘Can an infant understand the Gospel, accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior, and repent of their sins?’ Of course they cannot, so therefore according to the Bible they cannot be baptised and any church that condones infant baptism is not following the Word of God.

An infant has no idea of what sin and its ramifications are.

To be saved from the judgment of sin, one must "Believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ". Infants can not do that.

There are NO Scriptures that tell us to baptize infants. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him.

With all due respect to my dear brother, Bobinfaith, I do not believe that "Household" mans........"Infants".

When "Household Baptisms" are used to justify infant baptism, it assumes that there were infants in Cornelius’ house, Lydia’s family, the jailer’s house, and Stephanas’ house, and that the infants were baptized. However, there is no mention of infants in any of these passages, so then, those who use these passages to justify infant baptism base their claims upon two assumptions:
(1) infants were present in the households; and
(2) the contexts of Acts 10 and 16 allow for the baptism of infants as part of “household baptisms.”

If we say that Infants should be baptized in order to be saved then we will have to remove Romans 10:17 from the Scriptures which says.....
"Faith comes by HEARING and hearing by the Word of God."

Also Romans 10:9 which says...……..
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

An infant can not do either one of those things.

 

[Major]

When our Lord was accused of violating the Sabbath, he responded that the Sabbath was made for man (for man’s edification) not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). It is the same for other ordinances. Their purpose is to provide experiential reinforcement to aid in our meditations and thus strengthen our faith, not to provide a new set of rules.

Thus it is incumbent upon us to understand and teach others the meanings behind our practices. The intent is not to lord our knowledge (or misunderstandings) over others but to enable them to come to a fuller appreciation of the underlying principles. Stressing the forms but giving short change to the meaning behind those forms is does not edify our brothers.

It is so with baptism. The baptism of infants does not fulfill my understanding of the meaning and purpose of baptism, but conformance to my understanding is not the issue. For those that do baptize infants, they point out that one’s Christian name was historically given at Baptism, so when one born into a Christian family, he formally receives his name at Baptism and the newly named member is presented to the congregation.

As far as meaning of the original word, those that do not use full immersion say that the original word could properly be translated as “to dip” as in dipping ones hand or bowl in the act of pouring over the new believer. I am not a language scholar. I am just reporting a contrasting view.

If you are convinced that the ancient forms must be preserved unaltered, I would like to point out that few of us who receive Baptism as adults receive a new name. For that matter, one account of one group of early Christianity specifies that those to be Baptized are to be Baptized unclothed, children first, followed by adult women followed by adult men. Witnesses are presumably expected to school their thoughts and not leer.

Colossians 2:16-17 (NASB)
Therefore no one is to  act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

As we are not to be unduly concerned if someone outside our church criticizes us for how we perform our affairs, we should not be too quick to point at others who feel they are practicing as the Lord leads them.

Well...…….before I was saved they called me "Ugly". After I was saved they began to call me "Pretty Boy"!

 

[Major]

Water baptism seems to mean different things to different believers or groups. Not only in manner, but also in terms of the age of the one being baptized. My understanding is that it is a one time public expression of an inner resolution to follow Christ, trusting Him to guide my paths, endeavoring to show others by example the path to Him.

But even in scripture, there are passages that do not conform to that.
For example:

1 Corinthians 15:28-29 (NASB)
When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.
29 Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?

This passage seems to indicate that believers were being baptized in substitution for the dead, presumably their ancestors.
Just as the knowledge and understanding necessary to accept our Lord is beyond the abilities of an infant, so it would seem that the dead cannot change their fate, nor make any kind of public expression of that change, even if it could be made. I cannot see what benefit either the dead, or those being baptized in their stead, or our Lord for that matter, could derive from the practice. But there it is in 1 Corinthians, presented as a way of associating the dead with Christ.

So I have become a little circumspect in saying that the practices of my brothers in different churches are incorrect in their practices.

Just so that all will know...……….In their religion, Mormon individuals go to their local Mormon temple, dress appropriately for a baptism, representatively adopt the name of a person who has died, and then the Mormon is baptized in water for that deceased person.

By that process they teach that the dead person is now saved and in heaven, no matter what they were or did or did not do while alive.

Hey, I don't make this stuff up, I just pass it along as I get it.

 

[aha]

Well, here is a good explanation as to why baptize means full immersion:
...
There ought not to be any controversy over what the Greek word 'baptizein' means. Its meaning is totally clear and beyond any doubt."....http://www.realchristianity.com/become_christian/baptism_in_water/baptism_full_immersion.html

I think it is obvious that will be a second topic or considerations being raised.

The 1ST topic or consideration raised is “Infant Baptism” (AT WHAT AGE?)

And the 2ND topic will be “baptize means full immersion”, (AT WHAT MANNER OR HOW MUCH WATER?

Because if that is not the case: it will mean to say that you agree now that INFANTS being baptized as long as there is full immersion?

Of course not I think, it has to be a second topic!

Precisely as mentioned earlier, i would deduct as a "student or observer of history" : early Christians or even in today’s setting . member of the congregation will ask basic questions on Baptism:

1. At what age?
2. Who will decide one is ready?
3. Is it full immersion or a few water will do?
4. Who will perform the baptism?
among many other questions...

And the many what IF from it:

5. AGE: what if the person have not yet reached the “age of reason” and died suddenly? Is he baptized? will an un-baptized person will go to Heaven?
6. WHO will decide: if one is already of age, what if one is mentally challenged? Can baptism be done?
7. WATER: what if a person, say a soldier at war, was converted during say in a battlefield, and an imminent danger of attack of the enemy makes it difficult if not impossible to have full immersion, will a few water will do?
8. PERFORM BY: will it be a Pastor, or a Priest, what if no Pastor or Priest is around, and the person accepted Christ as His Lord and Saviour, but is nearly dying? Can an ordinary Christian perform Baptism?

Those questions or situations can happen, and people seek to satisfy how the LETTERS describes it.

In my point of view, in the faith i have now on how i understand the Scriptures, as another Bible Student: we "decide" or "measure" or "judge" on thing not simply on LETTERS, but on the very concept, essence or “spirit” of the LETTERS.

John 7:24 King James Version (KJV)
24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

 

[bobinfaith]

With all due respect to my dear brother, Bobinfaith, I do not believe that "Household" mans........"Infants".
When "Household Baptisms" are used to justify infant baptism, it assumes that there were infants in Cornelius’ house, Lydia’s family, the jailer’s house, and Stephanas’ house, and that the infants were baptized. However, there is no mention of infants in any of these passages, so then, those who use these passages to justify infant baptism base their claims upon two assumptions:
(1) infants were present in the households; and
(2) the contexts of Acts 10 and 16 allow for the baptism of infants as part of “household baptisms.”

Hello Major;

I agree with you that the Bible does not specifically mention the terms Infant Baptism or Baby Dedication, however, I do believe the term household in the passages I shared had to include children or infants. "Household or family" in Israel, means family as whole, including children when the household received baptisms.

I agree and understand that infants are not capable of knowing sin, its consequences and making the decision to be baptized.

I do understand. I mentioned the child's parents in my original post;

When parents have a child, it is a wonderful blessing and gift by God, but Dad and Mom are also entrusted as stewards of the child God has given them to raise and teach them in their childhood to love God and follow Jesus Christ. Since the child is not ready to make their own decision to be "baptized," the parents will decide for their child and ask their Pastor do a Child Dedication before the church congregation as a witness of raising their child by loving God and teaching His guidance in their home.

Major, in the church or churches you pastored, did you perform Child Dedications?

God bless you and your family, brother.