<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]This is one of the standard arguments used by Baptists and one that simply doesn't work because in several places it is said that entire "households" were baptized. The onus is upon Baptists to prove that "household" excludes children. Something which is impossible to do.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br><br>Pilgrim and Mike,<br><br>Both Baptists and Paedobaptists employ arguments from silence. The Baptist will say that nowhere does the Bible teach (i.e. the Scriptures are silent) that infants were included in household baptisms. The Paedobaptist will argue that nowhere is the baptism of infants forbidden in Scripture; the Scripture are silent on that matter too. However, an argument from silence can be construed as fallacious once an onus of proof is established. So, with Pilgrim, I agree that the onus of proof is on the Baptist because the Old Testament precedence is that the children of professing believers are to receive the sign of entrance into the visible people of God. Since this principle was never explicitly rescinded n Scripture (or by good and necessary inference from Scripture), the burden of proof to not include infants in a household baptism remains squarely upon Baptists. <br><br>When we come to the New Testament with a covenant eye, we would expect to see household baptism, which we do. I find it quite striking that after Pentecost we read of nine baptisms in the New Testament. It is safe to assume that Saul and the Ethiopian Eunuch had no children, and we know nothing about Simon Magus and Gaius. That leaves Lydia, Cornelius, Crispus, Stephanas, and the Philippian jailor; all of which were household baptisms. Now, this doesn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the covenantal view of baptism, but if there were ever corroborating evidence that should make us pause, I would think that this would be it. On the flip side, we don't have even one instance in the entire book of Acts where someone from a believing household came to faith and was then baptized. <br><br>I might add, when Peter preached his sermon in Acts chapter 2, he couched the promise of the gospel in the very structure of the Abrahamic covenent. The apostle stated, "The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, for all whom the Lord our God will call." This to me was most striking when I first considered it as a Baptist. How, I asked myself, would the faithful among Israel who were familiar with the promise to Abraham and to his seed not have presented their infants for baptism without an explict instruction not to do so?<br><br>Blessings,<br><br>Ron<br><br>
