Pilgrim,
Of course, any self-respecting PB would deny your contention that no infants were in any of the households mentioned. That it is empirically impossible to prove is conceded, but it is equally unprovable that no infants existed. Statistically, the weight falls on the side of there being children. Families with no children have always been the exception rather than the rule from the beginning of time. But some of us PBs don't base our position upon the debatable household baptisms
I believe there's only two passages in Acts that mentions "households", namely 16:14-15, and Acts 18:8. It does say Lydia believed before she was baptized, and her household was baptized but we don't know how old they were. Crispus is said to have believed "together with his whole household". So Acts does have entire believing households.
I'm sure you agree statistics don't really matter, what matters is the Biblical data. I wouldn't expect a PB to base their entire position on these passages. I realize it's more important to look at the covenants, however, I also think it's often overlooked how the apostles utilized baptism. It seems to me to be more of a "presumptive regenerate" sense if you look through all the examples of baptism in Acts.
As you might expect, I beg to differ with this blanket statement as well. giggle The fact is, most all PB I know would point to 2000+ years of Israelic history to show that infants were included in the covenant; deemed members of the OT Church. The covenant sign was commanded to be administered to infants of covenant members upon penalty of expulsion for refusing to do so (Gen 17:11,14).
I'm sorry. It was late when I typed that. I meant to say all of PB's NT examples. Of course infants received the covenant sign in the OT.
Now, referring back to my other response to you regarding this odious error of presumptive regeneration, the circumcised children were NOT presumed to be 'saved' and neither were adults (cf. Gen 17:25; Jh 8:37; Rom 9:6,11-13). They ALL had to "circumcise the foreskin of their hearts" (Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:28,29; Col 2:11).
It's an odious error in light of the OT, I agree. I don't see the apostles acting like it's an error in Acts. Do you agree? If I were to lean towards one, it would be that they didn't think it's an error.
All of the OT verses you quote I agree they're not presumed to be, and John 8:37 isn't in the context of being in the Seed of Abraham but a physical descendent. I think Rom 2:28 and Col 2:11 are descriptive not prescriptive, and even if they were prescriptive doesn't somehow imply the covenant is for all.
So, perhaps now you can understand my objection to defining the NT covenant sign of baptism as "an outward sign of an inward reality". The covenant sign was never understood in that manner, i.e., as an irrefutable sign of any particular individual's salvation. It was a sign of God's covenant of grace/salvation with believers, although unbelievers, both adults who belonged to the nation of Israel, with whom God had established His covenant, and their children received the sign.
No CB has to only define it that way. It's a statement to give a basic understanding. To be more pedantic, I'd say "it's an outward sign of what we Biblically determine to be an inward sign".
Cameron
