An Invitation To Newreformation

[Dave]

I'd like to ask that the only people who post in this thread be myself and NewReformation. So, bro, which Catholic teachings/practices would you like to discuss?

[NewReformation]

Well, I'm not interested in any more debate on the doctrines surrounding Mary at the moment. Let's start with Baptism. We'll do Baptism as a whole, covering:

A: Infant Baptism vs Believer's Baptism

B: Is Baptism necessary for Salvation?

C: Method of Baptism

[Dave]

Ok, can you explain what you believe regarding baptism and those particular points and why?

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Dave' post='1210655' date='Mar 8 2007, 09:54 PM']Ok, can you explain what you believe regarding baptism and those particular points and why?[/quote]

Sure.

A: I'm Believer's Baptism only. Why? Nowhere in Scripture do we see anyone other than a believer being baptized. Any prooftexting done for infant baptism, infants must be assumed into the text. Also, the first instances in Church History we see of Infant Baptism don't occur until around the third(?) century or so, and are condemned by at least a couple of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

B: No, Baptism is not necessary for Salvation. It is symbolic of the death, burial, and ressurection of the Lord. It is the act of publicly identifying with Christ. It is an act of obedience to the Lord, and since it is commanded by Christ, it is to be done, but is not part of Salvation. Note that repentance comes before Baptism(this also ties in with A).

C: Baptism by Immersion. The Greek word 'baptizo' is mostly the basis for this, as well as the witness of the Didache. I do accept Baptism by Pouring in rare cases(ie, deathbed baptism; etc).

[Dave]

Before I deal with what you've said, can you cite exact quotes from the Ante-Nicene fathers that you claim condemned infant baptism?

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Dave' post='1210730' date='Mar 8 2007, 11:13 PM']Before I deal with what you've said, can you cite exact quotes from the Ante-Nicene fathers that you claim condemned infant baptism?[/quote]
Tertullian is the first I can think of. Perhaps condemn is too strong a word, but he strongly recommended against it. I'll have to look it up tomorrow I suppose.

[NewReformation]

Ok, found it. Here's the relevant section:

[b]
The Writings of Tertullian
Part Third - Ethical Treatises (Cont.)
II. On Baptism.
[/b]

[b]Chap. XVIII. - Of the Persons to Whom, and the Time When, Baptism Is to Be Administered.[/b]
But they whose office it is, know that baptism is not rashly to be administered. “Give to every one who beggeth thee,” (Luk_6:30) [see note 83, p. 676.] has a reference of its own, appertaining especially to almsgiving. On the contrary, this precept is rather to be looked at carefully: “Give not the holy thing to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine;” (Mat_7:6) and, “Lay not hands easily on any; share not other men’s sins.”106 If Philip so “easily” baptized the chamberlain, let us reflect that a manifest and conspicuous107 evidence that the Lord deemed him worthyhad been interposed. (compare Act_8:26-40) The Spirit had enjoined Philip to proceed to that road: the eunuch himself, too, was not found idle, nor as one who was suddenly seized with an eager desire to be baptized; but, after going up to the temple for prayer’s sake, being intently engaged on the divine Scripture, was thus suitably discovered - to whom God had, unasked, sent an apostle, which one, again, the Spirit bade adjoin himself to the chamberlain’s chariot. The Scripture which he was reading108 falls in opportunely with his faith: Philip, being requested, is taken to sit beside him; the Lord is pointed out; faith lingers not; water needs no waiting for; the work is completed, and the apostle snatched away. “But Paul too was, in fact, ‘speedily’ baptized:” for Simon,109 his host, speedily recognized him to be “an appointed vessel of election.” God’s approbation sends sure premonitory tokens before it; every “petition”110 may both deceive and be deceived. And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary - if (baptism itself) is not so necessary111 - that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.” (Mat_19:14; Mar_10:14; Luk_18:16) Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come;112 let them become Christians113 when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the “remission of sins?” More caution will be exercised in worldly114 matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to “ask” for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given “to him that asketh.”115 For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred - in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded116 by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom - until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.

[Dave]

[quote name='NewReformation' post='1212872' date='Mar 12 2007, 11:26 PM'][b]
The Writings of Tertullian
Part Third - Ethical Treatises (Cont.)
II. On Baptism.
[/b]

[b]Chap. XVIII. - Of the Persons to Whom, and the Time When, Baptism Is to Be Administered.[/b]
But they whose office it is, know that baptism is not rashly to be administered. “Give to every one who beggeth thee,” (Luk_6:30) [see note 83, p. 676.] has a reference of its own, appertaining especially to almsgiving. On the contrary, this precept is rather to be looked at carefully: “Give not the holy thing to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine;” (Mat_7:6) and, “Lay not hands easily on any; share not other men’s sins.”106 If Philip so “easily” baptized the chamberlain, let us reflect that a manifest and conspicuous107 evidence that the Lord deemed him worthyhad been interposed. (compare Act_8:26-40) The Spirit had enjoined Philip to proceed to that road: the eunuch himself, too, was not found idle, nor as one who was suddenly seized with an eager desire to be baptized; but, after going up to the temple for prayer’s sake, being intently engaged on the divine Scripture, was thus suitably discovered - to whom God had, unasked, sent an apostle, which one, again, the Spirit bade adjoin himself to the chamberlain’s chariot. The Scripture which he was reading108 falls in opportunely with his faith: Philip, being requested, is taken to sit beside him; the Lord is pointed out; faith lingers not; water needs no waiting for; the work is completed, and the apostle snatched away. “But Paul too was, in fact, ‘speedily’ baptized:” for Simon,109 his host, speedily recognized him to be “an appointed vessel of election.” God’s approbation sends sure premonitory tokens before it; every “petition”110 may both deceive and be deceived. And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary - if (baptism itself) is not so necessary111 - that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.” (Mat_19:14; Mar_10:14; Luk_18:16) Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come;112 let them become Christians113 when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the “remission of sins?” More caution will be exercised in worldly114 matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to “ask” for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given “to him that asketh.”115 For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred - in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded116 by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom - until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.[/quote]

Actually, nowhere in that quote does Tertullian condemn infant baptism. All he thought was that it MAY be better to defer baptism until a later age. It does not show that Tertullian thought baptizing infants was a bad idea. "A is better than B" does [b]not[/b] condemn B. And given Tertullian's general manner, if he'd really condemned baptizing infants, he'd have done so with violent invective, not with moderation.

Note as well the implication that infant baptism was already an ancient and widespread practice in the early Catholic Church. Last, note how Tertullian believed in baptismal regeneration. Otherwise he wouldn't have talked about the "innocent period of life hasten[ing] to the remission of sins."

Also, other African Church Fathers like Origen, St. Augustine of Hippo, and St. Cyprian of Carthage supported infant baptism emphatically. So the Church in North Africa, where Tertullian was from, certainly practiced it. However, in the Church in Africa, there was widespread (albeit erroneous) belief that if you sinned after baptism, then there was no possibility of salvation period -- no repentance or anything. As a result, many Christians waited until they were very old or on their death bed to be baptized. Such beliefs and practices were later condemned very strongly in the 4th century, though. Even so, perhaps Tertullian thought that being baptized later in life would lessen the chance of people sinning at some point and thus consigning themselves to hell.

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Dave' post='1213209' date='Mar 13 2007, 07:35 PM']Actually, nowhere in that quote does Tertullian condemn infant baptism. All he thought was that it MAY be better to defer baptism until a later age. It does not show that Tertullian thought baptizing infants was a bad idea. "A is better than B" does [b]not[/b] condemn B. And given Tertullian's general manner, if he'd really condemned baptizing infants, he'd have done so with violent invective, not with moderation.

Note as well the implication that infant baptism was already an ancient and widespread practice in the early Catholic Church. Last, note how Tertullian believed in baptismal regeneration. Otherwise he wouldn't have talked about the "innocent period of life hasten[ing] to the remission of sins."

Also, other African Church Fathers like Origen, St. Augustine of Hippo, and St. Cyprian of Carthage supported infant baptism emphatically. So the Church in North Africa, where Tertullian was from, certainly practiced it. However, in the Church in Africa, there was widespread (albeit erroneous) belief that if you sinned after baptism, then there was no possibility of salvation period -- no repentance or anything. As a result, many Christians waited until they were very old or on their death bed to be baptized. Such beliefs and practices were later condemned very strongly in the 4th century, though. Even so, perhaps Tertullian thought that being baptized later in life would lessen the chance of people sinning at some point and thus consigning themselves to hell.[/quote]

Baptism of infants is nowhere found in Scripture though. What has happened is, that infants have been inferred into certain texts. These texts include Cornelius' household, the household of the Philippian Jailer, the house of Crispus, the house of Lydia, and the house of Stephanas.

[quote name='NKJV']Act 10:43-48 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins." (44) While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. (45) And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, (47) "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" (48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.[/quote]
All heard, all believed as is evidenced by all receiving the Holy Spirit, then all were baptized. Again, this would preclude the idea that infants were baptized, as infants are not capable of believing or showing evidence of believing.

[quote name='NKJV']Act 16:30-34 And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" (31) So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." (32) Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. (33) And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. (34) Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, [b]having believed in God with all his household.[/b][/quote]
Notice the Jailer and his entire household believed. This is a case of him and his entire household believing. I would postulate that this precludes any notion that there were infants baptized in his house.

[quote name='NKJV']Act 18:8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.[/quote]
Notice what happened here. Crispus believed, [b]with[/b] his household. They all believed. And thus, were baptized. Infants are not capable of belief.

Now, the other two events, Lydia and Stephanas, we don't know much about. However, the logical rule is to believe that what happened is the same as these other texts. They all believed, they all were baptized. We cannot simply infer that infants were in these texts, or that infants were baptized, since infants are not capable of belief and showing evidence of belief. To postulate that infants were present is mere speculation and eisegesis. In the case of Stephanas, we know that his household was known for dedicating themselves to the ministry of the saints, which infants are unable to do. In Lydia's case, we really have no idea whether or not she had children or even a husband for that matter.

Note also that the Biblical formula is repentance and belief first, then baptism comes. We never see a case where someone is baptized prior to their repentance and belief.

[Dave]

Don't worry, bro; I haven't forgotten about you. I've just been rather distracted in the past couple days. I'll address your concerns soon.

[Dave]

Ok, I'm back ... keep your eyes peeled.

[Dave]

[quote name='NewReformation' post='1213516' date='Mar 14 2007, 11:05 AM']Baptism of infants is nowhere found in Scripture though. What has happened is, that infants have been inferred into certain texts. These texts include Cornelius' household, the household of the Philippian Jailer, the house of Crispus, the house of Lydia, and the house of Stephanas.[/quote]

But the baptism of infants isn't explicitly forbidden anywhere either. Nor does it say anywhere that only adults may be baptized. Also, under the Old Covenant, if an adult (male) converts to Judaism, he is circumcised as an adult. But if he's born a Jew, then he is circumcised as an infant. Note that the child didn't [b]choose[/b] to be initiated into the Old Covenant. But that's what God commanded Abraham to do so his children and those of the tribe would become heirs of the Covenant. Now, let's not forget that the apostles themselves made it clear that baptism functions as a sign of the New Covenant, just as circumcision had of the Old Covenant. Indeed, Paul reminds the Colossians that baptism has, for the New People of God, replaced the old sign of circumcision (Col. 2:11-12). Would God offer fewer graces in the New Testament than in the Old Testament? Can it be argued that although God included infants in the Old Covenant, He would exclude them in the New Covenant?

And consider Jesus' words -- "Let the children be, do not keep them back from me; the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these" (Matthew 19:14).

Also, Luke 18:15 adds to this, saying how "They brought little children to Him."

Indeed, the Greek word for "children" here ("brepha") actually means "babies" -- little children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own.

And let's not forget that when Peter gives his public address on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:37-39 tells us,

"Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, 'What are we to do, my brothers?' Peter said to them, 'Repent and be Baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to [b]your children[/b] and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2:37-39).

Note that Peter didn't say the promise was just for adults. On the contrary, after indicating the necessity of baptism just one verse before, he makes the very natural and consistent teaching that had always been part of the Jewish covenant: "For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself" (Acts 2:39). This is the same promise that Abraham received from God and which Paul reiterates: "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise" (Galatians 3:27). An heir, after all, doesn't make the initial choice to be an heir. He's born into it -- just as a prince becomes the heir to the throne at birth. True, the prince can renounce his inheritance, but when he's born, he's born an heir nonetheless whether he likes it or not. Likewise, baptism does to the soul what birth does to the body: As a person didn't ask to be physically born, neither does the person necessarily have to ask to be spiritually reborn. In His anxiety to dwell in our soul, God presumes upon our acceptance, and claims us as his divine children through adoption until we later forfeit that inheritance through unrepented sin. We become children of God automatically until we attain the age of reason when we confirm our baptism for ourselves through faith.


[quote][quote]All heard, all believed as is evidenced by all receiving the Holy Spirit, then all were baptized. Again, this would preclude the idea that infants were baptized, as infants are not capable of believing or showing evidence of believing.[/quote]


[quote]Notice the Jailer and his entire household believed. This is a case of him and his entire household believing. I would postulate that this precludes any notion that there were infants baptized in his house.[/quote][quote]Notice what happened here. Crispus believed, [b]with[/b] his household. They all believed. And thus, were baptized. Infants are not capable of belief.[/quote]

[quote]Now, the other two events, Lydia and Stephanas, we don't know much about. However, the logical rule is to believe that what happened is the same as these other texts. They all believed, they all were baptized. We cannot simply infer that infants were in these texts, or that infants were baptized, since infants are not capable of belief and showing evidence of belief. To postulate that infants were present is mere speculation and eisegesis. In the case of Stephanas, we know that his household was known for dedicating themselves to the ministry of the saints, which infants are unable to do. In Lydia's case, we really have no idea whether or not she had children or even a husband for that matter. [/quote][/quote]

Please note that God is not a Lord of confusion: If infant baptism were forbidden, then these passages would carefully note either that the children in these households were excluded from baptism, or that there were no children in any of these households. I'd like to add that in these instances, the Greek word for "household" assumes that children and babies would be included. Moreover, we know that Paul, in his letters, sometimes addresses children as those who are numbered among the "saints" of the churches to which he is writing (e.g., Col. 3:20; cf. Col. 1:1 Eph. 6:1, cf. Eph. 1:1).

As for belief, Jesus tells the apostles that they must first preach the Gospel (Mat. 28:19) in order that the nations might believe and be baptized (Mark 16:16). Perhaps it may seem to you that this passage requires that belief precede baptism. But in 5 biblical cases, a person believed, and then had his or her entire household baptized.

Nor is this pattern inconsistent with biblical soteriology. Throughout the Bible, [b]one person's belief[/b] can result in God's grace being bestowed upon the members of his or her household. As Paul told the jailer at Philippi, "Become a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, and your household too" (Acts 16:31). It was for the faith of the centurion at Capernaum that Jesus healed the servant (Mat. 8:5-13), and Jesus granted salvation to Zacchaeus and his house thanks to Zacchaeus' act of faith in climbing the tree to see Jesus and his subsequent repentance of his sins (Lk. 19:9).

Moreover, this Biblical pattern of God shedding his saving grace upon the entire household of a believer applies specifically to one of the Old Testament types of Christian baptism -- the flood, through which Noah and his household passed safely (1 Peter 3:19-22). Genesis 6:8 and 7:1 specify that it was on account of Noah's righteousness that God preserved his entire household in the ark. That is to say, owing to Noah's faith, he and his entire household were saved in this prefiguring of baptism. Of course, not all were necessarily faithful (Cf. Genesis 9:25). The Lord spoke to Moses, commanding him to tell his people to "take a lamb for themselves, according to their fathers’ households, a lamb for each household" (Exodus 12:3). Note that he lamb was not taken for each individual, but rather for each household for the household’s salvation.

Oh yes, I better not forget testimonies of certain Early Church Fathers. And this can be traced back to the apostles quite easily. It goes like this:

In the year 215 AD, the Church Father St. Hippolytus of Rome writes:

"And they shall Baptize the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family" (Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 c. AD 215).

Now, St. Hippolytus was the disciple of St. Irenaeus of Lyon, and, in AD 180, St. Irenaeus writes:

"For He came to save all through Himself -- all, I say, who through Him are born again to God [i.e., baptized] -- infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men" (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies 2:22:4 -- c. AD 180).

St. Irenaeus was the disciple of St. Polycarp, who was the disciple of the Apostle John himself (as well as an associate of the Apostle Philip). And, in AD 155, St. Polycarp said this at his execution:

"Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury. How can I blaspheme my King and Savior?" (Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp 9 c. AD 156).

Now, it's well-documented that "The Martyrdom of Polycarp" was written the year after the saint's execution, and so the quote above is extremely reliable. It's also well-documented that Polycarp was 86 years old at the time of his death. Therefore, if the saint claims to have served Jesus for 86 years, it therefore follows that he was baptized as an infant. And in another place, we're told that Polycarp was baptized by none other than the Apostle John! Therefore, at least in the case of St. John, we can show conclusively that the apostles baptized infants.

[quote]Note also that the Biblical formula is repentance and belief first, then baptism comes. We never see a case where someone is baptized prior to their repentance and belief.[/quote][/quote]

Not necessarily true, as illustrated above. I can talk more about the issue, but for brevity's sake I'll just keep my remarks as is for now.

Edited March 21, 2007 by Dave

[Dave]

Oh darn, this is getting down way too low!

[NewReformation]

[quote name='Dave' post='1217005' date='Mar 21 2007, 07:03 PM']But the baptism of infants isn't explicitly forbidden anywhere either. Nor does it say anywhere that only adults may be baptized. Also, under the Old Covenant, if an adult (male) converts to Judaism, he is circumcised as an adult. But if he's born a Jew, then he is circumcised as an infant. Note that the child didn't [b]choose[/b] to be initiated into the Old Covenant. But that's what God commanded Abraham to do so his children and those of the tribe would become heirs of the Covenant. Now, let's not forget that the apostles themselves made it clear that baptism functions as a sign of the New Covenant, just as circumcision had of the Old Covenant. Indeed, Paul reminds the Colossians that baptism has, for the New People of God, replaced the old sign of circumcision (Col. 2:11-12). Would God offer fewer graces in the New Testament than in the Old Testament? Can it be argued that although God included infants in the Old Covenant, He would exclude them in the New Covenant?[/quote]
Well, to start with, Circumcision was merely a symbol of the covenant between God and Abraham and Israel. Circumcision didn't necessarily indicate belief. Even the slaves of a Jew had to be circumcised, but circumcision didn't necessarily mean that one believed. It was merely a testimony to the covenant. If a Jew was not circumcised, it was symbolic of not holding his own end of the agreement with God.


[quote]
And consider Jesus' words -- "Let the children be, do not keep them back from me; the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these" (Matthew 19:14).

Also, Luke 18:15 adds to this, saying how "They brought little children to Him."

Indeed, the Greek word for "children" here ("brepha") actually means "babies" -- little children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own.[/quote]Well, first let's try to understand the cultural meaning behind what is going on here. According to the Talmud, it was customary for Jewish parents to take their children to a Rabbi on their first birthday(and other children) so that the Rabbi would lay their hands on them and pronounce a blessing. Now what did Christ mean by saying that "the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these?" Well, to get the answer to that question, we must finish reading what Jesus has to say here. In Luke 18:17, He finishes saying: " Amen, I say to you: Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a child shall not enter into it." Now, how does a child receive Christ? I don't know if you have any experience at all with "Child Evangalism" but children are very willing and ready to accept Christ. Belief for them is a very easy thing to be grasped at. Children believe in Christ readily.

[quote]
And let's not forget that when Peter gives his public address on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:37-39 tells us,

"Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, 'What are we to do, my brothers?' Peter said to them, 'Repent and be Baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to [b]your children[/b] and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2:37-39).

Note that Peter didn't say the promise was just for adults. On the contrary, after indicating the necessity of baptism just one verse before, he makes the very natural and consistent teaching that had always been part of the Jewish covenant: "For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself" (Acts 2:39). This is the same promise that Abraham received from God and which Paul reiterates: "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise" (Galatians 3:27). An heir, after all, doesn't make the initial choice to be an heir. He's born into it -- just as a prince becomes the heir to the throne at birth. True, the prince can renounce his inheritance, but when he's born, he's born an heir nonetheless whether he likes it or not. Likewise, baptism does to the soul what birth does to the body: As a person didn't ask to be physically born, neither does the person necessarily have to ask to be spiritually reborn. In His anxiety to dwell in our soul, God presumes upon our acceptance, and claims us as his divine children through adoption until we later forfeit that inheritance through unrepented sin. We become children of God automatically until we attain the age of reason when we confirm our baptism for ourselves through faith.[/quote]
Hmmm...this commentary on Acts 2:39 looks like prooftexting. Also, I don't quite see how this can be construed to apply to "infants." It is quite customary in Biblical language for one to state "to your children," or "and to your children" and the phrase there mean "your offspring." I would think this verse would fall in here meaning "For the promise is for you and your offspring." I don't think it can be taken to literally mean "For the promise is for you and your infants in your household."

[quote]
Please note that God is not a Lord of confusion: If infant baptism were forbidden, then these passages would carefully note either that the children in these households were excluded from baptism, or that there were no children in any of these households. I'd like to add that in these instances, the Greek word for "household" assumes that children and babies would be included. Moreover, we know that Paul, in his letters, sometimes addresses children as those who are numbered among the "saints" of the churches to which he is writing (e.g., Col. 3:20; cf. Col. 1:1 Eph. 6:1, cf. Eph. 1:1). [/quote][/quote]
Ah, but we also have no text telling us that either A)children were baptized or B)that there were children in these households. But as I noted, the Scripture does state that "they heard, they believed, and they were baptized." This would preclude the notion that there were those who did not believe and yet were baptized. Also, your prooftexting of children in Col and Eph doesn't mean that Paul was writing this on account of infants who had been baptized. These may have been young children, or even teenagers or adult children, that had accepted Christ. If he's writing to them, this certainly indicates that they had a degree of understanding, and thus would have reached or been past the age of accountability.

[quote]
As for belief, Jesus tells the apostles that they must first preach the Gospel (Mat. 28:19) in order that the nations might believe and be baptized (Mark 16:16). Perhaps it may seem to you that this passage requires that belief precede baptism. But in 5 biblical cases, a person believed, and then had his or her entire household baptized. [/quote]See above where I referenced this. "They heard, they believed, they were baptized."
[quote]
Nor is this pattern inconsistent with biblical soteriology. Throughout the Bible, [b]one person's belief[/b] can result in God's grace being bestowed upon the members of his or her household. As Paul told the jailer at Philippi, "Become a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, and your household too" (Acts 16:31). It was for the faith of the centurion at Capernaum that Jesus healed the servant (Mat. 8:5-13), and Jesus granted salvation to Zacchaeus and his house thanks to Zacchaeus' act of faith in climbing the tree to see Jesus and his subsequent repentance of his sins (Lk. 19:9).[/quote]
In Zaccheus' case, note again that Christ had been a guest in the house of Zaccheus prior to Zaccheus making this statement. It would thus only be logical to conclude that those in Zaccheus' household had heard Christ speak while there and were of like mind as Zaccheus.

[quote]
Moreover, this Biblical pattern of God shedding his saving grace upon the entire household of a believer applies specifically to one of the Old Testament types of Christian baptism -- the flood, through which Noah and his household passed safely (1 Peter 3:19-22). Genesis 6:8 and 7:1 specify that it was on account of Noah's righteousness that God preserved his entire household in the ark. That is to say, owing to Noah's faith, he and his entire household were saved in this prefiguring of baptism. Of course, not all were necessarily faithful (Cf. Genesis 9:25). The Lord spoke to Moses, commanding him to tell his people to "take a lamb for themselves, according to their fathers’ households, a lamb for each household" (Exodus 12:3). Note that he lamb was not taken for each individual, but rather for each household for the household’s salvation. [/quote]In the case of Noah first, it would seem based on the Scriptures you have given that the picture looks like this: Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord because he lived righteously. Thus, God saw fit to save Noah and his family from certain destruction. So God told Noah what to do. Noah's sons were certainly old enough to make their own decision in the matter when Noah approached them with what God had told them. But they were obedient, and followed God's instructions through Noah. So here, we see that that Noah lived a righteous life(parent's who live righteously tend to be better witnesses to their children), certainly an example to his sons. God told Noah how he would be saved. Noah told his sons(who had seen their father's life) how they were to be saved. Because of Noah's influence and his example, they obeyed and were saved.
As for the passover illustration, the Passover is a totally different topic that deals more with Salvation and Atonement than with the issue of Baptism. Suffice it to say, this particular instance is a singular command and promise to the Hebrew people that had to do with physical salvation and not spiritual(albeit pictoral of spiritual things).

[quote]
Oh yes, I better not forget testimonies of certain Early Church Fathers. And this can be traced back to the apostles quite easily. It goes like this:

In the year 215 AD, the Church Father St. Hippolytus of Rome writes:

"And they shall Baptize the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family" (Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 c. AD 215).

Now, St. Hippolytus was the disciple of St. Irenaeus of Lyon, and, in AD 180, St. Irenaeus writes:

"For He came to save all through Himself -- all, I say, who through Him are born again to God [i.e., baptized] -- infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men" (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies 2:22:4 -- c. AD 180).

St. Irenaeus was the disciple of St. Polycarp, who was the disciple of the Apostle John himself (as well as an associate of the Apostle Philip). And, in AD 155, St. Polycarp said this at his execution:

"Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury. How can I blaspheme my King and Savior?" (Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp 9 c. AD 156).

Now, it's well-documented that "The Martyrdom of Polycarp" was written the year after the saint's execution, and so the quote above is extremely reliable. It's also well-documented that Polycarp was 86 years old at the time of his death. Therefore, if the saint claims to have served Jesus for 86 years, it therefore follows that he was baptized as an infant. And in another place, we're told that Polycarp was baptized by none other than the Apostle John! Therefore, at least in the case of St. John, we can show conclusively that the apostles baptized infants.[/quote]
I think it's a bit of a stretch to state that John baptized infants based on this level of evidence.