Hmmm...
Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39).
First, did Peter really mean that being baptized would bring about the forgiveness of sins? As one bible dictionary has it:
"For" (as used in #Ac 2:38 "for the forgiveness...") could have two meanings. If you saw a poster saying "Jesse James wanted for robbery," "for" could mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a robbery, or is wanted because he has committed a robbery. The later sense is the correct one.
Second, Peter tells his hearers to repent. Babies cannot do that.
Then, the word used for "children" in Acts 2.39 is the one that means "offspring". Although of course those offspring are babies at one stage in their lives, they remain offspring even as teenagers and adults.
Lastly, what promise was Peter referring to? Surely the one he has just quoted, that those who repent would receive the Holy Spirit.
In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).
In all these cases, whole households or families were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized," but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.
The last time I checked, families of the period would have had infants and young children. WM
However, in the case of the Philippian gaoler, the context shows that the whole household had the gospel preached to them, and the whole household believed, apart from the whole household being baptized. Acts 16.32-34:
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, having believed in God with all his household.
Even if you assume that translations such as the ESV are correct in verse 34 when they say something such as, "And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God," you still have a problem. Little babies can be happy, certainly, but I have never seen a baby with the ability to rejoice on account of someone else believing the gospel. In fact, I wonder why anybody of whatever age who doesn't believe the gospel themselves would rejoice when someone does.
In the cases of Lydia and Stephanas, we have no information about the ages of the people in the households, but it is surely wrong to argue from silence, when we have verses which clearly show that belief is a prerequisite of baptism. When the Ethiopian eunuch asked Philip, "What hinders me from being baptized?" Philip's reply in Acts 8.37 was:
"If you believe with all your heart, you may."
In Acts 8.12, we read concerning some Samaritans:
But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.
In Acts 2.41, it was those who gladly received the gospel who were baptized.
I would be interested to know where you checked and found that every "family of the period would have had infants and young children." I know you made no mention of "every", but if every family didn't include infants and young children, your argument would seem to fail. Indeed we are not even told whether Lydia or Stehanas were married; their households could have consisted of them and their servants.
