Puritan Board Junior
It is true that the Old Testament worked according to families, and to some degree such is the case through Adam in our sin nature, however we do start to see a shift in the Old Testament to a different covenant to come; which is by far a better covenant. In fact we do start to see changes in the language, such as in Acts 2:39 for you see it is also for “ all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” and not just for you and your children. For we see salvation is not through direct decent to a line of believers, but by the calling and drawing of the Lord to his self (See John 6: 36-37, 44).
PeaceMaker]This is the one unfolding plan from a small number of people to larger and larger number of people.Thus the language is consistent with the promise to all nations in the beginning. Still part of that promise.
In regards to household baptisms, I think this was a rarity instead of the norm. In Lydia’s case we already know that she was a “worshiper of God”(Acts 16:14).Therefore she already had a strong influence in her household in regards to religious practice and there a good chance that they may have been present at the riverside; hence implying that they heard the Gospel from Paul and was baptized. Now with the Philippian jailer, in verse 34 we see that the “his entire household rejoiced that he believed in God”. I find it strange that non-believers would rejoice. In fact Jesus words are what echoes in my mind for the norm:
Wow that is a lot of adding to the word of God and speculation of what might have been a hence this. Rather than plainly taking what it tells us and which would be consistent with what went on in the OT.
The simple fact is even if it was a rarity it proves the point that it is legitimate.
So it doesn't have to be the norm.
But can you tell me examples where it wasn't done, that cause you to come to this conclusion, or is this pure conjecture based on nothing in the word?
Is there even one example where children were excluded from baptism?
Or to have been noted the children believed or made profession?
The absence of any instance would lead us to believe because it was not the practice to require a profession or exclude them and it continued without change as in the previous administration or we would be told of the change.
On what basis would one change the practice if not specified in the word to do so?
Deut 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. NKJV