Please read the original article. St. Paul also talked about baptizing entire households — that includes infants!
No, it does not.
Lack of familiarity with the writings of Torah brings about such vacuous statements.
Israelites did not become a functioning person until age 13. Prior to that one is a child and cannot make one’s own decisions.
Mikvah (the term translated into Greek as Baptism when the Hebrew words of the NT began to be translated to Greek) is not simply immersion.
It is the process by which one becomes a part of the Kehillah. It begins with confession and repentance of one’s sin, and then casting one’s self into a running stream, the water flowing over one’s head symbolizing cleansing of the soul.
Infants are simply incapable of this process.
.
1 Corinthians 1:11-17I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
There's only one recorded instance of Paul baptizing anyone and it's pure conjecture that it included infants.
And it's kind of interesting that if Paul really believed that baptism saved, or if GOD taught that baptism saves, that Paul would be sent not to baptize, but to preach, and that Paul would thank God that he didn't baptize any more than he did.
If baptism saves then Paul would be thanking God for not doing something that would save people. And I don't know how you'd try to rationalize that one, but it makes no sense, IF baptism actually contributed to salvation.
And he did it, or rather didn't do it, so that the message of the cross is not corrupted with false teaching, such as *baptism is necessary for salvation*.
It does? Where? I understand that it simply must since your elitist church makes it of grave importance, but nowhere in the sparse mention of household baptisms are infants mentioned, and instead Catholics must state as fact what they can only assume, and wish was there. Why not just admit that the RC basis for assurance of doctrine does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults)?
Now its time to sleep for me.
Please don't distort and corrupt the scriptures...
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Act 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
Act 16:34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.
Paul actually says a person has to believe...
He then says he preached to all who were in the house...
Paul then says everyone who was baptized BELIEVED in God...
NO BABIES... This has been pointed out to you over the many years but you continue to obfuscate and mislead the people you are talking to...