To recap, we have:
A Jewish tradition that accepts the inclusion of infants into the body of believers.
Paul saying our children are uniquely set aside in the eyes of God. (1 Co 7)
We have Peter saying the promise is to our children.
We have Jesus saying that infants should not be prevented from coming to him.
We have Lydia accepting Christ and her entire household being baptized.
We have through the first 150 years of the church a consensus on the part of church leaders that parents are responsible within the church for the spiritual training of their children.
We have one of them saying that infants can be born again.
Those are the facts presented up to this point.
As to your point about a rabbi blessing infants.
How do they come to Him now? His point was not local for that day for He told them to not to forbid it for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
My responses:
“A Jewish tradition that accepts the inclusion of infants into the body of believers.”
No. We have the COMMAND of God that EVERY MALE JEW MUST be circumcised on the 8th day under the NATIONAL COVENANT. As such, this is very different than the Church. There is no such command. You compare apples with oranges here and conclude that every fruit is identical.
“Paul saying our children are uniquely set aside in the eyes of God.”
1 Co 7:14 - Children in mixed marriages are literally “set apart as different” (Greek: hagios). This prevents them from being treated differently than children in homes where both parents are believers. Please read the context. Again, nothing here about infant baptism.
“We have Peter saying the promise is to our children.”
Did you not read my earlier response? The facts of the Scripture have not changed. The promise of the Holy Spirit as a gift was to every Jew, every descendant of a Jew and every Gentile, WHO REPENTED. Infants do not REPENT. As such, this has nothing to do with your attempt to prove infants should be baptized.
“We have Jesus saying that infants should not be prevented from coming to him.”
Which has nothing to do with the non-Biblical idea of infant baptism. They were not coming for baptism, were they? No. The parents brought them to be blessed by the rabbi.
“We have Lydia accepting Christ and her entire household being baptized.”
We are left to assume each was old enough to believe and be baptized. There is nothing in that passage that speaks to infant baptism.
“We have through the first 150 years of the church a consensus on the part of church leaders that parents are responsible within the church for the spiritual training of their children.”
God gives this responsibility to parents and specifies so in the BIBLE. Infants are not “spiritually trained”.
“We have one of them saying that infants can be born again.”
ONE HUNDRED YEARS AFTER CHRIST, this was said. The hundred years before were silent. Why???
“Those are the facts presented up to this point.”
Actually, it would be accurate to say, these are a collection of disparate points you have tried to get to fly in formation, but they do not. Nor does a single point indicate infants should be baptized.
“As to your point about a rabbi blessing infants. How do they come to Him now? His point was not local for that day for He told them to not to forbid it for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
Infants do not “come to Him now”.
Nor did Jesus baptize a SINGLE infant. Why?
Nor did he command a single parent to baptize and infant. Why?
Nor did any of the 12 Apostles baptize a single infant. Why?
Nor did any author of Holy Scripture baptize an infant or record such. Why?
Given that there is nothing in Holy Scripture about infant baptism, nothing written in the first hundred years about it.... one might wonder why you are trying so hard to find a way to justify a non-Biblical practice?
Got me. Wouldn’t it be better to obey the Scriptures and not add to them?