2013 and you argue with 250????
Perhaps I didn’t make my reason clear. I don’t doubt the practice came in at a later time. What we don’t find is anything before 100 AD, hence a practice that wasn’t Biblical and was not practiced by the Church, but was added later - I suspect a pagan practice.
***Yes, all of those are supportive of infant baptism.***
Actually, not even one of those even addresses the issue of infant baptism. Not in english. Not in greek. I read NT Greek. I looked. Ain’t there.
***Nope. It has a basis in fact, as I’ve listed above. As evidence, it must be countered by your evidence which is limited. No place does the New Testament say, “You must not baptize babies.” You must compile circumstantial evidence.
And you can find no evidence in scripture. Zilch. You are doing your best to spin straw into gold, but it remains a pile of straw that refers to kids, but no baptism is present.
The scripture doesn’t say lots of things. Doesn’t say you shouldn’t baptize the family dog either. Doesn’t have to. Baptism is for humans who have repented and entrusted themselves to Christ.
***Yes, I’ve mentioned an entire group of scripture that would support and/or fit with infant baptism. You have listed not one apostle or prophet saying “do not baptize/include infants.”
Why would I have to prove a negative, when Scripture teaches baptism is for those who repent and entrust themselves to Christ? Infants don’t do that, hence don’t qualify.
Don’t you even stop to ask yourself why not one of your “entire group” of scriptures even mentions baptism of an infant? As such, they don’t support infant baptism. I went through each with you. Not a single one had anything to do with dunking babies.
“The Household baptisms are a possible example of infant baptism.”
Argument from silence. “Possible example” contains no evidence it happened - especially in context.
“Why is there no scripture that denies infant baptism?”
Above. Baptism is for those who believe and repent. Infants don’t do that.
“Why do you deny those scriptures that support the full inclusion of infants?”
Because none does. Not a single one you showed here mentions or supports baptism of anyone who can’t believe and repent.
Im afraid you’ve run out of straw on this one. The best you’ve been able to do is to find some references after 100 AD and NO scriptures that command, instruct or show a single infant baptism. None.
And finally AGAIN, you avoided answering my questions. Not even one of them was answered.
Why?
Is it because there is only one answer that can be possible? Ah, yes.
Pot, kettle, black...
You say the bible doesn't approve of infant baptism.
I say the bible doesn't deny infant baptism.
Since the subject isn't specifically addressed, you are arguing with only circumstantial evidence for a negative....doesn't approve of.
In support of infant baptism are these facts:
Jesus said, "Let the little children (infants when context is read in Luke) come to me and forbid them not."
Paul said, "they (your children) are holy."
Peter said, "the promise is to you AND TO YOUR CHILDREN."
In Acts Lydia and her entire household were baptized, as were those of the jailer and of Crispus.
In the Old Testament, children were circumcised at 8 days old.
In the Old Testament, in addition to the above:
And, of course, there is the great verse in Romans:
Romans 8:29 NIV For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.