You've been shown tons of scripture that tells us that baptism doesn't happen without repentance...Plus where Philip says that 'if you believe on Jesus, you may be baptized'...
Reject it all you want...
Leviticus 16:17
There shall be no man in the tabernacle of meeting when he goes in to make atonement in the Holy Place, until he comes out, that he may make atonement for himself, for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel.
The head of the household made atonement for ALL of his household. I have not rejected what has been said regarding baptism, rather I have asserted that the head of the household acted/spoke for his children.
You have shown nothing from Scripture to refute that, but have been shown from numerous writings that the ECFs knew that it was a tradition from the earliest days.
And so when one interprets Scripture one way and another does so differently, there is an appeal to be made to determine the right understanding of Scripture. That is why the Church is so important and if one is unafraid to follow history, one would see that there were certainly differing interpretations of Scripture from the beginning, but always it was the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth who spoke the last word on the debate.
I began this conversation asking the question about how it is that so called Bible churches could have such diverse interpretations of such import as baptism verses no baptism.
And here we are, hundreds of posts later and the question has not been answered though there has been complete unity among the *NCCOUOUDOB on why the Church is wrong.
*Non Catholic Christians of Undeclared or Unknown Denominations or Beliefs.