puritan lad wrote:Fortigurn,
Your scriptures are all non sequiturs. You assume that, because all adult baptisms were of those who profess the faith, that all baptisms are the result of a professed faith.
No, I argue that since the apostles repeatedly taught that it is necessary for true and valid baptism to be preceded by repetenance and faith, then a true and valid baptism must be preceded by repentance and faith.
It is true that the Bible teaches to "repent and be baptized". It does not teach that all who are baptized have repented.
I agree. But it does teach that for a baptism to be true and valid, repentance and belief must precede it.
In fact, we have the example of Simon Magus who was baptized and yet was unregenerate.
Well it does say that Simon believed, but I'll let that slide because it doesn't affect my point.
On the day of Pentecost, Peter commanded that his hearers "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the Holy Ghost." He then adds, "for this promise is for you and your children".
You're shooting yourself in the foot here, since the promise is receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit subsequent to repentance and baptism for the remission of sins.
Baptism is the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace, and we hold that the children of believers are heirs to that Covenant of Grace.
Yes I know you do, but that's not what the Bible says.
Therefore, I'll turn the tables here a little in this debate. The baptism of believers and their families is commanded in scripture.
Well this is a little disingenuous. What we have is a couple of records of believers and their families being commanded to be baptized. We have evidence that the gospel was preached on those occasions. We have no evidence that those who did not believe it and did not repent were baptized along with those who do.
We also have clear teaching in Scripture that a true and valid baptism must be preceded by repentance and faith.
Your task is to show where the Bible excludes infants.
We've been through this before. The negative evidence against it is the absence of any infants being baptised. The positive evidence against it is the clear teaching that a true and valid baptism must be preceded by repentance and faith.
It would be very easy for you to disprove my case. You would only have to find a single example of infants being baptized in the Bible. Alternatively, you could provide all the examples of the baptism of those who never believed, and never repented.
By the way, have you read the Didache? Had the Christian community apostasized so completley by the end of the 1st century that they had abandoned the apostolic sprinkling of infants?
If you deny that infants can be born again, then you must explain how they get to heaven.
They don't get to heaven.
I'm not defending Catholicism, as I have my own issues with their teachings, particularly with Indulgences, Purgatory, and Penance. But when they are right, they are right.
Well your version of Christianity doesn't differ that much from theirs anyway. And yes, I've read many Puritan works, I have over 50 of them in my personal library.