If paedobaptism were taught...

[atpollard]

You know the verse. How about the next one that says this promise is for you and your children?

Salvation is by grace through faith. Always. If someone receives the Holy Spirit he receives faith. Lutherans to not believe in once saved always saved because even those baptized at any age and receiving faith can turn away from God and damn themselves.

Not believing in Perseverance of the Saints is fine for this discussion. General Baptists (as opposed to Particular Baptists) believe what you believe as well. I was simply attempting to learn if you viewed the baby as “saved” at the moment when it (he/she) was baptized and received the Holy Spirit, or if receiving the Holy Spirit meant something different to you. I was not interested in if it could later renounce the faith.

Methodist, for example, speak of three acts of divine Grace ... Prevenient (before salvation) Grace that allows people to choose or reject the gospel, Saving Grace (at baptism) that Justifies and removes sin, and Sanctifying Grace (after salvation) that slowly transforms us to Christ-like perfection over a lifetime. So I do not assume that others believe in important concepts like “grace” or “receiving the Holy Spirit” the way that I do.

If someone receives the Holy Spirit he receives faith.

Does this mean that the baby (or anyone else) may not have had faith when they were being baptized, but only gained faith after baptism (as they received the Holy Spirit)?

 

[Josiah]

This is the Paedobaptism thread.
YOU posted: "Wrong thread"

So it is perfectly reasonable for me to ask:
"What leads you to believe that any of the infants you are baptizing have the divine gift of faith?"

The question is inappropriate for this thread. IF this thread were entitled, "Credobaptism" or "The Bible States All Must Prove they are Among the Elect Before the Prohibition to Baptize is Lifted" then it might be appropriate.

Additionally, your question obviously PRESUMES your position, it is just circular. It's a "loaded question." It assumes there is some Bible verse that states, "Thou art forbidden to baptize any who hath not adequately proven they are among the Elect" which I argue does not exist.

Since you are adamant that you are not baptizing the “dead in their trespasses and sins” (as MennoSota likes to call them).

I'm not sure what you are referring to; please quote me.

This is a Paedobaptism question. It has NOTHING to do with anti-paedobaptism (age restrictions)

What? How can something be specifically/exclusively about age but have nothing to do with age?



Friend, there is no dogma of "Thou art mandated to baptize before said recipient attains the age of... well.... you won't be told what age." Such a position does not exist. Never has.

There are two positions, two Traditions on the issue of this thread:

HISTORIC: There is no mandate or prohibition on Baptism regarding AGE.
ANABAPTIST: It is dogmatically prohibited in the Bible to baptize any until they have attained the age of X (an age that will not be disclosed).


One Tradition is that there IS a dogmatic prohibition (or mandate depending on how the issue is worded) stated in the Bible regarding the singular issue of AGE, the other simply does not embrace that. For 1500+ years, there was no AGE dogmatic prohibition/mandate (and for most Christians there still is not), the Anabaptists invented such.


True, since the historic position does not dogmatically demand some prohibition based exclusively on AGE, those that embrace this view don't dogmatically demand some prohibition based exclusively on age, but that does not mean ergo they insist on a dogma that the Bible specifically mandates that we baptize all BEFORE they attain some never-disclosed age.


Thank you.


Blessings!


- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

Sigh...
This thread has nothing to do with age.
This thread has everything to do with baptizing those who are dead in their trespasses and sins, who are not repenting.
What scriptural basis does the church have for baptizing unrepentant sinners?
Age is irrelevant. It just so happens that infants are incapable of repentance and thus are unrepentant sinners whom some denominations baptize without a concern to the child's spiritually dead status.

 

[atpollard]

Paedobaptism is the baptizing of children.
I asked if the children you baptized had faith.

If you didn’t want to answer (which apparently you do not), then you should have just said so.

 

[atpollard]

The question is inappropriate for this thread. IF this thread were entitled, "Credobaptism" or "The Bible States All Must Prove they are Among the Elect Before the Prohibition to Baptize is Lifted" then it might be appropriate.

If one person gets to define what questions can be asked and what answers are correct in a topic, it really isn’t a “Topic of discussion”, is it.
It might be easier to identify your intention if you stated it more clearly in the Title ... perhaps:

“Josiah’s Paedobaptism Blog”.

Then people would better know what to expect and not interrupt you with “off-topic” posts.

 

[Josiah]

If one person gets to define what questions can be asked and what answers are correct in a topic, it really isn’t a “Topic of discussion”, is it.
It might be easier to identify your intention if you stated it more clearly in the Title

Friend,


This is a DISCUSSION forum. The purpose is to discuss a TOPIC. That TOPIC is defined by the title and (if needed) clarified by the opening post. That's what we are asked to discuss.


I realize that CH does not have an "no-hijacking" rule, and I'm fine with that. But it is obvious that such serves one purpose: to change the topic, away from what we were asked to discuss to what some participant prefers to discuss. This may not be intentional, of course, but does tend to have that function. True, a BRIEF interruption for clarification can be appropriate but IMO it needs to be done carefully. Often, a better approach is to start a new thread.


There are some in these forums that are very clever in using "The Shall Game." In debate, this ploy is used (where it's allowed) when the debater feels "caught" and has no other "card" to play.... so an attempt is made to CHANGE THE SUBJECT to something else; it is often done by asking a question since that's the most effective way to engage the other side and thus change the discussion. The thing is, this game can be played FOREVER (if done cleverly); if the new topic is no more friendly, the debater can employ the game again, either back to the original topic or to a yet third topic. This can go on ENDLESSLY (which is why we can get to page 27 with nothing acheived). Some are very clever at this game!


For example, there's a very specific discussion about AGE and BAPTISM, whether there is some requirement in the Bible as to AGE. But a debater feels "caught" by some point they can't respond to or can't admit to, so..... "The Shell Game." Switch the discussion to something else, maybe a different Anabaptist Tradition on Baptism,maybe Credobaptism or Immersion-Only Baptism, maybe even Predestination or Monergism/Synergism (really, anything will do). It's often best to do this with a question. Of course anyone who has even causally read this thread can see this being done endlessly.


Yes, many of us have shared the historic view on the AGE issue (and frankly, every other issue related to Baptism). I don't think you've once particpated in any of those). None of them have gotten much attraction; none embracing Anabaptist Traditions on Baptism has participated in any of them, as I recall. It's not that we've been unwilling to discuss our position, it's that none from the Anabaptist "side" have desired to do so. As we know, one Baptist INSERTS some Anabaptist Tradition endlessly, even in threads that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with whatever Tradition he inserts, but never will he actually discuss what he inserts - we just get endless applications of "The Shell Game." Others here seem to be encouraging and participating in this. We have to wonder why (or maybe not).





The issue here is singular: Is there stated in Scripture a prohibition/mandate on Baptism regarding AGE ("Anti-PAEDObaptism" by definition is "against baptism to those who are PAEDOs", paedo is an AGE range of humans..... "Anti-Infant Baptism" is "against baptism of infants' infants by definition is an age range of humans). The sole issue is AGE. "Paedo" is an age range; "infant" is an age range. AGE is the issue of the dogma this thread is to address.


There are two Traditions on this issue:

HISTORIC: There is no mandate or prohibition on Baptism regarding AGE.
ANABAPTIST: It is dogmatically prohibited in the Bible to baptize any until they have attained the age of X (an age that will not be disclosed).

One Tradition is that there IS a dogmatic prohibition (or mandate depending on how the issue is worded) stated in the Bible regarding the singular issue of AGE, the other simply does not embrace that. For 1500+ years, there was no AGE dogmatic prohibition/mandate (and for most Christians there still is not), the Anabaptists invented such.

MennoSota has worked HARD for two solid years to prove the historic position to be true; in two solid years, he has not found any verse that states a prohibition or mandate on Baptism speicifically addressing AGE. He recently admitted this when he posted, "Actually Scripture is silent."

True, since the historic position does not dogmatically demand some prohibition based exclusively on AGE, those that embrace this view don't dogmatically demand some prohibition based exclusively on age, but that does not mean ergo they insist on a dogma that the Bible specifically mandates that we baptize all BEFORE they attain some never-disclosed age. There is no dogma of "Thou art forbidden to baptize any after the age of X". There is no dogma of "Thou canst only baptize paedos." There is a Tradition of "There is no mandate or prohibition in Baptism regarding AGE." MennoSota has proven that Tradition to be true.

Now, if you conclude that the Anbaptist/Baptist Tradition of "Anti-Paedobaptism" is one you cannot defend (or perhaps you actually reject it), my advise would be to either admit that or simply avoid the topic (rather than supporting the Tradition). And if you'd rather discuss Credobaptism, do that instead. You even could participate in some thread one of us on the historic side have put up. If you don't like or don't agree with this Anbaptist dogma, well.... But "The Shell Game" is really annoying, especially when it's SO obvious and ENDLESS, mind-numbingly ENDLESS (and we're pretty sure why it's being so endlessly employed).



Thank you. Blessings.


- Josiah







.

 

[psalms 91]

What I find is that some are very well versed in scripture and some are very good debaters and since many are not that well versed they may choose to not engage as it seems to also come into play that scripture is demanded many times when someone is uncomfortable knowing fully well that the scripture is in the bible but if the other person is not well versed then it is easy to dismiss them in this manner.

 

[MennoSota]

Friend,


This is a DISCUSSION forum. The purpose is to discuss a TOPIC. That TOPIC is defined by the title and (if needed) clarified by the opening post. That's what we are asked to discuss.


I realize that CH does not have an "no-hijacking" rule, and I'm fine with that. But it is obvious that such serves one purpose: to change the topic, away from what we were asked to discuss to what some participant prefers to discuss. This may not be intentional, of course, but does tend to have that function. True, a BRIEF interruption for clarification can be appropriate but IMO it needs to be done carefully. Often, a better approach is to start a new thread.


There are some in these forums that are very clever in using "The Shall Game." In debate, this ploy is used (where it's allowed) when the debater feels "caught" and has no other "card" to play.... so an attempt is made to CHANGE THE SUBJECT to something else; it is often done by asking a question since that's the most effective way to engage the other side and thus change the discussion. The thing is, this game can be played FOREVER (if done cleverly); if the new topic is no more friendly, the debater can employ the game again, either back to the original topic or to a yet third topic. This can go on ENDLESSLY (which is why we can get to page 27 with nothing acheived). Some are very clever at this game!


For example, there's a very specific discussion about AGE and BAPTISM, whether there is some requirement in the Bible as to AGE. But a debater feels "caught" by some point they can't respond to or can't admit to, so..... "The Shell Game." Switch the discussion to something else, maybe a different Anabaptist Tradition on Baptism,maybe Credobaptism or Immersion-Only Baptism, maybe even Predestination or Monergism/Synergism (really, anything will do). It's often best to do this with a question. Of course anyone who has even causally read this thread can see this being done endlessly.


Yes, many of us have shared the historic view on the AGE issue (and frankly, every other issue related to Baptism). I don't think you've once particpated in any of those). None of them have gotten much attraction; none embracing Anabaptist Traditions on Baptism has participated in any of them, as I recall. It's not that we've been unwilling to discuss our position, it's that none from the Anabaptist "side" have desired to do so. As we know, one Baptist INSERTS some Anabaptist Tradition endlessly, even in threads that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with whatever Tradition he inserts, but never will he actually discuss what he inserts - we just get endless applications of "The Shell Game." Others here seem to be encouraging and participating in this. We have to wonder why (or maybe not).





The issue here is singular: Is there stated in Scripture a prohibition/mandate on Baptism regarding AGE ("Anti-PAEDObaptism" by definition is "against baptism to those who are PAEDOs", paedo is an AGE range of humans..... "Anti-Infant Baptism" is "against baptism of infants' infants by definition is an age range of humans). The sole issue is AGE. "Paedo" is an age range; "infant" is an age range. AGE is the issue of the dogma this thread is to address.


There are two Traditions on this issue:

HISTORIC: There is no mandate or prohibition on Baptism regarding AGE.
ANABAPTIST: It is dogmatically prohibited in the Bible to baptize any until they have attained the age of X (an age that will not be disclosed).

One Tradition is that there IS a dogmatic prohibition (or mandate depending on how the issue is worded) stated in the Bible regarding the singular issue of AGE, the other simply does not embrace that. For 1500+ years, there was no AGE dogmatic prohibition/mandate (and for most Christians there still is not), the Anabaptists invented such.

MennoSota has worked HARD for two solid years to prove the historic position to be true; in two solid years, he has not found any verse that states a prohibition or mandate on Baptism speicifically addressing AGE. He recently admitted this when he posted, "Actually Scripture is silent."

True, since the historic position does not dogmatically demand some prohibition based exclusively on AGE, those that embrace this view don't dogmatically demand some prohibition based exclusively on age, but that does not mean ergo they insist on a dogma that the Bible specifically mandates that we baptize all BEFORE they attain some never-disclosed age. There is no dogma of "Thou art forbidden to baptize any after the age of X". There is no dogma of "Thou canst only baptize paedos." There is a Tradition of "There is no mandate or prohibition in Baptism regarding AGE." MennoSota has proven that Tradition to be true.

Now, if you conclude that the Anbaptist/Baptist Tradition of "Anti-Paedobaptism" is one you cannot defend (or perhaps you actually reject it), my advise would be to either admit that or simply avoid the topic (rather than supporting the Tradition). And if you'd rather discuss Credobaptism, do that instead. You even could participate in some thread one of us on the historic side have put up. If you don't like or don't agree with this Anbaptist dogma, well.... But "The Shell Game" is really annoying, especially when it's SO obvious and ENDLESS, mind-numbingly ENDLESS (and we're pretty sure why it's being so endlessly employed).



Thank you. Blessings.


- Josiah







.

Do you endorse baptizing unrepentant, dead in their trespasses and sins, people, Josiah?
Do you agree that infants are dead in their trespasses and sins? Do you agree that they cannot repent?
Three simple questions that pertain to paedobaptism.

 

[Josiah]

Do you endorse baptizing unrepentant, dead in their trespasses and sins, people, Josiah?
Do you agree that infants are dead in their trespasses and sins? Do you agree that they cannot repent?
Three simple questions that pertain to paedobaptism.

Your "Shell Game" is very tiring....

Here's my position: There is no statement in the Bible forbidding baptizing those who have not yet attained the age of ... well..... it's never disclosed. So, I reject the Anabaptist Tradition and Dogma of Anti-Paedobaptism. I have often stated my appreciation of all the hard work you have supplied for two solid years proving my position to be correct. And proving your inability to supply even one Scripture that states any prohibition or mandate on Baptism concerning age. Everything else you've done is just the constant, perpetual, never-ending, mind-numbing application of The Shell Game.

Now, I have freely admitted there is no verse that states, "Thou canst Baptize those under the age of X." But then there is no verse that says, "Thou canst baptize Americans and Negroids and Fat People and Those with big Shoes and Blondes and Baptists" Although I'd admit there is not one example of such EVER being baptized in the Bible. There's also no verse that states, "Thou canst use a Gentile to administer Baptism, use a plastic tank behind a curtain at the front of the church, do so in some place that was not once a part of the Roman Empire." Although, again, we could discuss what is and is not obvious practices in the NT on this. Similarly, there's no verse that states, "The Commandment to not murder applies to Negroids and women and Jews." The ONLY Tradition that has to do with mandates/prohibitions in baptism due to age is the one you SAID you want to discuss in this thread but have yet to do so, always diverting it away via your use of The Shell Game.





.

 

[MennoSota]

Your "Shell Game" is very tiring....

Here's my position: There is no statement in the Bible forbidding baptizing those who have not yet attained the age of ... well..... you won't say. So, I reject the Anabaptist Tradition and Dogma of Anti-Paedobaptism.

I have often stated my appreciation of all the hard work you have supplied for two solid years proving my position to be correct. And proving your inability to supply even one Scripture that states any prohibition or mandate on Baptism concerning AGE.

It is you who is playing the shell game. I ask three simple questions that pertain to paedobaptism.

Do you endorse baptizing unrepentant, dead in their trespasses and sins, people, Josiah?

Do you agree that infants are dead in their trespasses and sins? Do you agree that they cannot repent?

Three simple questions that pertain to paedobaptism.

Please stop with the shell game, Josiah.

 

[atpollard]

Your "Shell Game" is very tiring....

Here's my position: There is no statement in the Bible forbidding baptizing ...

Your position ignores the Title of the thread and the Opening Post which clarifies the topic.

No one asked about a statement forbidding baptism, so the “off topic” “shell game” is yours.

Here is the OP for handy reference:

TITLE: If paedobaptism were taught ...

...in the Bible, I would believe it.
However, attempting to imply infants into the word "household" does not make paedobaptism a truth in scripture. It makes paedobaptism a feeling someone has about the word "household."
Someone mentioned that they don't let feelings determine their belief, but they let truth determine their belief.
How does a practice never endorsed in the Bible, but felt to be possible, somehow get taught as truth?

See, no mention of any scripture forbidding anything.
The topic is about what scripture does teach about paedobaptism.

 

[Josiah]

Your position ignores the Title of the thread

What has been ignored is that those supporting the Anabaptist Dogma and Tradition of Anti-Paedobaptism have repeatedly PROVEN their Tradition to be wrong.


True, as I've noted many times, I can't present a verse that says, "Thou canst baptize children and Americans and Baptists and fat people and smart people and Negroids and Spanish speakers." Just as I can't find a verse that says, "The Commandment not to kill INCLUDES Jews and women and Negroids." But then NO ONE has a teaching, "Thou shalt not baptize any over the age of X." There's only the Anabaptist Traditon (the singular topic of this thread), "Thou shalt not baptize any under the age of X." The Anabaptist dogma is that the Bible states this prohibition/mandate specifically about AGE ("no PAEDO baptisms... no INFANT baptisms" - paedo and infant both referring to an AGE range; recall the constant point about "too young.....") MennoSota has gone to great lengths to prove the Anabaptist position to be wrong. It's just he doesn't want to state what he proved, so.... the perpetual Shell Game.



MennoSota has worked long and hard to prove the historic (he calls it "paedobaptism") position/tradition correct: There is no age prohibition in the Bible regarding Baptism. In so doing, he's also proven the Anti-Paedobaptism Tradition to be false, it being that the Bible specifically forbids baptism to those under the age of X.



Thank you.


Blessings!!


- Josiah



.

 

[MennoSota]

What has been ignored is that those supporting the Anabaptist Dogma and Tradition of Anti-Paedobaptism have repeatedly PROVEN their Tradition to be wrong.

True, as I've noted many times, I can't present a verse that says, "Thou canst baptize children and Americans and Baptists and fat people and smart people and Negroids and Spanish speakers." Just as I can't find a verse that says, "The Commandment not to kill INCLUDES Jews and women and Negroids." But then NO ONE has a teaching, "Thou shalt not baptize any over the age of X." There's only the Anabaptist Traditon (the singular topic of this thread), "Thou shalt not baptize any under the age of X." The Anabaptist dogma is that the Bible states this prohibition/mandate specifically about AGE ("no PAEDO baptisms... no INFANT baptisms" - paedo and infant both referring to an AGE range; recall the constant point about "too young.....") MennoSota has gone to great lengths to prove the Anabaptist position to be wrong. It's just he doesn't want to state what he proved, so.... the perpetual Shell Game.

Josiah, you are evading the topic.

 

[MennoSota]

What has been ignored is that those supporting the Anabaptist Dogma and Tradition of Anti-Paedobaptism have repeatedly PROVEN their Tradition to be wrong.


True, as I've noted many times, I can't present a verse that says, "Thou canst baptize children and Americans and Baptists and fat people and smart people and Negroids and Spanish speakers." Just as I can't find a verse that says, "The Commandment not to kill INCLUDES Jews and women and Negroids." But then NO ONE has a teaching, "Thou shalt not baptize any over the age of X." There's only the Anabaptist Traditon (the singular topic of this thread), "Thou shalt not baptize any under the age of X." The Anabaptist dogma is that the Bible states this prohibition/mandate specifically about AGE ("no PAEDO baptisms... no INFANT baptisms" - paedo and infant both referring to an AGE range; recall the constant point about "too young.....") MennoSota has gone to great lengths to prove the Anabaptist position to be wrong. It's just he doesn't want to state what he proved, so.... the perpetual Shell Game.



MennoSota has worked long and hard to prove the historic (he calls it "paedobaptism") position/tradition correct: There is no age prohibition in the Bible regarding Baptism. In so doing, he's also proven the Anti-Paedobaptism Tradition to be false, it being that the Bible specifically forbids baptism to those under the age of X.



Thank you.


Blessings!!


- Josiah



.

Do you endorse baptizing unrepentant, dead in their trespasses and sins, people, Josiah?

Do you agree that infants are dead in their trespasses and sins? Do you agree that they cannot repent?

Three simple questions that pertain to paedobaptism.

You are avoiding the topic, Josiah.

 

[Josiah]

What has been ignored is that those supporting the Anabaptist Dogma and Tradition of Anti-Paedobaptism have repeatedly PROVEN their Tradition to be wrong.


True, as I've noted many times, I can't present a verse that says, "Thou canst baptize children and Americans and Baptists and fat people and smart people and Negroids and Spanish speakers." Just as I can't find a verse that says, "The Commandment not to kill INCLUDES Jews and women and Negroids." But then NO ONE has a teaching, "Thou shalt not baptize any over the age of X." There's only the Anabaptist Traditon (the singular topic of this thread), "Thou shalt not baptize any under the age of X." The Anabaptist dogma is that the Bible states this prohibition/mandate specifically about AGE ("no PAEDO baptisms... no INFANT baptisms" - paedo and infant both referring to an AGE range; recall the constant point about "too young.....") MennoSota has gone to great lengths to prove the Anabaptist position to be wrong. It's just he doesn't want to state what he proved, so.... the perpetual Shell Game.



MennoSota has worked long and hard to prove the historic (he calls it "paedobaptism") position/tradition correct: There is no age prohibition in the Bible regarding Baptism. In so doing, he's also proven the Anti-Paedobaptism Tradition to be false, it being that the Bible specifically forbids baptism to those under the age of X.




.

You are avoiding the topic, Josiah.

The topic is this: Does the Bible state that we are dogmatically forbidden to baptize those under that age of X.
You have gone to great lengths to prove it does not, substantiating the historic view and repudiating the new Anabaptist Tradition you obsessively parrot of Anti-Paedobaptism.


Your attempts to divert the discussion to some promotion of the radical synergism of the Anabaptists is just more employment of "The Shall Game." PAEDO and INFANT refers to only, exclusively, solely, uniquely to ONE and only ONE thing: AGE. And that's the singular issue here. Since you have repeatedly proven the historic view correct on this (but won't admit it), you simply employ the Shell Game by asking questions to divert the discussion AWAY from the issue. The issue is this, the issue is ONE: Does the Bible state some prohibition or mandate on baptism regarding the AGE of the recipient (such as PAEDO or INFANT)? The historic view says no. You've repeatedly PROVEN that correct. I realize, you won't allow yourself to publicly admit that so need to employ the Shell Game, but the reality remains.






.

 

[MennoSota]

The topic is this: Does the Bible state that we are dogmatically forbidden to baptize those under that age of X. You have gone to great lengths to prove it does not, substantiating the historic view and not the new Anabaptist Tradition you obsessively parrot of Anti-Paedobaptism.


Your attempts to divert the discussion to some promotion of the radical synergism of the Anabaptists is just more employment of "The Shall Game." PAEDO and INFANT refers to only, exclusively, solely, uniquely to ONE and only ONE thing: AGE. And that's the singular issue here. Since you have repeatedly proven the historic view correct on this (but won't admit it), you simply employ the Shell Game by asking questions to divert the discussion AWAY from the issue. The issue is ONE: Does the Bible state some prohibition or mandate on baptism regarding the AGE of the recipient (such as PAEDO or INFANT)? The historic view says no. You've PROVEN that correct. I realize, you won't allow yourself to publicly admit that so need to employ the Shell Game, but the reality remains.






.

Wrong.
As the OP, I know what the topic is. Postmodernism won't work here. What you feel isn't what determines the topic.
I have asked you for simple answers to three questions. You have refused to answer the questions and instead you play a shell game.

Do you endorse baptizing unrepentant, dead in their trespasses and sins, people, Josiah?

Do you agree that infants are dead in their trespasses and sins?

Do you agree that they cannot repent?

Three simple questions that pertain to paedobaptism.

You are avoiding the topic, Josiah.

 

[Lamb]

Do you agree that they cannot repent?

Does scripture say that babies cannot repent? Please provide the exact verses.

 

[MennoSota]

Does scripture say that babies cannot repent? Please provide the exact verses.

There is no scripture telling us when a person has the capacity to repent. This requires discernment from the body of Christ. This is why there is no age of X.
Now, instead of avoiding the question, please be considerate and answer the three questions I asked Josiah.

 

[MennoSota]

In case people forgot my three questions:
Do you endorse baptizing unrepentant, dead in their trespasses and sins, people?

Do you agree that infants are dead in their trespasses and sins?

Do you agree that they cannot repent?

Three simple questions that pertain to paedobaptism.

 

[Lamb]

There is no scripture telling us when a person has the capacity to repent. This requires discernment from the body of Christ. This is why there is no age of X.
Now, instead of avoiding the question, please be considerate and answer the three questions I asked Josiah.

If there is no scripture telling us when a person has the capacity to repent then you do a disservice by not allowing God to do His job and baptize those babies of believers who will teach their child the faith as they grow. Baptism and teaching go hand in hand.