Glad you agree with me. (For once, lol) That took over two years, lol
Because your whole premise is silly and one you yourself reject and never employ. You keep TRYING to say "All the Baptisms in the Bible were like this....." then prove that's not true. SOME were, but ALL you now admit you cannot show. It COULD be everyone in all those households was over the age of you-won't-say, but it's also possible that ALL of them were under the age of you-won't-say; so your whole argument just got destroyed. We don't know what was always done.... or even usually done. It COULD be 99% of them were of those over the age of you-won't-say, and it could be 99% of them were UNDER the age of you-won't-say. As you now finally admit (after two years of insisting on the opposite), we DON'T KNOW what was done..... much less what was regarded as mandated or prohibited.
But then your whole premise is silly. This whole idea that we MUST do as done in the Bible (even though you now admit we don't know what was done in this regard) and cannot do otherwise. This idea that a few examples IS teaching and the foundation for inventing new dogma. It's silly. And one you NEVER employ yourself yet insist others do (but only in a few applications). Let's embrace your premise, the whole foundation of your apologetic: Now, I actually COULD prove that EVERY post at CH is written in English. No guessing, no presuming, no "well, I have 5 examples I can prove of this but a lot where I don't know), I can PROVE it. EVERY TIME, in EVERY CASE. Would that mean that ERGO it is forbidden at CH to post in another language (even though you can't find that stated in the rules)? Would it mean posting in another language makes for an invalid post? Of course not, that's silly and illogical. ALL it means that in every case, that's what has been DONE. It's normative for NOTHING. It's just examples of what has been done. But at least that would be provable and 100% always the case. You can't prove what happened with baptisms in the Bible - as you now (after two solid years!) admit. It's a silly premise. And you never accept or employ it.
So, we're back to your rule: Just the words of Scripture. NOTHING influencing them, NOTHING forced into them, NOTHING added or deleted. What the Bible SAYS. Great! So, I'll ask the same questions I have of you on this for over two years: QUOTE the WORDS that state, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath celebrated their won't-tell-you-which birthday." Where does the Bible SAY THAT?! QUOTE the WORDS that state, "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath adequately repented." "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath proven they are among the Elect." "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless and until they hath proven they have accepted Jesus as thouest personal Savior." "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless every cell of their body is entirely covered by water." NO eisegesis. NO words added or changed or deleted. NO opinions forced into the text. Just what the Bible says. None of this, "I can't prove what was always done and it doesn't matter anyway but all baptisms were to those over the age of i-won't-say and thus it's dogmatically required all be over the age of I-won't-say."
Now lest you try to impose your silliness on me, NO ONE on the historic side of this claims there is a verse that states, "Thou musteth baptize all beforeth they celebrate their we-won't-tell-you-which birthday." Don't try to reverse the table. We approach from "where does it say, "Thou canst NOT...." By your premise, where is the verse that says we can baptize Americans or Negroids or fat people or smart people or Baptists? Most Christians would agree that we cannot kill women, but yes, I agree, the Bible only says "Do not kill" - it never mentions WOMEN specifically (or unborn children or Jews or African-American slaves) but where does it EXCLUDE specifically children under the age of you-won't-say? The Anabaptist invented a very specific, very focused EXCEPTION but admitted they had not one verse that states that exception. Jesus said, Go and make disciples of all people." We would object to some new dogma, invented 1500 years later, that declares, ".... but thou canst NOT even attempt that to one who is over 6 feet tall or has flat feet." Where did Jesus say that? Where did Jesus say, "But thou canst NOT baptize any who hath not yet attainedth their I-won't-tell-you-which birthday!" "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they hath adequately repented of all their sins. "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they hath proven they are among the elect?" "Thou canst NOT baptize any unless they hath proven they have chosen Me as their personal Savior and surrendered the steering wheel of their lives to Me." Where? And while you are at it, where did God ever say the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" applies to Jews or slaves or that jerk at work? We can't find all these "thou canst NOT' prohibitions the Anabaptists invented and you parrot. We don't accept them because we can't find them.
.
