To Cruciform.
in the infant baptism your scriptures used and translations implied to the subject are Speculative and presumptive. Speculative and presumptive conclusions are at best questionable.
Mark 16:16 -Jesus said "He who believes AND is baptized will be saved."
I could use the same presumptions to imply Jesus words as being specifically progressive and not an accident.
Acts 2:38 - Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin
believing and repenting (first) is a progressive on purpose theme.
You have switched them in essence to prove a point that is speculative at best.
you stated this Col. 2:12 -
"in baptism, we literally die with Christ and are raised with Christ"
but you excluded the full context of the scripture which gives you a full context of (through your faith) infants do not exercise their faith at this point and saying that a parents faith or (priests) faith can bypass the repent and or believe portion of scripture is incredibly presumptive. Jesus is the door not the priests faith.
collosians 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. "There are some exceptions to the rule because God is not bound by His sacraments."
interesting.
God is bound by His Word. Yet (your) priestly sacraments incorporated by your philosophy of the priest being a layer between man accessing God or the priest bypassing the faith and repentance necessity of a childs conscious faith and repentance action is fluid God not being bound by his own sacraments that he put in place???????. Sacraments placed by God verified and confirmed by scripture is similar in nature to Gods spoken word. If there are exceptions and no binding in heaven and earth than the sacrament is in question as to being instituted by God.
your speculative assumption from the following scripture is addition to the scripture Psalm 51:5 -
we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. (This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.)
we are conceived in the iniquity of sin gives a basic truth about our nature. It does not magically support your presumptive interpretation that a priest can transition a child until they believe or repent for themselves. That Is a God process of judging a person that dies before the opportunity to repent and believe.
Kind of like implying the priests activity and decisions can damn or bring salvation by a earthly and sensual process/ceremony.
You quote "Luke 18:15 –
Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason."
another presumptive process in your assessment of what Jesus (meant to really say)
I could also imply that the disciples trying to control the access to Jesus is similar to Your priests activity of being another layer of accessing God or having to go through the priests to access grace. As to your assumption that it (obviously implies/demonstrates) that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason is quite a stretch. The rest of the scripture brings context to the basic theme read closely "Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”
you quoted Mark 16:16 -
Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved."
But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."
this actually helps to discount your argument/contention.
This shows that a person can believe there is a God and do a ceremony but that person may not have ever become Born again like you said (birthed from above)
matthew 7:23
"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'
in order to do the things above the scripture says you have to believe and that all things are possible for those who believe. so these above believed and activated supernatural events without being born again (witchcraft)
The key is in the above scripture is "I never knew you" We are known when we become born again.
you quoted and summarized "Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 -
these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults."
This actually once again discounts your argument. circumcision allowed you to be part of israel (but did not assure your salvation in the after life) It is the same with the church and members that are in the church. they might be a part of a fellowship and take communion and do confession (confess your sins one to another). But the membership and part of fellowship does not assure born again salvation.
I could break down your presumptions/assumptive doctrine more but I have to go to work.
___________________________
Not intending to be "presumptive" but hoping to be a help for clarities sake, WBM. . . Cross.
Well Stated. Would like to read your 'long version' . .