“A Refutation of the Doctrines of Baptismal Regeneration and Infant Baptism”

by
Pastor Mark Montgomery
Ambassador Baptist Church
1926 Babcock Blvd
Pittsburgh, PA 15209

The following is a letter I received from an individual who was defending infant baptism. The words in red are my response to his points.

There are biblical basis in Scripture, Tradition, and History, and the Reformers that baptism is in God’s plan of salvation. Whether you realize it or not, there is a lot of common sense shown in Scripture. From Tradition the early Catholic Church Fathers who personally knew and were taught by the apostles that baptism/salvation go together, as evidenced in their writings/teachings.

I agree, and would go a step further There isn't just a lot of common sense in the Bible, everything in the Bible makes sense and should be accepted. if something doesn't make sense to our human minds, then the problem rests not with the Word of God, but rather with our understanding.

The so-called Mainland Protestants --- the Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal, Calvinist, Presbyterian, etc baptize infants because the road to salvation starts with baptism and is the beginning of justification. I just wonder why the contradiction when all of you use the same KJV Bible.

The problem does not lie with the Bible, it lies with those who mis-interpret it. All those groups came out of Catholicism (with the exception of the Methodists who came out of the Anglicans who had come out of Catholicism) and to one extent or another brought the errors of baptismal regeneration and infant baptism with them. Also, not all of these groups baptize infants for the same reason. I grew up in a Presbyterian church where the pastor understood that salvation was by grace alone, but he still baptized infants even though he knew it had nothing to do with salvation.

The Precedent

For a start, let me say that God never placed a restriction. In the Beginning, God established through circumcision an everlasting covenant with Abraham, “Any uncircumcised male (BOTH infant AND adult) who has not been circumcised in the flesh will be cut off from his people, he has broken my covenant. For generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your HOUSEHOLD or bought with your money (slaves/servants) from any foreigner who is not from your offspring shall be circumcised." Genesis 17:12-13

Remember this word “household” as reiterated in the Pauline epistles, in line with the “household” mentioned here. In other words, in the Old Testament, membership to God’s covenant and his kingdom is by circumcision of newborn infant male on the eighth day and male adult convert. It’s BOTH/AND. Both infant and adult.

Yes, but what does that have to do with New Testament baptism? The answer: NOTHING! You make the error, as most Catholics and Reformers do, in assuming that Israel and the church are the same thing, and that because circumcising babies was the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant with Israel that somehow baptizing babies gives them salvation or places them into the church, or something else that is never taught in the New Testament.

So the fact that Paul uses the word "household", when referring to the family of God, and the fact that Jews were to circumcise children born in their household means that infants are the be baptized? That's a pretty big stretch. By that logic, since Peter said that Jesus was anointed (Acts 10:38), and Ezekiel wrote that Lucifer was anointed (Exe 28:14), then I guess Jesus and Lucifer are the same person. In Deuteronomy 6:22 we read that the pagan Pharaoh had a household. Does that make him a Jew, or a Christian? I don't think so. This is not a logical argument. It is completely based on an unScriptural presupposition.

Circumcision Foreshadows, Prefigures Baptism

Jesus Christ and his apostles/disciples were all Jews who were well versed in the Torah/Septuagint and the Jewish tradition. In the New Testament in Galatians 3:29 “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring.” Jesus Christ (who is God) of Abrahams’s offspring was circumcised infant “at the end of eight days” Luke 2:21 and when He began his ministry he continued the Abrahamic circumcision tradition (Mt 5:7) and called it Baptism, BOTH adult AND infant to include all Gentile races, households and all. Col 2:11-12. Jesus the man (he led by example) was baptized by water (symbol of cleansing) with the action of the Holy Spirit, by John.

Once again, you make the mistake of equating being Abraham's offspring genetically with being Abraham's offspring spiritually. There are promised given in the Abrahamic Covenant given to the Jews, but also blessings given to the world at large ("in thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed"). This blessing came through Jesus Christ and the salvation which was offered to the entire world.

So why are believers called Abraham's offspring? Not because they were Jews or magically became Jews at conversion, but because they believed God like Abraham did. Read Roman 4. Abraham believed God and his FAITH was counted for righteousness. Not his circumcision, but his faith.

The entire chapter says this:

1. What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

2. For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

3. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

4. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

5. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

6. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

7. Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

8. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

9. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

10. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

11. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

12. And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

13. For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

14. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

15. Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

16. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

17. (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

18. Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.

19. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:

20. He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;

21. And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

22. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

23. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;

24. But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

25. Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Yes Jesus was circumcised, because He was a Jew made under the law (Gal4:4). However, Jesus NEVER called circumcision baptism, and if circumcision was baptism, why was Jesus baptized, why were the disciples baptized, why was Paul baptized (all of whom were already circumcised), and why did Paul have Timothy,who was already a baptized believer, circumcised (Acts 16)? Clearly baptism and circumcision are NOT the same thing.

Baptism is a requirement for salvation

There are several refutations to that statement.

1. There are people in the Bible who were saved, but the Scripture does not indicate that they were baptized.
   1. The thief on the cross was never baptized, but he went to Paradise with Jesus. That's a problem if baptism is a requirement for salvation.

   2. The woman in Luke 7:37-50. Jesus said, "Thy faith hath saved thee". She had not been baptized before the event, neither was she baptized after the event but before Christ pronounced her saved. Her salvation came without baptism.

   3. How about the man with the palsy in Acts 9:2? Jesus said that his sins were forgiven, which means he was justified, while he was still lying on his bed. No baptism involved.

   4. What about the publican on Luke 18:13-14. He called out to God for mercy, then went down to his house justified. No baptism.

   5. Cornelius was saved before he got baptized (Acts 10) We know this because he received the Holy Spirit and received spiritual gifts BEFORE his baptism, and only those who are saved receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament.

2. If baptism was necessary for salvation, why didn't Jesus baptize personally (John 4:2)? He came to seek and to save that which was lost (Luke 19:10), yet he never participated in the act that was necessary for salvation?

3. The apostle Paul was arguably the greatest evangelist of the first century church, yet he only baptized two people (I Cor 1:14), and he said that he was thankful that he had only baptized those two. If baptism was a requirement for salvation I would think that Paul would have been baptizing everyone in sight, but he did not do so. In fact, Paul said, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (I Cor 1:17). Do you believe that Paul was not sent to do the ritual that was necessary to save men's souls? That doesn't make any sense. If baptism was necessary, Paul would have been doing it. Why didn't he go through town and baptize all the babies so they could start down the path to justification? We know why: because baptism never saved anyone, nor did it start some process of justification.

4. Romans 3:20-30

   20. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

   21. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

   22. Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

   23. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

   24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

   25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

   26. To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

   27. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

   28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

   29. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

   30. Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

There isn't much room for baptism in that passage, is there?

What about Galatians 2:16 - "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Jesus Christ gave the authority to his apostles/disciples to pass on his teaching to their successors (Apostolic Succession/Tradition/Teaching) and to the succeeding generations and up to this present time: “Truly, truly, (emphasis) I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” John 3:5 To enter the kingdom of God means baptism, which is the beginning of an ongoing justification which may lead to salvation.

Interesting. Baptism is the beginning of justification, but justification is an ongoing process which may or may not result in a man's salvation? Either a man is justified or he isn't. Justification is a judicial act of God whereby He declares a man to be Not Guilty of the crimes (sins) of which he has been accused. It is not, nor can not be, a process. You are either guilty or you're not. You're either justified or you're not. The judge doesn't say, "Well, you're sort of not guilty now, but we may change our minds in the future depending on what you do or don't do." In the Bible a man is justifies at a point in time, just like the judge in the courtroom makes a declaration that the defendant is "Not Guilty". And, the Bible teaches that we are justified "by faith" (Romans 5:1, Gal 2:16), not by works, whether our "work" of being baptized or our parent's "work" of having us baptized as infants.

In Catholic theology baptism is a sacrament and the Holy Spirit infuses grace to the baptized soul. It removes the stain of Original Sin as well as the actual/current sins of an adult. This is why infants are baptized through the faith of the parents and the Church in compliance to the teaching of Jesus Christ in John 3:5 in order to be a member of God’s covenant.

You realize, of course, that nothing you say in this paragraph is found in the Bible. It is certainly found in Catholic theology, but that is because much of Catholic theology is based upon the opinions of men and not the teachings of the Bible. Jesus talked about this type of thing when He said in Mark 7:6-9, "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." Baptism is not called a sacrament in the Bible. The Bible never says that the Holy Ghost infuses grace to anyone, particularly those who are baptized, and it never says that baptism removes the stain of original sin, and it doesn't say that baptism makes us a part of God's covenant.

As far as John 3:5 is concerned, the context clearly shows that baptism is not what Jesus is talking about. Let's read the passage, verses 3-6.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Jesus said that salvation came from being born again. Nicodemus asked (probably sarcastically) if this meant that a man had to have a second PHYSICAL birth, which could only be accomplished if he climbed back inside his mother's womb. Jesus said that the a man had to be born both of water and the spirit to go enter the kingdom. He then defined those two things in verse 6: that which is born of the FLESH (physical birth), and that which is born of the SPIRIT (spiritual birth). To read baptism into this is to do injustice to the text. Jesus never told Nicodemus to be baptized. He never suggested that he should be baptized. In verses 13-21 He tells Nicodemus that salvation is a result of BELIEF. To make this baptism is also illogical. If a man is to be born again, and that means that after he is born as a baby he is to be baptized, and then born of the Spirit, that would mean that he had to be born again AND AGAIN - three births (physical, baptism, spirit). Also, you claim that baptism infuses grace into the infant and justifies them. Yet your interpretation of John 3:5 is that spiritual birth and baptism are not the same thing. Your interpretation of that passage has lots of problems. Of course, that's what happens when we choose man's interpretations over God's direct teaching.

In John 3:22 “Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where He spent some time with them BAPTIZING.” In your gut feeling, would Jesus deny baptism to an infant?

Yes, because:

1. He would not be denying baptism to the infant, because the infant can't ask for baptism. He would be denying the baptism to the misguided parent. Is it that hard to understand that salvation and justification can not possibly come to someone through a decision made by someone else?

2. Jesus would never do something that contradicted His Word.

Before his ascension, Jesus’ final instruction, “Go ye therefore, and make disciples to all the nations baptizing THEM in the name of the ‘father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Mt 28-29 “Them” meaning BOTH adult AND infant, children.

This is an assumption, isn't it. If they were to make disciples, then baptize THEM, would not a person have to be a disciple before baptism? Can you be a follower of Christ when you don't have a clue about Who He is because you are only a few days old? Of course not.

St Paul reiterated baptism replaced circumcision. Col 2:11-12

I'm not sure how you get that out of these verses. Just because two verses next to each other mention two things does not mean that the two are equivalent to each other. Verse 11 talks about a circumcision not made with hands, but you compare that to a baptism that is clearly "made with hands" because it requires someone else to do it for you. Jewish circumcision required something external to be done. The "circumcision" of Galatians 2:11 did not require something external to be done. It is referring to faith. He is writing to Colossian Gentile believers who were being criticized by Judaisers and being told that they needed to go under the Law. including being circumcised, in order to get to Heaven. Paul is telling them that they don't need physical circumcision because they received the spiritual circumcision of salvation. In fact, Paul asks them in verse 20, "Why are ye subject to ordinances", when they had been freed from all that through Christ. In your doctrinal position, you would have the believer submit to the ordinance of baptism in order to be saved, and even have infants submit to an ordinance that they do not understand nor have the option to accept or reject.

In Acts, Christianity was just beginning. The audience was mostly Gentile adults. Of course they need to believe, repent, in order to be baptized. In Acts 2:38 “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” In verse 39, St Peter continued, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” These are the children, families, households of those adults mentioned in verse 38. Therefore, verses 38 and 39 is to baptize everyone --- BOTH adult AND infant (on the faith of the parents) in order to enter God’s covenant and His kingdom. “Baptism now saves you.” 1 Peter 3:21 meaning the baptized adult sin is washed away or cleansed with water and the action of the Holy Spirit. By the way, the Eunuch incident disproves the Bible Only doctrine.

First of all, though in the second half of the book of Acts the audience is mostly Gentile, in Acts 2 the audience is almost exclusively Jewish. Yes, the promise was given to them and their children, and anyone else, that people who repent would be saved and receive the Holy Spirit. As far as Acts 2:38 is concerned, Peter can not be teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation because no religious work saves anyone (Eph 2:9). The use of the word "for" must be understood. In our English language it can have several meanings. For example, if I go to the store "for" milk, I am going there in order to get milk. However, if I go to jail "for" committing a crime I am going to jail BECAUSE of my crime. So "for" can mean, "in order to receive" or it can mean, "because of what has already been done". In this passage, based upon a comparison of Scripture with Scripture, it means that the Jews were to repent, and then be baptized because of their repentance, and then they would receive the Holy Spirit. Also, remember that the Holy Spirit was not received at the point of salvation at that time as He is today (Rom 8:9). Sometimes He came after the individual was baptized (Acts 2, 8, 19), and sometimes He came before baptism (Acts 10:47). So, at that point moment in time, believers did not receive the Holy Spirit until after they were baptized. However, that had nothing to do with their salvation. As far as I Peter 3:21 is concerned, ("The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"), the fact that baptism does not save the soul is clearly taught in that verse. Baptism does not wash away the filthiness of the flesh, it is what a person does once his conscience has been cleared by salvation. Noah and his family rode out the flood on the water, but their salvation came from the ark. The rest of the world got wet with the same water, but it did not save them, so clearly the water wasn't the source of salvation. Only believing what God said about getting in the boat saved them, just like getting wet in the waters of baptism never saved anyone, but rather believing what God said about faith in Christ saves the soul

Jesus is a God of love.

Whom did the Lord our God calls to him? He calls the children to him saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.”Lk 18:15-16 “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” “Unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Mt 18:2, Mt 19:14 “Now they were bringing even infants to him.” The verse “belongs the kingdom of heaven” as long as the baptized remains sinless or confesses his/her sins, he/she is re-justified.

There are numerous problems in this paragraph. You make assumptions that are not found in the text at all. First, Jesus says, "Suffer the little children to come to me." If the children can "come", then they aren't babies, are they? If they are coming, they are choosing to come, so they are making decisions. There is evidence of parental involvement, but they brought the children to Jesus to be "touched", not baptized. Second, your translation says "infants", but in Matthew 5:40 the same Greek word is used for a "damsel", and according to Luke 8:42 his "damsel" was twelve years old. The choice of the word "infant" in your translation is not based upon the Greek word used, but rather upon the doctrinal bias of the translators. Third, there is nothing said about baptism in these passages. You are putting it in there, but God doesn't put it in there. Fourth, you have a real problem with this line: "The verse 'belongs the kingdom of heaven' as long as the baptized remains sinless or confesses his/her sins, he/she is re-justified." May I point them out? A. As stated above, there is nothing in this verse about baptism. The only statement is that they were coming to Jesus. B. You said previously that justification was an ongoing process, but here you say that these "babies" would need to be "re-justified". These two statements are contradictory. They are also illogical, for you seem to believe that God declares sinners "nor guilty" (justified), then apparently changes His mind and declares them guilty, and then changes His mind yet again and declares them "re-justified". Either a man is justified or he isn't. It isn't a process, nor some schizophrenic "now you are, now you aren't" activity by God. I have been justified by faith (Romans 5:1 ). Are you justified? C. REMAINS SINLESS?????? Since I know you have not remained sinless since your baptismal experience, and I doubt that you have confessed EVERY individual sin that you have ever committed since your baptism, you are no longer justified, and by your own doctrine, condemned to Hell. As would be everyone who holds to this erroneous belief. II Tim 2:25 speaks of "those that oppose themselves" and anyone believing a self-condemning doctrine like you are espousing is certainly opposing himself. The verse also says that those of us who know the truth are to instruct folks like you, "if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." I hope you will repent someday.

Universal Teachings

1 Cor. 12:12 “For in one Spirit we were ALL baptized into one body whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free person.” ALL meaning BOTH infant AND adult.

Since the New Testament church never baptized infants, all would not include them.

Once again, you make an assumption. Would you also be willing to assume that "all" included heathens and pagans and polytheists who practiced some form of "baptism"?

Rom 6:3 “For do you not know that ALL OF US who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” All of us, means BOTH adult AND infant

St Paul, a Jew was well aware of Gen 17:12 . “Born in your HOUSEHOLD or bought” (slave/servant) In Acts 16:15 St Paul baptized Lydia, with her HOUSEHOLD

In Acts 16:33 St Paul baptized the jailer with all his family. “All” meaning BOTH adult members AND infant/children.

In 1 Cor 1:16 “I did baptize also the HOUSEHOLD of Stephanas.”

Again, you have no Biblical basis for forcing a household to include infants, just your own doctrinal bias. You simply have that which Peter referred to as "your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers" (I Peter 1:18)

Surely he had baptized more families/households on his missionary journeys in the diaspora not mentioned in Scripture. Common sense tells me that baptizing whole family/household to mean there is the possibility alluded/implied, every member --- husband, wife, infant, children, relative, servant, slave, if any, as echoed in Gen 17:12-13 If parents would request St Paul to baptize their infant, will he say no because the infant is not capable of belief/repentance and had not reached the age of reason? Of course he will baptize the baby.

Two observations here. First, you make assumptions about Paul's ministry that are not based upon Scripture. As shown above, Paul did not run around baptizing people. He was thankful that he had only baptized two people in Corinth, and he stated that God had not sent him to baptize. Second, man's common sense is not the authority. The Bible tells us to trust the Lord and not to lean unto our own understanding (Prov 3:5), at that some people have seared their conscience (I Tim 4:2) and others have put away their conscience ( I Tim 1:19). In addition, you contradict your own position stated above that belief and repentance are necessary for baptism. Of course, you get around this clear teaching of Scripture by saying, "Oh, wait, that only applies to adults. Infants who don't repent and believe can still be baptized based upon their parent's belief. Of course, I have ABSOLUTELY NO SCRIPTURE that teaches that, but it's what my church teaches so it's what I believe." I would suggest Ac 17:11: "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

How about those infants/children/adults (5-10 year olds) who reached the age of reason but with natural disabilities (through no fault of theirs), such as, the deaf and dumb, cerebral palsy, autism, down syndrome, the mentally handicapped, the deformed (due to Zikka virus) and the like. These unfortunates will never be baptized in a Baptist church, but they will be baptized in the Catholic Church because JESUS SAID “THE KINGDOM OF GOD BELONGS TO THEM.” God set no restriction as revealed in the Old Testament because membership to his Covenant and his kingdom is by circumcision and membership in the New Testament is baptism. The surest way we know the infant is in heaven is through baptism as taught by Christ in John 3:5.

That is true. We would not baptize anyone who has not repented and believed. Of course, as seen above, since baptism has nothing to do with entering the kingdom, I don't have to worry about that. I am thankful that in the Old Testament David had assurance that he would see his infant child again, so apparently the Lord graciously "saves" those who are mentally unable to make a decision for themselves. However, baptism has nothing to do with it. In fact, according to what I believe, ANY child who can not make the choice to believe or reject is "safe", regardless of the parents' faith. In your world, since you ultimately believe that salvation is controlled by the church, all babies and mentally handicapped people who die are shut out from Heaven, and must go to the only other Biblical option, which is Hell.

Our siblings are God’s. We are only his custodians.

I don't know what this means. Sorry

Why wait 7-12 years to baptize a child when death can occur at anytime? It’s like playing the Devil’s Advocate on this helpless babe. The surest way we know the infant is in heaven is through baptism as taught by Christ in John 3:5.

This has already been covered above.

From sacred Tradition ( 2 Tim 2:2) we find the Early Church Fathers who personally knew and were taught by the apostles infant baptism as evidenced in their writings/teachings. (Apostolic Succession)

Irenaeus, AD 185 – “He came to save through all means of Himself---all who through him are born again of God---infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant, thus, sanctifying infants.” (Against Heresies II:22:4)

Origin AD 248 – “The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants.”

Augustine AD 400 – “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned.”

Once again, you choose the teachings of men over the teachings of God. II Tim 2:2 is not relevant here, for Paul was talking about the things that HE had said and that were attested to by the people that heard him, and he was still alive to verify that their testimonies were accurate. Irenaeus is the earliest writer you list, and his statements were written nearly 100 years after the apostles were all dead. In addition, Peter himself tells us that even in his day there were many false prophets, many of whom were found in the church (II Peter 2:1), and that they were twisting the Scriptures (II Peter 3:16). Paul warned that were false teachers already in the church at Ephesus (Acts 20:30). He names Hymenaeus as a man who was had already been in the church, yet whose heretical teaching was destroying people's faith. In Acts 19 Paul deals with men who had received the baptism of John, yet they had no understanding about what the message of John was. Jude warned that there were people in the churches to which he was writing that were redefining grace and denying the Lord (vs 4). Unfortunately, anyone who adds works to faith, including the work of baptism, is doing exactly the same thing.

From History, for the first 1500 years, no one ever denied, doubted or contradicted infant baptism until the Waldenses, the Catharists, and the Anabaptist came along.

Two observations here. First, what any particular individual or organization or "denomination" believes is immaterial to this discussion. The BIBLE is the issue, not what men or organizations say about it, Second, your facts are wrong. Obviously, the human writers of the New Testament didn't believe in infant baptism, and they certainly predate those who you have mentioned. In addition, The Montanists, who existed in the second century, did not practice infant baptism. The Novatians of the third century rejected infant baptism. The Donatists of the fourth century rejected infant baptism. In the fifth and sixth centuries the ancient churches of Britain, including "Saint" Patrick, rejected infant baptism. In the seventh century the Paulicians rejected infant baptism. Following them came the Petrobrussians, the Henricians, the Albigenses, and the Waldenses. These groups were never huge groups, and most of them suffered persecution either at the hands of the Roman government or at the hands of the Catholic church. However, the Bible does say, " Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.(Matt 7:13-14), and it also says, " Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (II Tim 3:12). Since those who rejected infant baptism and taught baptism for believers only have been persecuted down through the years by governments, Catholics, and Protestants (Zwingli, Calvin, Lutherans, the Church of England, etc), perhaps this gives us some indication as to who is following the Bible and who isn't.

From The Large Catechism by Martin Luther, he wrote, “That Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from His own work, namely, that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost.”

Yes, but he's wrong. During the Peasant Wars Luther also wrote, "‘The peasants would not listen; they would not let anyone tell them anything; their ears must be unbuttoned with bullets, till their heads jump off their shoulders. ... On the obstinate, hardened, blinded peasants, let no one have mercy, but let everyone, as he is able, hew, stab, slay, lay about him as though among mad dogs, . . . . so that peace and safety may be maintained ." When later questioned about this writing he said, "It was I, Martin Luther, who slew all the peasants in the insurrection, for I commanded them to be slaughtered. All their blood is upon my shoulders. But I cast it on our Lord God who commanded me to speak in this way." What did Luther say about the Jews: "...to burn down Jewish schools and synagogues, and to throw pitch and sulphur into the flames; to destroy their homes; to confiscate their ready money in gold and silver; to take from them their sacred books, even the whole Bible; and if that did not help matters, to hunt them of the country like mad dogs." So, I'm not sure we can trust the genocidal Martin Luther to always understand spiritual truth.

From John Calvin, he wrote, “Believers who bring their children to the church to be baptized and to the infants themselves, to whom the sacred water is applied, that no one may despise the ordinance as useless or superfluous…” (The Theologian paragraph 9 The Blessing of Infant Baptism) Why you protest your Protestant Founders is beyond me.

Yes, but he's wrong. He also wrote about the Anabaptists, "These altogether deserve to be well punished by the sword, seeing that they do conspire against God." He called for he execution of those who disagreed with him about infant baptism. He wrote, "Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church." Perhaps Calvin did not always understand spiritual truth, either. And, just so you know, the Protestants are not the founders of my church affiliation. Christ is the Head of the church. He is the Rock, the Author and Finisher of my faith, and the Chief Cornerstone. My spiritual heritage was NEVER a part of the Roman Catholic Church. As shown above, there have always been churches in existence that actually believed the Bible, including those which received letters from the Apostle Paul. My spiritual forefathers didn't need to "reform" the apostate Catholic church by starting new denominations that incorporated much of the old heresies into their "new" religions. My spiritual forefathers remained separated from them.

And why do you protest your Founder, Jesus Christ, and those who penned the Word of God? It seems that your rejection of Christ and His Word would be far worse than my rejection of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin.

Zwingli said infant baptism is a sign of God’s covenant made with Abraham.

Yes, but he's wrong. Zwingli also said, "We, therefore, ordain and require that hereafter all men, women, boys and girls forsake rebaptism, and shall not make use of it hereafter, and shall let infants be baptized; whoever shall act contrary to this public edict shall be fined for every offense, one mark; and if any be disobedient and stubborn they shall be treated with severity; for, the obedient we will protect; the disobedient we will punish according to his deserts, without fail;". It was under his leadership that the council of Zurich drowned three Anabaptist leaders. Under his leadership the city council of St Gall, decreed, "In order that the dangerous, wicked, turbulent and seditious sect of the Baptists may be eradicated, we have thus decreed: If any one is suspected of rebaptism, he is to be warned by the magistracy to leave the territory under penalty of the designated punishment . Every person is obliged to report those favorable to rebaptism. Whoever shall not comply with this ordinance is liable to punishment according to the sentence of the magistracy. Teachers of rebaptism, baptizing preachers, and leaders of hedge meetings are to be drowned. Those previously released from prison who have sworn to desist from such things, shall incur the same penalty. Foreign Baptists are to be driven out; if they return they shall be drowned." Perhaps in the future you should look for more spiritual men to base your doctrine on.

Nowhere in Scripture is mentioned that baptism is for those who have reach the age of reason or the “age of accountability.” or “an infant has no personal knowledge of “good and evil” to deny baptism.”

This argument is weak. Since the Bible DOES teach "then they that gladly received his word were baptized" (Acts 2:41), and always shows believers being baptized and never shows one infant being baptized, why would God need to write a special prohibition against it? Salvation has always been by faith (exercised by the individual and not his parents), and baptism always follows faith, so those who are too young to have faith can not be baptized. It's pretty easy to figure this out.

To recap, baptism is required for salvation, it is the continuation of the Abrahamic circumcision covenant which you and I are part of. NO MATTER THE AGE, in order to enter God’s Covenant and His kingdom one must be baptized “born of water and the Spirit.” John 3:5 in order to attain salvation.

I am sorry that you have come to this conclusion. I would pray that you would spend more time in the Bible and less time with your catechisms. You have been taught incorrectly, and I hope that someday you would be willing to listen to and obey the Word of God.