This may explain why Luther thought the Anabaptists had to die; not to mention throwing Baptists and Evangelicals under the bus today; baptizing or not baptizing infants was a matter of heresy. The Augsburg Confession of 1530 is an early Lutheran confession of faith, authored mainly by Philip Melancthon and approved by Martin Luther and presented to King Charles V. In Article IX, “Of baptism,” it says: Of baptism [the churches with common consent among us] teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that by Baptism the grace of God is offered, and that children are to be baptized, who by Baptism, being offered to God, are received into God’s favor. They condemn the Anabaptists who allow not the Baptism of children, and affirm that children are saved without Baptism. (Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 3, p. 13)
Why are you so obsessed with carnal leadership? It absolutely cult like.
No, as the requirements for baptism is that of wholehearted repentant faith, (Acts 3:28; 8:36,37) and it is incongruous that an act of such cardinal importance by the Holy Spirit would provide even one clear example of infants being baptized, and it can only be speculated that whole household baptisms included children so young as to not be able to discern their need for forgiveness by faith in the Lord Jesus.
And circumcision has limited correspondence, and covenantal distinctions that do not equate to baptizing infants when they cannot believe, as personal belief is always in conversion.
However, there is a difference in baptizing an infant in holding that this makes them a partaker of the covenant, as some hold, versus imagining that this makes them regenerate and justified by inherent holinesss. And which regeneration is not empirically manifest as in Scripture and evangelical conversion, but basically it overall makes a mockery of Scriptural regeneration.
But it is your practice to go after side issues, while ignoring the main one. You went on at length justifying the right to execute men by spiritual means, when the issue was that of the use of the sword of men, and finally you were forced to give a clear rejection of the use of the latter by the church. But at least you did, which is more than some others would so.
And then you once again indicted Luther as being against the Jews, ignoring the precedent your own church provided, by popes no less, not a reformers, though you had been shown this in response to past one-sided indictments.
And here you want to focus in Prot. paedobaptism, while the issue was the RC preoccupation with Luther, and Rome's assured veracity and baptismal justification by ones own inherent holiness, thus leading to purgatory.
It seems to me you are blaming the Jews themselves for being unlovable by declining to convert or simply disappear, including the Jews in the Holocaust, which I suppose is the same view you would apply to the Waldensian Protestants, that they made themselves unlovable as well. I find this troubling, a blaming if the victim if you will.
A German woman and her daughter in dresses walked by a concentration camp fence, perhaps on their way to church. The little girl saw all the gaunt men standing near the wire. "Mommy, who are those people ?, asked the little girl. "Those are not people. Those are Jews" the mother answered. True story; sounds hauntingly better in the German in which it was said. I suppose those Jews were unloved, and the mother did not fulfill the positives of Matthew 25. God help us to fulfill Matthew 25 as sheep and not goats.