Honestly, when I wrote that I was almost convinced, I was almost convinced. Now I am like 100% that my ideas were off. It started with my question on a previous post and that passage I quoted. I'll put it again so you don't have to go and look at the post again.<br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]I baptize you with water to show that you have repented, but the one who will come after me will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. He is much greater than I am; and I am not good enough even to carry his sandals. He has his winnowing shovel with him to thresh out all the grain. He will gather his wheat into his barn, but he will burn the chaff in a fire that never goes out.</font color=blue> (Matthew 3:11-12 Good News Bible)</blockquote><br>And it hit me like a ton of bricks. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/bingo.gif" alt="bingo" title="bingo[/img] Scripture never says not to. And Scripture is pretty clear that it most likely was done. And church fathers affirmed that it had been done as long as they can remember. And in a General Baptist Heritage class, I learned that "believer's baptism", from what I gathered, came later as a protest thing or something. <br><br>I am not completely Paedo, but I am convinced that "believer's baptism" has some really big issues to be worked out. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/dizzy.gif" alt="dizzy" title="dizzy[/img] <br>