Yes, some (a small percentage of Christians) for the past nearly 500 years (25% of Christian history) are following the tradition of Mr. Thomas Muenzer who invented/created this new tradition of withholding baptism for those under the age of X, dogmatically insisting that those under that (never disclosed) age are forbidden from receiving baptism in the Bible. Thus, protesting the universal practice of all Christians since 69 AD at the very, very latest of NOT restricting God's command based on not yet attained the (never disclosed) age of X. These few Christians, for about 25% of Christian history, have embraced a new doctrine, new prohibition. But what this thread has so very, very well documented is that they have NOTHING in Scripture (or anywhere else) to support this new prohibition, this new restriction, this new doctrine of withholding baptism to those who ahve not yet celebrated X number of birthdays.
What Scripture states that we must withhold baptism from any who has not yet attained the age of X? Where is the prohibition that is the insistence of this new, small tradition of rejecting/denying/protesting PAEDO-baptism (the issue of this thread: whether the command to baptize is restricted to those under the age of X, whatever that age is protestors never say). Since 69 AD at the very, very latest - it was the UNIVERSAL view of ALL Christians that Jesus' command does NOT have a biblical prohibition in it based on age. But in the 16th Century, a German came along and invented, created a new view: that we are forbidden in Scripture from permitting those under the age of X from receiving baptism (a protest of the practice of paedo-baptism), creating this new (and so far small) tradition of protesting paedo-baptism and withholding it from any under the age of X (I say "X" because in the nearly 500 years since this tradition was invented, there is no consensus what age this is). This thread is entirely about this new tradition of WITHHOLDING baptism based on age.
Some insist that those under this (never disclosed) age must give their formal CONSENT before we can give them anything or do anything for them, but they've revealed they have NOTHING in Scripture (or anywhere else) to support this. Some insist that those under this (never disclosed) age must FIRST weep buckets of tears in repentance and only after that may they receieve baptism, but they've revealed they have NOTHING in Scripture (or anywhere else) to support this. Some insist that those under this (never disclosed) age must attain a certain IQ and educational level and understanding (although they won't say what level that is) before they may be permitted to receive Bapatism but they have revealed they have NOTHING in Scripture to remotely support this.
Now, some have (correctly) pointed out that there is no specific verse that says those under the age of X (whatever age that is) MAY be baptized. True enough, but then there is no verse that says those OVER that age may be baptized. And there's no verse that says Americans may be baptized, or folks with blonde hair may be baptized or those with a Ph.D. may be baptized or Methodists may be baptized or married people may be baptized (and we have no examples in Scripture of any such being baptized) - yet they permit persons to be baptized WITHOUT a specific verse saying they are permitted (and even without a single example of they being baptized in the Bible). Now, if someone dogmatically insisted that married people must be forbidden from baptism, I'd bet you'd shout "Where does the Bible say that!!???!!!" Well.... where does the Bible say that those under the (never disclosed) age of X are forbidden and baptism must be withheld from them? There IS the general command to baptize, but there is no more a verse "But thou mayest NOT baptize those under the age of X, such is forbidden!" than there is a verse, "But thou mayest NOT baptize married people, such are forbidden!"
.
