When Peter offered baptism to children in Acts 2:39, why didn't he place any restrictions on it?

Let's see:

Kevlar vest: check

AK-47: check

Attack trained Rottweiler: check

9 mm. Glock backup: check

Small tac nuke: check

Self-preservation instinct: Not available for this model

Bravery to wretched excess: installed and obviously working altogether too well

**********************************

OK, I've given you enough survival tools to keep the fundamentalists from killing you outright. But I gotta tell ya, m'friend, you ain't making this easy.

Be prepared for the "Baptism is only for adults" barrage that is no doubt headed your way. I wish you all the best.

Peace out.

Christ said no-one would enter the kingdom without being reborn through water and the spirit, an obvious reference to baptism. Then, when observing a group of small children and babes in arms, He said "to such as these belongs the kingdom of heaven". So, He either contradicted Himself, or these children were already baptized. Which would hardly be a surprise since the original and true Christian Church baptized children from day one. It is only in the past few hundred years that anyone calling themselves Christian would refuse baptism to babies and small children, one of many ways that Protestantism has fallen away from original and true Christianity.

Matthew 28:19 turned right into a command through Jesus to baptize in a acceptance. The Apostles did not repeat the words of the command--they OBEYED the command. that is glaring interior the following Scriptures: "Then Peter suggested unto them, Repent, and be baptized one and all of you contained in the call of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the present of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38). "...they were baptized contained in the call of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 8:16). "And he commanded them to be baptized contained in the call of the Lord" (Acts 10:40 8). "neither is there salvation in the different: for there is no different call lower than heaven given between adult adult males, wherein we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). "And in besides ye do in note or deed, do all contained in the call of the Lord Jesus, giving because of God and the daddy through him" (Colossians 3:17).

**sighs**

its irritating to have to repeat myself

because previous answers werent read correctly

a child must not reach the age of accountability before being baptized

there is no NEED to baptize an infant for their salvation

baptism is a symbolic act among christians

to honor everything that christ did

he didnt only die for the weight of the world

no...he was crucified for the weight of the world

he was beaten, spit on, laughed at, mocked and tortured

not just for the weight of the world either

for the power of the sacrificial blood shed that day too

because of ALL of that

NOW we can go straight to god

((this is why the thick curtain was ripped in two))

more symbolism

no NEED to go through the church or the priest to get to god

through that blood that was shed, god can now look upon us

and he ONLY sees his perfect creations

we baptize ourselves now

to symbolize our own death

((death to the ego))

and rebirth to our spirit

a symbol of a conscious decision

to live a new life

it isnt a mistake to baptize children and infants

its just not needed for their salvation

Not too sure, the answer might never be known! But as a Christian, and former 'Lutheran' was given a baptism at birth, or shortly thereafter.