If you pursue that, you will ultimately come to the position that heresy is self-validating. Just because someone belives in a heresy, that makes it valid – without regard to the truth or falsity of the position.
Exactly my point. And why I believe Catholicism as being weak to many of the same problems as Protestantism.
Show me that tradition and trace it back. Name the Baptists of the First, Second, Third, and later centuries.
I presume there were, in the first century, Christians who chose to immerse people fully, and who also accepted the Trinity and the Grace of Christ. This, pretty much, is the only dogma required by Baptists today (though there would be other doctrinal issues).
So we can say that, through all generations, there have been Baptists, though not with the highly developed doctrine Baptists have today.
And all that can be offered is “I think” or “I believe”, and then a “because”, hopefully resting on good arguments. But certainty outside of faith is not appropriate or possible in the realm of theology. So I told you what I believe, and in part why (the part that is relevant to the question at hand)
Why do you bring up full immersion? Are you under the impression that’s a Catholic dogma?
No. I am under the impression that it is Baptist dogma. And that it stands on just as strong a ground as Papist dogma (Papal infallibility).
I take it you understand “infallibility” to be something quite different from what the Church teaches.
Just because someone disagrees with you, doesn’t mean they don’t understand you.
I understand the Church’s teaching on Papal infallibility, and on the infallibility of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium (or, at least, I believe that I do, though I am always open to further instruction on the matter). And I reject this teaching.
In small part for the reasons given above.
.