I hold that he recognized that they were already spiritually baptized, and he was referring to the watery baptism of repentance.
For what reason, do you believe, were they baptized in water? What this passage proves is that baptism in water was still considered necessary for those who had received 'Spirit baptism', and that baptism in water never preceded definite acceptance of Christ.
Again, show me the law (scripture) forbidding infant baptism.
To which I replied:
I don't have to show you a Scripture forbidding infant baptism any more than I have to show a Catholic a Scripture forbidding the appointment of a priesthood.
You then responded:
I don't have a problem with priesthoods (or any other structured denomination) if their teachings abide by the Bible.
I have a problem with a priesthood. A priesthood by definition is not merely a 'structure', it is an intermediary between God and men, and that is exactly how priests today operate. But we have one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
No priesthood is present in any Scriptural definition of the faith, and Scripture is abundantly clear that Christ came to end the priesthood of men, being our one and only mediator, the great High Priest in heaven.
It's not a matter of showing you a Scripture which forbids infant baptism, it's simply a case of showing you that baptism was always conditional on commandments which an infant cannot keep. So is the process of salvation. You will note there most powerfully that 'If thou believest wtih all thine heart, thou mayest [be baptized]', which Paul echoes in Romans 10.
This is for baptism through the overwhelming of the spirit, not the application of water...
Please give proof that this is 'for baptism through the overwhelming of the Spirit, not the application of water'.
Please harmonise this with the fact that the eunuch's request was 'See, here is water, what hinders me to be baptized?'. Please also harmonise this with the record of Acts 10.