Let's cross two lines of polemics ...: that of the necessity of immersion and that of infant baptism.
Good point. The mode of baptism (sprinkling, affusion, immersion) and the proper recipients of it (infants/believers) are separate issues. In re the mode, the people in the NT went down into the water, and the symbolism is that of burial.
Ah, the problem is that I have been to the Holy Land, and you couldn't be immersed in most places (in fact, all places, except for the Jordan) even if you laid down flat in the 'river' (creek actually matches the reality more).
As for symbolism, burial is not the only one: no one got their feet wet while crossing the Red Sea but passed through it, nor did those in Noah's Ark, though they are also the symbolism of baptism. I Corin. 10:2, I Peter 3:20.
If being baptised into Christ's death was literal, as is argued, then every baptism would be a drowning.
Then there's the problem that the Didache specifically excludes your necessity of submersion, and at the earliest date.
I am sure you have heard the argument around the meaning of οἶκον "household"
Many times; but that the households who were baptised contained infants is surmise on your part, not stated. Many households only contain members old enough to believe in Christ.
Only surmise on your part that going into water must mean submersion: only in the story at the Jordan, can it mean that, and in the case of the baptism of St. Paul, for instance, it most certainly does not. Not only because St. Ananias' house has no facility capable of that, but the fact that households of the time (and I've been to thousands) didn't except for the very wealthiest, and even then it was unusual.
The term οἶκον is a term of art: it had a legal/canonical meaning which included children. Even if no household baptized in the NT had children "below age," that wouldn't change the fact that this "of age" requirement has no basis in the thinking of the time. When a man, for instance, converted to Judaism, all his household of whatever age was circumcized and baptized in a mikvah. The default definition of οἶκον includes babes, and hence the burden lies on the Apostles and scripture, and hence you, to demonstrate otherwise. Not to get political, but your argument ressembles that of the advocates of gay marriage: whereas the case law etc up until the modern age shows that the definition of marriage presupposes a man and a women. Otherwise we would find arguments, as we do, over polygamy, remarriage of the divorced and widowed, and the status of couples without children. The definition of marriage including two people of the same sex is a modern novelty, although homosexual couples are known throughout history to Antiquity.
St. Paul specifially notes the St. Titus is appointing bishops in the cities of Crete, and is in charge of them.
The Church of Antioch did not go on what its local bishop had to say, but went up to Jerusalem, Antioch not yet having become Autocephalous. As Patriarch, St. James writes in the name of his hieararchy as his successor does now in the name of the present Holy Synod.
The apostolic age has been succeeded by something different: whether by apostolic succession and your kind of bishop, or whether by autonomous local churches ruled by local elders ('bishops') in a fellowship of equality, is the point at issue.
Well since the apostolic succession differs only in that bishops who have succeeded the Apostles, and not the Apostles themselves, constitute it, and we see no congregationalism (none that is praised, see Corinthians) in the NT, point scored.
No, you rested you faith on your own tradition, post 1517.
Believing it to be a return to the beliefs of the apostolic age (with the apostles gone, of course).]
διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν· καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας
τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος.
ܝܘܡܬܐ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܫܘܠܡܗ ܕܥܠܡܐ ܐܡܝܢ ܟܠܗܘܢ ܐܠܦܘ ܐܢܘܢ ܕܢܛܪܘܢ ܟܠ ܡܐ ܕܦܩܕܬܟܘܢ ܘܗܐ ܐܢܐ ܥܡܟܘܢ