Why am I citing minor historical figures against baptismal regeneration?

An objection that some readers might have to posts like the two I put up earlier this week is that they involve relatively minor individuals in the historical record, people whose names we don't even know. If baptismal regeneration is false, shouldn't that have been known to more significant figures as well? Sometimes that sort of objection will be put in terms of asking for church fathers, church leaders, or some other such group instead of the sort of lesser individuals my recent posts have discussed.

I have cited more prominent sources as well: Jesus, the apostles, church fathers, etc. I've argued that some of those individuals opposed baptismal regeneration and that others held a sort of hybrid view that affirmed both a highly efficacious view of prebaptismal faith and a highly efficacious view of baptism. That hybrid position isn't the same as my view of justification apart from baptism, but does offer partial corroboration of it.

When I cite lesser figures in pre-Reformation history, like the ones I wrote about earlier this week, I'm doing that to supplement the more prominent figures, not as a substitute for citing individuals who were more prominent. And there are multiple reasons for thinking that those lesser sources have some significance.

For one thing, if critics of justification apart from baptism are going to claim that nobody believed in justification apart from baptism, interpreted John 3:5 differently than they do, etc. before the Reformation, then all it takes is one source to the contrary to refute that claim. And that one source doesn't need to be a figure who was prominent at the time when he lived or from our perspective today.

A recurring theme in scripture is the significance of certain individuals who had a low social status in this life or were forgotten by later generations (Ecclesiastes 9:13-18, Romans 11:4, etc.). "But many who are first will be last; and the last, first." (Matthew 19:30) I wrote about this theme in a post last year.

And critics of justification apart from baptism frequently appeal to minor historical figures, even anonymous, schismatic, or heretical sources, to support their views on various issues, sometimes specifically on baptismal regeneration (e.g., the anonymous Epistle Of Barnabas) or other baptismal issues (e.g., Tertullian's unnamed opponents who believed in infant baptism). It doesn't make sense for people who frequently cite the Protevangelium Of James to support the perpetual virginity of Mary, apocryphal and heretical documents to support Mary's assumption, catacomb inscriptions to support praying to saints, etc. to turn around and claim that sources like minor or anonymous individuals shouldn't be cited. All of us rely on such sources in many contexts (Biblical manuscripts, patristic manuscripts, archeological artifacts, etc.).