The complete case for Infant Baptism.

Picture this: 2 Pastors, one Presbyterian (Paedobaptist), the other Baptist (Credobaptist) are sent on a mission to different parts of an island where no one has heard of Christianity. They preach the Gospel and people are converted, the Baptist only baptizes those who make a credible profession of faith. While the Presbyterian baptizes only those who make a credible profession of faith as well. We see that that the first generation of converts and baptisms for these 2 missionaries are almost identical, yet one believes in infant baptism and the other does not? Well one easy way to resolve this phenomenon is to realize that, there are currently no children born to Christian parents on the island. Evidently ,the first goal of the missionaries is to convert the people of the island to the faith, not their children. This is the paradigm we see in the book of Acts. The Apostles preach the resurrection of Jesus Christ for the first time in Jerusalem and since there are currently no Christians in Jerusalem the apostles preach a message of repentance, faith and baptism to the Jews of the first century to convert them to Christianity. If one had to assume that the Presbyterian had no intention of baptizing babies simply because he was asking for a profession of faith before baptizing adults when he arrived, one would be incorrect. Paedobaptists believe that, the same process is happening in the book of Acts. The bible never commands or prohibits infant baptism, one could even say that since we never see an explicit mention of infant baptism in the bible it is therefore unbiblical... You know what else, also isn't in the bible? A single example of a child born to Christian parents not being baptized until they are 12 years old.

The argument from Covenant theology.

In the old testament God establishes his covenant with Abraham. Romans 4:1-5 Tells us that Abraham was justified by faith, just as we are justified by faith and not by works. The passage Paul is quoting is Genesis 15:6 And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness. God then makes his covenant of circumcision with Abraham in Genesis 17:10-12 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring. We are told in Romans 4:11 that circumcision was a sign of faith. Abraham had faith before he received the sign of faith (circumcision), however he is then not permitted but commanded by God to give circumcision to his son Isaac as an infant after 8 days (Genesis 21:4). So we know that Almighty God at least in one instance commands a sign of faith to be given before that which the sign signifies is present - RC Sproul. Such that when Moses delayed to circumcise his son God sought to kill him Exodus 4:24. You might wonder what this has got to do with baptism, well like how circumcision was the sign of the old covenant baptism is the sign of the new covenant. Colossians 2:11 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. So it would be expected that a 2000+ year old practice of giving the sign of the covenant to the children of believers would continue in the new covenant unless given explicit instruction that this should end. We see the uproar in the book of Acts and Galations when the Jews saw people who were not in the old covenant (Gentiles) being included in the new without first entering the old through circumcision. Were is the Jewish uproar for people who used to be included in the old covenant(Jewish infants) now being excluded form the new? I think the burden of proof is on the Credobaptist to prove that God no longer wants infants included in the new covenant like they were in the Old.

Isn't the new covenant supposed to be more inclusive then the old which was only for the Jewish people? Yet Credobaptists will have to admit that at least in one aspect the old covenant is more inclusive then the new. 1 Corinthians 7:13-14: 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away.14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. This passage states that the child of at least one Christian parent is born holy (to be set apart) and we see that the sanctification of the unbelieving spouse is not for their own benefit or salvation but so that the children of the Christian spouse may not be unclean, which in the old testament those who were unclean were to be set outside the covenant community but now your children are holy. The idea that the children of believers are born pagans or unbelievers who later have to be converted to the Christian faith is simply unbiblical.

Household baptisms

Out of the 12 references to baptism in the new testament 5 of them are household cases: Cornelius and his household (Acts 10), Lydia and her household(Acts 16:15), The Philippian jailer and his household(Acts 16:33), Crispus and his household(Acts 18:8), Stephanus and his household(1 Corinthians 1:16), where an entire household was baptized. The argument is not that the apostles baptized unbelievers within these household, because the households believed, but rather one can see the covenantal aspect of the same practice done in the old testament from Genesis 17:12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. Because if one were to argue that infants weren't baptized in these households(if there were any) because they didnt have faith they would have to prove that a sign of faith cannot be given before that which the sign signifies is present and if you do, do that you condemn what God commands. Think about how pagan gentiles could convert and join the jewish nation, Ruth for example. She (formerly a moabite) becomes Jewish abandons her paganism (Ruth 1:16) but yet doesn't wait for her son Obed to be 13 first before she circumcised him but obeyed Jewish custom. in summary New testament instructions on how to receive adult converts to the faith does not have the slightest relevance to the question what are to be done with the children of those converts, because they are neither adults nor converts and to assume therefore that the only way to become Christian is to be an adult and a convert i believe is missing the point. Romans 11:17-24 Speaks about God's Olive tree and how the natural branches (the jews) who grew on the tree were cut off due to unbelief so that believing gentiles could be surgically be added to the tree. Are we supposed to believe that God no longer allows branches to grow form his Olive tree in the new covenant but always has to surgically add branches.

The argument from Baptismal regeneration  

This one is quite simple. If baptism forgives sins, the question is are infants sinners. I think the scriptural testimony is yes Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Ephesians 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins. Ephesians 2:3among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. We see the bible says that we are "brought forth in iniquity" and "conceived in sin", and that we are born "by nature children of wrath". If you are still opposed to infant baptism because you don't think that signs of faith should be given before faith is present? Who says infants can't have faith, King David says he trusted in the Lord form his mother's breast Psalm 22:9, with John the Baptist: Luke 1:15 for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb I think we can all agree the Holy Spirit only fills believers you might say he is not conscious of his faith but yet in verse 41 he leaps for joy in the presence of Jesus while both him and Jesus are both still in the womb (their mothers meet). Why deny your children God's loving grace?

Church History

Since the Apostles don't explicitly mention infant Baptism we can go to the Apostolic Fathers, those who lived closer to the time of the Apostles. Hippolytus writing in (215 AD) is our first explicit mention of Infant baptism and he says that the church practiced infant baptism. He was discipled by Irraneus who was discipled by Polycarp who was discipled by John the Apostle. Origen writing in (230-250) AD says that the church practiced infant baptism but not only that he said that they received the practice of baptizing infants from the Apostles(citations). Such that by the end of the 3rd century the testimonies we have say that infant baptism was universal in the church. Now you can believe that the entire church within 200 years abandoned the Apostolic practice of not baptizing infants without a single word of protest from the early fathers that this was happening and it is not due to lack of writings because mind you, your whole new testament was from the 1st century. There are fathers who would like baptism to be delayed a bit like Tertullian but there are far and few between and even then they acknowledge that Infant baptism is valid and would never re-baptize an infant baptism. In fact there is not a single writing prior to the 16 century (1500 years)of someone arguing infant baptism as unbiblical. That will have to wait till the anabaptist movement during the reformation. It is important to note that the anabaptist movement was not part of the reformation as they were condemned by all the reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, John Knox etc.) as all the reformers practiced infant baptism and their churches today still do, such that the only people who don't practice Paedobaptism are different Baptists, non-denominationals and Pentecostals. It doesn't seem all that peculiar that all the more recent denominations reject infant baptism as unbiblical which is not in any form historical. In fact to hold to this is to assert that the church lived in heresy for 1500 years till your denomination came up (which sounds a lot like what Mormonism would assert) hence most Christians had invalid baptisms throughout church history. Today 80% of Christian churches practice infant baptism, Now one could appeal that Credobaptists are on the correct narrow path but i believe Mormons can make the same argument. I'm not saying that the majority is right, I'm saying at least know why there is a majority. 

A Pragmatic concern

We often hear "but Baptism is a personal choice." I would like to point out that faith itself is a gift of God and not of your own doing Ephesians 2:8-9. I believe if we are to be consistent with this line of thought then perhaps we shouldn't teach our children to pray, or read the bible, or take them to church because we need to let them grow up and make their own choice on weather they want to do these things... right? Of course no Christian parent would do say such a thing but what do you think will be your child's answer to "do you want be baptized" after 12 of years of being told his a Christian and being taken to church. Has there ever been a 12 year old Baptist who has answered no to that question and if not, was it really their "personal choice"? we see that we don't treat our children like unbeliever's but like they are truly Christians. Baptism is the formal entry into the church of Christ 1 Corinthians 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—lJews or Greeks, slaves4 or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. Why deny the most innocent among us entrance into the body of Christ?

Conclusion

The point of this is to not make you a Paedobaptist but rather so that you can openly share communion with your Paedobaptist brothers and sister understanding how complex the issue is and why they reached a different conclusion. because by parading biblical passages on the reception of converts as if Paedobaptists don't receive converts in the exact same way doesn't help unity. 

Matthew 19:1413 13 eThen children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples frebuked the people, 14 but Jesus said, g“Let the little children hcome to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” 15 And he laid his hands on them and went away.