What ultimately made me change my mind on Infant Baptism

Due to the Bible being silent on infant baptism, Credo Baptist have to argue from narrative, not instruction. It is a well established fact that baptism is the new circumcision, that is baptism is the sign of the new covenant and circumcision was the sign of the Old covenant. This is stated explicitly by Paul in Colossians 2: 11-12 where he refers to Baptism as the "circumcision of Christ". Paul also tells the Galatians that they no longer need to receive circumcision. Now lets look at the cases whereby someone would receive circumcision. Case 1: They become Jewish. If one wished to become Jewish or join the Jewish people they had to be circumcised. One would have to essentially need to convert to Judaism first which requires a profession of faith and him and his household will be circumcised. Case 2: One needs to be born to Jewish parents and they would be circumcised at 8 days. There is a Case 3 but we will get to that later. Now all comprehensive examples of Trinitarian baptism is found in the book of Acts, the credo Baptist realizes that the process every time is: The gospel is preached, someone believes and then they are baptized. They therefore conclude that one can only baptize someone who has heard the Gospel and then believes. The Credo Baptist sees only Case 1 being applied and automatically assumes that Case 2 is not mentioned because it is not permitted, but how? If examples of believer's circumcision (Case 1) does not negate infant circumcision (Case 2) then how does examples of believers baptism negate infant baptism? Credo Baptist make the same mistake when looking at baptismal Catechesis in the early church and say that an infant can't fast, therefore the infants are being denied baptism. The error here is assuming baptismal requirements are the same for Christian infants and adult pagan converts which is clearly not how it use to work when we examine the different requirements for Cases 1 and 2.   In the old testament, circumcision (a sign of faith Romans 4:11) can be given before faith is present. That is the principle. We need a narrative in the new testament that abrogates this principle in the Credo Baptist argument. Such that if anything, New testament silence on baptism is an argument for paedo baptism not credo.

Lets imagine a Pagan gentile Apollo. Apollo worships Idols, owns slaves and indulges in heinous rituals like child sacrifice etc. Lets say Apollo hears that people are getting baptized by Paul. Apollo goes down to where Paul is and Apollo after hearing the Gospel asks Paul to baptize him. Intuitively what do you think the Holy Apostle Paul (having heard of Apollo's degeneracy) will do before welcoming Apollo as a Christian? Bingo, Paul will ask him to repent of his idolatrous and heinous practices first and proclaim that he no longer believes in those old gods and puts his faith in Christ Alone. We see that what Paul needed here was a credible profession of faith from Apollo because Apollo was not a Christian so hence before giving someone Christian Sacraments, you need to check if that person is Christian first. Now lets imagine little Angelica, Angelica is an infant born to 2 loving and devout Christian parents, who never miss a church service and are active in the church of Thessalonica where Paul was stationed for 2 years as a Pastor. Paul knows these 2 Parents as faithful Christians who will raise their children in the faith under the hearing of Paul's Gospel and in the love of the Christian community. Are we seriously asserting that Paul will treat little Angelica and Apollo the same way and will not trust that Angelica is a Christian in spite of her young age. Is it not absurd to think that the children of believers are unbelievers? Does the book of proverbs not instruct us to bring up our children as if they are already Christians, not pagans that you have to present with apologetics in hopes that they will one day become Christians. Is this not the same Paul who says in: 1 Corinthians 7:12–14: 12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. Paul gives us only ONE reason why a Christian who has an unbelieving spouse should not divorce them. Only one... and that is because through the faith of the believing spouse God will sanctify the unbelieving spouse not for their own salvation but for the sake of progeny of the believing spouse so that his or her children will be Holy, else would they be unclean. Meaning to say nothing else is good about an unbeliever poisoning the faith of a believer but for the sake of the children, only for their sake will God sanctify this unbeliever so as to prevent the progeny of this faithful Christian being like Apollo and his progeny. Such are the riches of our Lord's love for our children. Does this surprise you? Why? Is this not the same Lord who said. "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belong the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:14). You will say to me "We should only baptize those we know have put their faith in Jesus". What say you of dear Angelica, was her first words not "Christ is Lord", did her parents not teach her how to pray to Jesus the very moment she gained utterance. Were not the scriptures the first words she read. Does Apollo's speech make him more worthy of our Lord's grace then dear Angelica? Would you not be ashamed to learn that the very thing you wish to see Angelica demonstrate is granted in the very thing you deny her? What merit is there in waiting until she gains utterance to baptize her? Will a child raised under the hearing of the Gospel deny Christ at age 6 any more then she will at 1 month? For what decision do you await to hear at age 6 that will not be influenced by your indoctrination at 1 month? What agency do you wish to grant to her when you have brought her up under the hearing of Paul's Gospel. The agency of Baptism you wish to grant her, but the agency of what she believes about God you deny her? You say: "We should only baptize those who we are confident will stay Christians". Where in the Holy scripture did you read that one is to baptize only those who he believes will stay Christians till the end. Is it true that Apollo is more likely to stay in Christ then Angelica. Who told you O man to pry into the divine council of God's Elect? O man you run where Angels fear to tread.

Lets look at why we might have adult baptisms in the book of Acts. The book of Acts is a recording of the Gospel going out to the Jews, for the first time in the city of Jerusalem after the ascension of Christ. So if the Jewish disciples are about to go preach the gospel to their Jewish (non-Christian) brothers and sisters. Who are the possible candidates we have for Baptism? People from Case 1 or people from Case 2...? Obviously Case 1! because all new Christians will be converts and hence are baptized as adults, we can only have Case 2 when a child is born to parents who are already Christians. So yes, of course all we will find in Acts is credobaptism because Case 2 is literally impossible for the sample size of the people in the book of Acts. Now Case 3 would be where A Jewish family converts to Christianity and has an infant in the house. Will a Jewish Christian wait till his infant is of age then baptize him Or will he be baptized when his Father realizes the arrival of his Messiah? 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. This is the commandment that our Jewish friend last remembers in regards to covenant signs and infants. So tell me when Acts says that the -Jewish- disciples went around baptizing households, what would have been the expectation of the Jewish converts? When the disciples arrived at their households to baptize their families would the disciples not have to continuously tell the Jews to stop bringing them infants because God is no longer giving infants the covenant sign like he used to? Was not the argument of the writer to the Hebrews one of telling the Jewish Christians not to return to Judaism because the new covenant is better and based on better promises. This argument wouldn't work to a Jew whose 1 year old was in the old covenant and now he's 1 year old is now denied the new covenant sign because he can't speak? But you will say to me: " But it says that the households believed". Firstly not all the passages say the household all believed like in the case of Lydia and her household for example." But let me grant that all the households believed including Lydia's, you still have a problem because it says: "the entire households believed and were baptized". Infants are apart of households! so you either have to conclude that there were in infants in the household that believed and were baptized or you have to believe that there no infants in the houses that's why Acts can say the whole household believed. but your only options are: Infants believed and were baptized or Case 1 again and not Case 3.