Prologue ;)
Okay, Jeff (and anyone who picks this up). I started writing my response to you and then I was like Forest Gump. I just kept writing! I honestly have to say I’m sorry. I never intended this to be so long. I just got wrapped up in Bible aerobics and couldn’t stop. I doubt anyone else will take the time to read this, but Jeff you better! As Barry Manilow said, “This one’s for you†– and it took me a long time!
Jeff, getting into any matter with you is a blessing, because you force me to dig deep. It’s amazing when you get so entrenched scripture, you look up and it’s been an hour. I’ve got to go see what’s going on in the humor forum. Please forgive me for any typos or sentences that don’t make sense. I haven’t the strength to proofread myself!
And now… Infant Baptism…by Mike (I listen to a lot of audio books in the care)
----
What I'm trying NOT to do is fall in the trap of setting my mind on this subject and searching for biblical evidence to support my belief. Believe me, having spent my life immersed in the legitimacy of infant baptism, it's hard to release that foundation and look openly at scripture to see where it leads. I don't want to lead scripture.
I want to be Lead.
As I see this, it comes down to a few key aspects we have to consider.
1. There is no supporting scripture specifically stating that infants should be baptized.
2. Scripture tells us a person must repent and then be baptized.
3. There needs to be a conscious decision by the person being baptized.
Would you agree that this represents your reasoning for rejecting infant baptism? I hope so, because that's what I'm going with here!
1. I agree there is no biblical instruction to baptize infants. If someone is basing their view on this alone, nothing will be found to lead them to any conclusion other than it is wrong. But a few things here. There's nothing saying not to. I'm not going to rely on that. I've discussed issues with Catholics who say the same thing about praying to Mary: “There's nothing saying not to.†To which I say, “You can’t have affirmation by omission.†So there's nothing saying you shouldn't baptize infants
AND there are were occasions where entire households were baptized. Here's just a few...
Acts 18:15 "When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. "If you consider me a believer in the Lord," she said, "come and stay at my house." And she persuaded us."
Acts 18: 33-34 "33At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole family."
In addition you have 1 Cor 1 with Paul describing the household of Stephanas. Are we to assume none of these and other households mentioned had any children or that they
did have young children but they were not included? They do say "all of their households".
Would you agree that baptism could be compared to circumcision in OT law? Paul did.
Col 2:9-12 “9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. 11In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,[ not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.â€
Infants were circumcised very young, weren’t they? Back in Genesis 17…
“9 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 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. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant.â€
I have to deal with the fact that there are no accounts or instruction for infant baptism, but one who opposes has to deal with the lack of scripture instructing not to AND entire households being baptized while not acknowledging the relationship between baptism and circumcision.
2. & 3. I'm going to include both of these together, because they seem to be intertwined. While we're seeing the Bible instruct us to "repent and be baptized", some are led to conclude that only the conscious participant can repent in the first place in order to be baptized. I have to admit, this has posed more of an issue for me than the first point. I never questioned it growing up. My church just did infant baptism. When I came to life-saving faith as an adult, I started looking very critically at this. How can an infant who has no concept of what he is going through repent? He cannot! I spent a lot of time talking with friends from other churches that practiced “believers baptismâ€.
I had to wrestle with this, while considering that scripture also tells us that faith is given to us. Is it any more a miracle that an ardent atheist can come to faith than it is that faith can be placed in the heart of an infant? This is what brought me back to affirmation to believe that it can be so. Considering Mark 16.
â€15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.â€
It strikes me as odd that Jesus would put “believesâ€, “baptized†and “saved†in that order. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have them as: saved --> believes --> baptized? So when we’re told to repent and be baptized, is it absolutely necessary that we do this in the same order?
Here is where I’m going to break away from the “believers baptism†theology and consider more what is happening during baptism. I know you well enough to know you don’t believe we earn God’s Grace. Is it that difficult to conceive that God could gift a people with His Grace at such a young age that they don’t consciously participate and ask the Lord to come into their lives.
Eph 2 “8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.â€
If it is by Grace that we receive faith, could it be by Grace that infants receive faith in and with their baptisms? You may not believe, but I do. I don’t find it a stretch to submit that something amazing is happening there, and Grace is poured out on the person whether it’s as a conscious adult or an infant.
He now, consider
Romans 6. “3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.â€
When an adult who was baptized as an infant looks back at the moment of their baptism, he thinks
that is the instant God put His seal on him. That’s an awesome thing to consider!! God, independent of the infant reaching to Him, placed His seal on the baptized one. No radical conversion necessary. God does it all, because
God-does-it-all. So we are dead to sin in Christ. Does this mean we never sin again? Of course not. Are we automatically saved because we were baptized. I would say not. (I’m not into OSAS) Clearly some fall into apostasy. But it’s not any less significant.
Back in verse 3, Paul seems to be convinced that they were not aware of the significance of their baptism. “Or didn’t you know that all of us who were baptized…†It sounds like he was assuming they didn’t understand the significance. Did this make it any less significant? Did he tell them the solution was to be baptized again? NO!! He calls for them to put their faith to work and benefit from their baptism. Down further in Romans 6.
“11In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. 14For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.â€
So then I come to my original purpose of my OP. The solution that Paul gave was not to be baptized again.
He acknowledged what occurred in their baptism. Pastors should acknowledge what takes place in infant baptism. They should not force a redundant event demonstrating a lack of faith in the power of God to call an infant to His family. 
I’m spent, brotha! No doubt you will have plenty to say about this, but I’m tapped out. I’ve used up all of my stamina! Nothing left!
:type
:type
:type
Mike
You can correct me if I'm wrong there as well.
If someone was baptized as an infant, do you believe they need to be baptized again as an adult. Believe me; no insult will be inferred. 
