Well since infant baptism was brought up, I will say that is a doctrine I have problems with. I don't see it's rejection as being something that dates back just 1,000 years. Scott, you may want to unbiasedly recheck your historical facts.
Citing a passage like:
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Acts 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
really doesn't prove much without interjecting preconceived beliefs into the text. Nowhere is the mention of an infant. For instance, my sister and her family consist of four children, with the youngest being 11.
Anyway, look at the last word in the passage... "straightway"
That word denotes a specific kind of baptism, the one most consistent with the Bible and the Greek word, baptismos.
You may find some ECFs that mention infant baptism, but I believe it's more a tradition than it is apostolic. Even the Didache doesn't really mention infant baptism. One of the early requirements was fasting.
Trust me, infants don't fast.
Even if they spoke, it would not be in their vocabulary. :D
But I AM a Baptist and I do firmly believe in credobaptism. I was "christened" as an infant but was fully immersed as an adult, making a personal and conscious choice.
It was an extremely wonderful, spiritual experience that all believing members of the Body should have gotten to experience... and remember. :yes