Let me ask you: How can an adult form Christ in himself?
"19 My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you..." (apostle Paul, Gal. 4:19)
Adults can't do Biblical requisites for salvation, either!
You see, what WE can't do...God does...thru us:
28 Then they asked him, “What must WE do to do the works God requires?” 29 Jesus answered, “The work OF GOD is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” (Jesus, John 6; see also Phil. 2:12-13)
We can't historically participate with Christ's death either...that, too, is by mere nature beyond all adults...we can't be buried with Christ, either; also, beyond us if we rule out SUPERnature and only look at "nature"...yet, thru baptism, Paul says that's precisely what occurs! (See Romans 6:3-4; Gal. 3:26-27; col. 2:11-12)
Infants can't believe (but ya know, I've seen a LOT of infants relationally TRUST their mommy's milk supply...and last I knew jesus said eternal life was relational...knowing...trusting...John 17:3)
Also, I'm not sure we should always be discussing baptizing of infants academically...especially given that the Bible that I know talks of at least six people who lived with God from infancy:
* David: "On you I have leaned from birth" (Ps. 71:6); "From my mother's womb you have been my God" (Ps. 22:10)
* Timothy (2 Tim. 3:14-15; 1:5)
* John the Baptist...
* Samuel
* Joseph
* Isaac
Finally all those people -- like Daniel1212 on this thread -- who said no scriptures are found that specifically say to baptize infants...ignore several Biblical & historical realities:
1. Every supposed NON "infant baptist" verse of children in the bible also by extension applies to no verses in the Bible that says any aged child -- even teens -- to be baptized! (Yet suddenly people do about turn on this subject matter if they are talking about teens being baptized, or the unbiblical Mormon-like "age of accountability" -- also conspicuously absent from the Scriptures)
So I guess since the baptism reductionists (those who reduce supernaturally being baptized to the mere man-made natural) claim nobody can presume anything about households, that all those household references to baptism must have been either completely childless...or at least presume that since no primary aged kids, no infants, no toddlers, no pre-teens, or not teens are SPECIFICALLY mentioned (see 1 Cor. 1:16; Acts 11:14: 16:15, 33; 18:8)
2. With the exception of Tertullian, early church fathers (pre-the 'Rome' of roman catholicism) didn't write against the practice of infant baptism. The ONLY argument re: baptism then was whether itshould be done in the early days (first week post-birth), or a little later...see Council of Carthage, 253 or 254 AD -- just 133 years after John's death. (Council of Carthage: "We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of god, especially infants...those newly born) -- 66 bishops said ... just single-digit generations after Jesus' ascension...DON'T HINDER children from "coming unto" HIM (exactly as Jesus said...don't be an ostacle...a blockade...to little children coming to Him)
Origen (185-254), WHOSE FATHER, GRANDFATHER & GREAT-GRANDFATHER were all Christians & who traveled widely & visited many of the churches founded by the apostles...referenced it as "apostolic tradition"...
Cyprian (215-258) wrote about baptism being days after birth. hippolytus, Tertullian, Justin martyr, and Irenaus all wrote about infant baptism. 'Twas practiced everywhere in the early church with the possible exception of Eastern Syria. Hippolytus' order of service for baptism had wide circulation, was translated into various languages...
Polycarp (69-155), a disciple alongside John, said at his martyrdom at age 86: "86 years have I searved him."
Irenaus said that Jesus came to save all through him are bborn again to God...infants, children, boys, ouths, and old men...all stages covered.
Let me ask you: How can an adult form Christ in himself? "19 My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you..." (apostle Paul, Gal. 4:19) Adults can't do Biblical requisites for salvation, either!
Again this is a false dilemma, as you are imagining that an action done by God excludes any God-wrought response by man preceding it from being an act requiring moral cognizance, as well as making that work the instrumental cause of a subsequent work of God.
You hold that "the forgiveness of sins is repeatedly designated thru baptism," and is directly linked to justification and adoption into His family New Life/Salvation, yet want to deny this act of being baptized as being a responsive work which infants cannot make, such the act of being baptized is one which God moves and enables one to do.
However, while God certain does move and enable one to do what he otherwise could not and would not do, yet choosing to believe and to be baptized is a stipulated required response by man. (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:36,37)
God certainly could move and enable an infant to believe, but there is no Scriptural teaching that He does this as a norm, but instead He calls all to repentance and faith as a prerequisite for baptism.
Infants can't believe (but ya know, I've seen a LOT of infants relationally TRUST their mommy's milk supply...and last I knew jesus said eternal life was relational...knowing...trusting...John 17:3)
That analogy fails, as infants can choose food but are not manifest as culpable for sin, and able to realize their need for a savior, and choose Christ, by God's grace. Conversions in Scripture were preceded conviction of sin, righteousness and judgment, and thus of seeking salvation.
Also, I'm not sure we should always be discussing baptizing of infants academically...especially given that the Bible that I know talks of at least six people who lived with God from infancy:
*David: "On you I have leaned from birth" (Ps. 71:6);
Misappropriation: It says, "By thee have I been holden up from the womb," not choosing to rely in God.
*From my mother's womb you have been my God" (Ps. 22:10)
Besides actually saying, "Cast upon womb thou God mother's belly," (Psalms 22:10) the whose Psalm with its poetic language ("I am a worm" "many bulls have compassed me" "as a ravening and a roaring lion") speaks most directly of Christ, and need not literally say that David himself choose God at birth, but can infer that God was his God in caring for him, enabling him to have life and a future from birth, while for Christ as God then God was His God from everlasting, and at birth.
If David did choose God, then that would be an exception to the norm, and thus it is mentioned as is the case with multitude other exceptions
*Timothy (2 Tim. 3:14-15; 1:5)
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 3:15)
So you think Timothy could read scripture as an infant, or is this another example of overreach?
*John the Baptist... You mean "filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb," (Lk. 1:15) Which quite obviously is not the norm, which norm is what you must show.
* Samuel
For whom we are told, Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed unto him. (1 Samuel 3:7)
Which somehow means he choose God as an infant? More carelessness or desperation.
Joseph
I cannot even guess what text you are referring to that shows Joseph choosing to believe in God as an infant. Because he had a dream after he could talk?
Isaac
Likewise an argument without a text.
Finally all those people -- like Daniel1212 on this thread -- who said no scriptures are found that specifically say to baptize infants...ignore several Biblical & historical realities:
1. Every supposed NON "infant baptist" verse of children in the bible also by extension applies to no verses in the Bible that says any aged child -- even teens -- to be baptized!
Wrong: For the vast majority of descriptions of baptisms are those of souls who repented and believed, manifesting moral cognizance, and thus exclude infants but can include teens, and even souls young enough to "morally "know to refuse the evil, and choose the good." (Isaiah 7:16)
..."age of accountability" -- also conspicuously absent from the Scriptures
Wrong: see below, which denotes a time of realization which was not present before. Nor is this age of accountability originally a Mormonic doctrine, but recognized long before that.
Deuteronomy 1:39 - Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.
James 4:17 - Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.
Matthew 19:14 - But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Isaiah 7:16 - For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
With the exception of Tertullian, early church fathers (pre-the 'Rome' of roman catholicism) didn't write against the practice of infant baptism. Origen ...referenced it as "apostolic tradition"...
Which, along with other traditions of men such held to, testifies to the problem of perpetuation of erroneous traditions due to making tradition equal with Scripture, even if some were unaware of it. Christmas today has centuries of tradition, and is effectively held as required observance, which any minister will realize if he attempt to walk in Scriptural leading in worship.
Cyprian
Who was a principle instrument in the Romanizing of the church:
Paul Johnson, educated at the Jesuit independent school Stonyhurst College, and at Magdalen College, Oxford, author of over 40 books and a conservative popular historian, finds,
The Church was now a great and numerous force in the empire, attracting men of wealth and high education, inevitably, then, there occurred a change of emphasis from purely practical development in response to need, to the deliberate thinking out of policy. This expressed itself in two ways: the attempt to turn Christianity into a philosophical and political system, and the development of controlling devices to prevent this intellectualization of the faith from destroying it. The twin process began to operate in the early and middle decades of the third century, with Origen epitomizing the first element and Cyprian the second.
The effect of Origen’s work was to create a new science, biblical theology, whereby every sentence in the scriptures was systematically explored for hidden [much prone to metaphorical] meanings, different layers of meanings, allegory and so forth...
Cyprian [c. 200 – September 14, 258] came from a wealthy family with a tradition of public service to the empire; within two years of his conversion he was made a bishop. He had to face the practical problems of persecution, survival and defence against attack. His solution was to gather together the developing threads of ecclesiastical order and authority and weave them into a tight system of absolute control...the confession of faith, even the Bible itself lost their meaning if used outside the Church.
With Cyprian, then, the freedom preached by Paul and based on the power of Christian truth was removed from the ordinary members of the Church, it was retained only by the bishops, through whom the Holy Spirit still worked, who were collectively delegated to represent the totality of Church members...With Bishop Cyprian, the analogy with secular government came to seem very close. But of course it lacked one element: the ‘emperor figure’ or supreme priest...
[Peter according to Cyprian was] the beneficiary of the famous ‘rock and keys’ text in Matthew. There is no evidence that Rome exploited this text to assert its primacy before about 250 - and then...Paul was eliminated from any connection with the Rome episcopate and the office was firmly attached to Peter alone...
...There was in consequence a loss of spirituality or, as Paul would have put it, of freedom... -(A History of Christianity, by Paul Johnson, pp. 51 -61,63. transcribed using OCR software)
Polycarp (69-155), a disciple alongside John, said at his martyrdom at age 86: "86 years have I searved him."
That is a doubtful assertion as both your birth and death dates are disputed , and thus 86 years could refer to being from his conversion (and how one serves God is an infant leads to legends).
Irenaus said that Jesus came to save all through him are bborn again to God...infants, children, boys, ouths, and old men...all stages covered.
Along with perpetuating other extraScriptural traditions, which here presumes that the Holy Spirit did not think it important to include even one manifest example/description of an infant being baptized, while providing numerous others of believers being baptized, and requiring repentance and faith as conditions of it, unlike circumcision, which is required for infants.
God knows what He is doing, with in providing what we need and in His silence, which is to be respected, versus adding to His words.
Furthermore, the overall fruit of those who most preach paedobaptists is that of liberalism, in contrast to those who most preach it follows repentance and faith.