I understand it is not part of your faith community's modern tradition. Your tradition notwithstanding, where in the scriptures is baptism of little ones explicitly forbidden ?
“I understand it is not part of your faith community’s modern tradition.”
That is quite a liberal catch phrase. I would never use it.
I get my teaching from the Bible.
Believe me, for 23 years, I got enough from Rome to fill my craw for a long, long, time.
“Your tradition notwithstanding, where in the scriptures is baptism of little ones explicitly forbidden ?”
Ah, back to an argument from silence. Can’t find a basis for a teaching? Make it up and pretend it’s sanctioned.
The Scriptures teach believers to be baptized. They never teach non-believers (including infants) be baptized. By claiming infant baptism, you are adding to the teaching of believers baptism.
Under the theory of “the Scriptures don’t explicitly forbid it” you may consider adding some other key doctrines, like...
Baptizing dogs, cats and hamsters. Scripture doesn’t forbid it.
I would caution you about baptizing cats thought. From experience, I can tell you they are not Christians and they do not appreciate immersion.
Okay, Catholic Tradition holds that Peter was the first Pope, right? So on the day of Pentecost, when the men in Jerusalem saw the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the disciples, they were convicted of their sin and asked what they had to do to be saved.
What did Peter tell them? "Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of your sins." So if baptism is supposed to follow repentance, how can an infant be baptized?
Where would Rome be today; without the explicitly forbidden clause?
That "Call no man Father" thingy didn't have much of an effect.