I understand we disagree about whether those without a profession of faith should be baptized. But if your argument is that infant baptism defines historic Christianity, I must ask, history according to who? Certainly not Scriptural history. There are no examples of infant baptism anywhere in Scripture. Go ahead and run through all the typical passages if you like. I've been affiliated with sound reformed churches on and off my whole adult life. I've known and respected many a good, Bible-based reformed preacher, read the recommended books, and explored this in Scripture for myself, with deep interest and openness, when my children were the objects of concern. My conclusion, then and now, is there is nothing in Scripture to support the practice, let alone make the practice binding.
Nor does Christianity present any evidence of the practice as a widespread norm until centuries after the apostolic era. Probably the earliest unambiguous reference to it comes from Tertullian, who advises delay:
And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.” Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the “remission of sins?” More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to “ask” for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given “to him that asks.” For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred— in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom— until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.
I'm not representing Tertullian as the final word on the matter, but clearly, from an historical point of view, his comment reflects that there was a diversity of opinion on the matter centuries after the close of apostolic era. I regard my Reformed and Presbyterian brethren warmly, as brothers in Christ, and most I have known would not use that issue to divide the body of Christ. Nor would I.
As for whether Baptists were contaminated with the Social Gospel by the involvement of some of them with the temperance movement, that's a silly argument. There were secular progressives running about in those days, true, but the impulse to eradicate the evils of alcohol had widespread Christian roots, Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists. The Baptists barely get a mention in the histories I've read on the subject. But it isn't at all surprising that communists would try to co-opt Christian organizations to further their own ends. They co-opted Christianity itself. Marxism is Christian utopianism in which Christ is removed and man put in his place. But the popular appeal of the utopian narrative was deeply rooted in the Christian culture's sense of justice, of caring for the poor and oppressed, etc. That Christianity should be thus co-opted does not invalidate Christianity. Nor does an entire category of Bible-believing, strongly conservative Christians become suspect over the fact that some Baptist preachers here and there thought it would help their flocks to make liquor hard to get.
And you can't really say the problem with progressivism was that it was entangling Christians with the political system. Historically, the Baptists are among the least politically inclined. Whereas the Reformed produced the theonomists. Rushdoony, Gary North, and the gang. Even Calvin saw no problem with a profound interaction between church and state. What he had in Geneva went way beyond trying to legislate on a few big ticket moral issues. Do you think we should legislate against abortion? After all, not everybody sees human life as sacred. Wouldn't want to slip into the Social Gospel by taking a stand against evil, right?
So no, the whole smear thing on Baptists, or any other genuinely Christian group, based on the temperance movement, is baloney. Being historically Christian comes down to the confession of the historical Christian faith, which in turn comes down to being faithful to God's word. There are lots of things that could divide us if we let them. Every human institution is imperfect in some way. If we must be divided, let it be over things we in which we can appeal to divine truth for arbitration. Dividing over lesser things only aids and abets the enemies of Christ.
Peace,
SR