Jesus gave the command to baptize: “...make disciples of all the nations baptizing them...” (Matt. 28:19). This Great Commission answers the question, who is to be baptized. Those who reject Infant Baptism refer to the passage: “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved.” This passage does not answer the question, who is to be baptized, but rather who will be saved. In His Baptismal command Jesus does not mention the age of those who are to be baptized. For this reason it is not right to deny Baptism to children. Those who deny Baptism to infants make a decisive mistake, when in addition to the general Baptismal command, they seek special commands for Infant Baptism. Because there is a general command that applies to everyone, the rejectors of Infant Baptism should find a passage that forbids the baptizing of infants. The Bible, however, nowhere forbids Infant Baptism. Those who forbid it act like a steward of an estate, who gets a command from the owner to seed all the land. But because the owner did not specifically tell the steward to seed some small fertile strips of the land, he did not seed them.
Let's take a look at the passage NK.
"Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”…
The Apostles were to make disciples and baptize them.
The Apostles were to teach them to obey all Christ commanded.
I've yet to meet a baby that can become a disciple and then be baptized and taught.
Sorry, the conditions Christ gave are not met by babies.
Even the wet infants.
Which is simply another pilfered (http://www.luterilainen.com/en/read/word-is-the-fountain-of-life/19-infant-baptism-is-based-on-the-bible) pasted polemic of the same propaganda, which pasting you again pass off unattributed, as if it were your own.
And once again a paedobaptism apologist is exposed as sophist, since his analogy is fallacious. For to be consistent with baptism, the command from the owner would require a specific type of land, such as one which had a quality nontilled land did not.
For as said and shown at length and ignored, except for another poor pasted polemic, the state requirement for baptism is wholehearted faith. (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) Which infants cannot (cf. Is. 7:16) and need not exercise.
At least your Lutheran source recognizes this obstacle, but which drives him to be like Catholics in abusing Scripture in stating:
Those who deny Baptism to infants base Baptism on faith rather than on the Baptismal command. They claim that an infant cannot believe. Jesus says: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me..." (Matt. 18:6). According to Jesus even nursing babes (Matt. 21:16) are better believers than adults and are examples for them.
However, what the polemicist leaves out is that the subject was NOT an infant but a child who could hear and respond to Christ' invitation:
The Apostle Paul compares Baptism to circumcision, which rite was performed on male children at the age of eight days (Col. 2:11,12).
And only male children, and which age group was specified, in clear contrast to the NT, and was a required token, not a regenerating ritual (ex opere operato [by the act itself]), and in further contrast to Catholicism, it was a token, a symbol, and thus was not performed one anyone not of the faith household, in contrast to Catholicism.
Thus circumcision fails of full correspondence, and baptism is further distinguished by the subjects being commanded to be baptized being those who could comprehend the gospel and believe, and nowhere is paedobaptism manifested.
And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,...But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. (Matthew 18:6) (Matthew 18:2)
As for Matt. 21:16, that simply is not speaking of suckling actually praising God, but the poetic language is from Psalms 8:3 (lxx text), and here it contextually refers to"the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David," (Matthew 21:15) which again, is not infants.
Thus the Lutheran's defense is shot to pieces, and he should be ashamed of himself if he imagined he could pass this off to students of Scripture,. not only is the burden of proof on him to show that