Doing a little reading of The Case for Covenant Infant Baptism by Gregg Strawbridge.

From his introduction:

“After working through this question, I began to see that the basic structure of the Baptist polemic against paedoaptism is this: (1) We have an explicit biblical basis for believer’s baptism. (2) There is no explicit warrant (an example or a command) for infant baptism. (3) The new covenant is made exclusively with regenerate individuals. ( 4) Believers’ little children cannot be assumed to be regenerate. Therefore, the baptistic conclusion is that the children of believers are not to receive the sign of the new covenant until they confess their faith (and thus give evidence of their membership in the new covenant).

After due consideration of this argument, I came to see its weak points. (1) The baptist assumes that the cases of adult converts being baptized are sufficient to deal with the question of the children of believers. But is this true? Are not the children of the faithful throughout Scripture regarded differently than pagan adults? (2) The baptist lacks explicit warrant to exclude the infants of believers from the covenant, for there is no biblical command or example that demands their exclusion. (3) Their exclusion is inferred from what baptists take to be the nature of the new covenant. baptists often deny to paedobaptist the right to draw inferences that lead to infant baptism, yet their central theological objection to infant baptism – that the children of believers are not members of the new covenant – is an inference from their view of the new covenant.

The succinct answer to this central line of argument is: (1) Even a million cases of adult converts professing their faith prior to baptism would prove nothing about the baptism of infants. Paedobaptists heartily concur with the practice of adult profession prior to baptism, as is evident in the Reformed confessions. (WLC Q. 166).

Most baptist polemics just hammer away at the examples of adults, as though this settles the case. Ironically, the childless eunuch (acts 8:36-39), who clearly believed before he was baptized, becomes the paradigm for settling the question of children’s baptism. But, in fact, we do not have anything like a million cases. We have the cases listed in figure 1.

Adult Baptisms
3000 (men) at Pentecost
Samaritans (both men and women)
Simon the sorcerer
Ehtiopian eunuch (no household)

Paul (no household)
Disciples of John (12 men, no household)
Gaius

Household Baptisms
Corneilius and household
Lydia and household
Philippian jailer and household
Corinthians: Crispus (and household inferred), Stephanas and household

The promise of the new covenant came in its fulfillment “for you and your children” (Acts 2:39) at Pentecost. Only men are said to have been baptized, and some three thousands of them. In Samaria, “men and women alike” (8:12) were baptized, including Simon (the apostate sorcerer). The godly Ethiopian eunuch , who (being a eunuch) had no familial household, was baptized (8:38). Paul (who had no household) was baptized (Acts 9:18; cf. 1 Cor. 7:7-8). Corneilius’ household was baptized (Acts 10:48; 11:14). Lydia’s household was baptized (16:15). The Philippian jailer’s household was baptized (16:33). many Corinthians were baptized, including Crispus, Stephanas’s household, and Gaius (Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:14-16). The disciples of John (adult men) were baptized (acts 19:5). The explicit cases of baptism, when fully considered, are not evidence for the baptist view. These examples form a pattern when we consider that the households baptized are Gentiles (Cornelius, Lydia, the Phil. jailer and Steph.), or at least are in the Gentile contexts. In this we see how the gospel goes to the Gentile world – by household (acts 1:8). This is the covenantal pattern, inclusive of children.

(2) Explicit warrant regarding the baptism of believers’ children is lacking in both directions. There is no case of an infant baptism, and neither is there a case of the baptism of a Christian’s child as a believer. The question of when to baptize the children of believers must be settled by the proper application of biblical teaching. It cannot be settled by appealing to an explicit text.

(3) There is explicit warrant for the inclusion of children in the new covenant (Deut. 30:6, Jer. 31:36-37), in the church (Eph. 1:1 with 6:1-4; Col. 1:2 with 3:20; 1 Cor. 7:14), and in the kingdom (Matthew 19:14; Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16). Moreover, the covenantal infant baptism view can be argued from truly necessary inferences* – drawing upon the continuity of the covenant promise (to be God to your children after you) and the covenant people, as well as the examples of baptism (the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Phil. jailer, Crispus and Stephanas). This is a synopsis of the biblical evidence that is convincing to me.

For Christians to progress in this discussion, we need honest hearts, first of all. We need minds that are willing to submit to all the Lord’s will as revealed in his Word. As a means to our study, we need substantial discussion son the key passages, theological reflection, and historical data that will address central questions.”
(Strawbridge, pp. 5-7)

The book’s actually a little thick. It’s got chapters on various topics from various folks and according to the overviews that folk on Amazon have given it….it’s got a few good articles and a few not-so-good ones. So I’ll probably spend a few months or so reading through.

So far, one of the major benefits of the paedo view is that they take the warning passages seriously. These do present a real problem for those who hold to the baptist view and only making them ‘hypothetical’ does an injustice to the text of scripture.

Of course, you’d also have to accept covenant theology…. but that’s another issue.