HeadTheology

I just finished my History of the Baptist class here at Southern Seminary and as expected there was a discussion about the biblical validity for paedo (infant) baptism and why Baptists historically thought it was wrong. In scripture I think it is a stretch to say that there is a New Testament foundation for baptizing infants. But it really doesn’t bother me just as long as they aknowledge the truth that it doesn’t in save the infant in any way. But I have a question if there are any paedobaptist bretheren out there.

Suppose two Christian couples came into a Methodist/Presbyterian/Episcopal church and joined the church but one couple had an infant and the other couple had a six year old child. I am supposing that if each couple wanting their child to be baptized the church would only allow the infant to be baptized unless the six year old gave a confession of faith. But if the six year old does not give a confession of faith why should they be excluded from baptism? Both the infant and the six year old will be raised in a Christian home and part of the visible church. Why should an infant be allowed baptism if they do not give a confession of faith in Christ while a six year old in the same situation be denied baptism because of a lack of a confession of faith?

I do not mean to start a fight but I was thinking about the reasonings behind infant baptism and the reasoning of it. If it is allowed why not allow it for non-confessing six year olds or for that matter twelve year olds or maybe even sixteen year olds if they are living in a Christian home being raised by Christian parents as part of the visible church.