When I first became a Protestant the young lady that I was attending Church with knew I was raised Catholic. She also rejected outright my baptism as an infant. She asked me to review baptism in the Book of Acts in order to be baptized at her church. I never did that while in school but the general idea of reviewing Acts stayed with me. After graduating from college and beginning to attend a non-denominational church, I started to think more about it. Upon looking at the concordance in the back of my brand spanking new NIV, I noticed that the Book of Acts contained scores of refrences to baptism. At that point I read the references in the Book of Acts.

A sampling of references stack up like this:

Acts 2:38 ... Repent and be baptized ...

Acts 2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized ...

Acts 8:12 But when they believed ... they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:13 Simon himself believed and was baptized.

Acts 18:8 ... and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized

Acts 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized ...

This caused me to doubt the baptism of my youth. I came to a simple conclusion. You had to believe in order to be baptized. Thus, in my mid-twenties, I was "baptized" again by full immersion.

A few years passed. In that time, I left the non-denominational church and joined the Episcopal church. I got married and my wife and I had two children. We had our first son baptized even though in my mind it was more of a baby dedication like we had at my old non-denominational church. I wasn't torn over the idea. I figured Espicopalians had to have good reasons to baptize infants but I didn't believe at the time that was what was going on. I figured it couldn't hurt. When our second child was due up for baptism we had a long discussion in our family about infant baptism.

The same verses in Acts were presented in support of belief coming before baptism. The contrary case was also made. "All of these people were converted adults. Even today, the Church baptizes those who convert to the faith after belief." I had never thought about it that way before. The Book of Acts occurred in a unique time in history. There were lots of non-Christians around thus there were lots of conversions going on. Of course they were not born into the faith. This normitive case today was unusual then. The discussion veered in the direction of baptism by immersion only. After all, we (Episcopalians) didn't typically immerse infants as that was practically problematic. Certainly a requirement to immerse would lend sufficient cause to reject infant baptism. This case, however, was not very convincing to me. The immersion only case insists the Greek meaning of "baptizo" means immersion in every case. I find this assertion weak, especially due to the fact that there two instances in the New Testament of "baptizo" explicitly being translated as wash (Luke 11:38, Mark 7:3–4).

A few more verses rose to the surface. While there are no instances of infant baptism in the Bible, there are multiple instances of entire households being baptized (Acts 16:13-15, 1 Corinthians 1:16). Also nowhere in Scripture do we read of children reaching the age of reason before being baptized. The whole households were. It certainly stands to reason that there were young children in those families. Furthermore Catholics refer to baptism as the new cicrcumcision (Colossians 2:11–12). If circumcision was done to infants in the Old Covenant then certainly the New Testament fulfilment of circumcision would also be performed on infants.

Finally, during the discussion I thought the zinger that laid to rest all doubt about infant baptism came to light.

1 Peter 3:21 (NIV): and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge(1) of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1. Or response

Here it seemed to me that a pledge on the part of the believer was requried for baptism. I left the discussion less assured that infant baptism was wrong but not entirely convinced that it was right. Upon reading that verse over and over that night I realized that it did not refer to the promise of the Christian. It refered to the response by God of a "clean conscience". This fit in nicely with a regenerative understanding of baptism. This verse is often used by apologists to show as much. This is a doctrine that I had no qualms with. The verse in no way undermined infant baptism as I had originally thought.

We followed through with the baptism of our son retaining the justification that it couldn't hurt.

What started to change my mind on the matter was Martin Luther who stated

But if God did not accept the baptism of infants, He would not give the Holy Ghost nor any of His gifts to any of them; in short, during this long time unto this day no man upon earth could have been a Christian.-- XIII A.
Part Fourth: Of Infant Baptism. in Martin Luthers Large Catechsim

Here Luther appealed to history. It certainly made sense to me as few had questioned the doctrine of infant baptism prior to this point. So what of history on baptism?

In the first century we see in the Didache the early use of pouring thus supporting the case of the Catholic Church and more mainline Protestant denominations against "immersion only" opponents:

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

We further see support in the second century for a regenerative understanding of baptism, of which Luthers assertion assumes a belief in:

As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." -- St. Justin Martyr First Apology, 61

Finally we see in the second century a direct support for infant baptism:

For He came to save all through means of Himself -- all, I say, who through Him are born again to God -- infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. -- St. Irenaeus Against Heresies 2:22:4

My post discussion research also introduced me to the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas. During the discussion the Summa was directly appealed to on behalf of Catholics. The pertinent passage is whether children should be baptized?. Here Aquinas defends against common objections on requiring intent and faith. He places the burden of each of these on the Church for

like carnal birth, in this respect, that as the child while in the mother's womb receives nourishment not independently, but through the nourishment of its mother, so also children before the use of reason, being as it were in the womb of their mother the Church, receive salvation not by their own act, but by the act of the Church.

Once again, I found the biblical case sound and the historical case nearly irrefutable.