Just to start, yes I am bringing this up again, and yes I have searched the sub's history on the baptism debate. I have just been listening to both sides of the debate feeling more lost than when I started and I don't want to consciously do anything apart from the confidence and faith that this is the correct thing to do. Because of that, I have questions for both sides of the debate in hope that I can get somewhere with this.
How do you deal with the objection that faith (in every explicitly mentioned case) precedes Christian baptism, which would not be possible for infants?
How do you deal with the objection that, in the case of household baptisms, there is no mention of infants but rather there is mention of the word being preached to that household AND THEN they are baptized? Is the word properly preached to infants in the household? It seems to me that everyone in the cases of those household baptisms believed before they were baptized.
How do you deal with the objection that the true New Covenant is to be perfect and contains nobody that Christ didn't die for, and thus we shouldn't give baptism to those who don't profess faith for the sake of guarding the sacraments the best we can?
Credobaptists also often seem to bring up the idea that paedobaptists let the Old Testament define the New rather than let the New Testament define the Old like they would with everything else. How would you respond to this accusation?
How do you deal with the idea that, in Hebrews 10, it is said that the Lord will judge his people? If they are his people, then they are part of the New Covenant, right? For credobaptists where there is no difference between the substance and administration of the covenant, this would make no sense because the Lord would not judge those who are saved; this would only make sense if there were unsaved people in the New Covenant community that were not in the substance of the covenant but only in the administration, right? Is there something I am missing here?
Is baptism not a covenant sign of the New Covenant, the fulfillment of circumcision in the Abrahamic Covenant? If so, and if Abraham is the model of a faithful person (Romans 4), then a believer who has been baptized (circumcised) should then extend this baptism (circumcision) to their infant children, right?
What about the idea that the Abrahamic Covenant is an everlasting covenant? Wouldn't that mean that the New Covenant, though better, doesn't abrogate the Abrahamic Covenant but fulfills and expands it? Wouldn't that make the New Covenant the new continuation of the Abrahamic Covenant in its fulfilled form? Wouldn't that just mean that circumcision is changed to baptism, expanded to women, and still applicable to infants of believers? Wouldn't that mean that the children of believers are still as much a part of the New Covenant community as the children of members of the Abrahamic Covenant?
What about the passage that says that the children of a single believing parent are made holy by that believing parent? If they are made holy by them just by virtue of their parent believing, doesn't this create a third category of people: unbelievers/pagans, believers/saved covenant members, and unsaved covenant members?