I came across a post by Peter Leithart by way of Buzz…
Church history provides a compelling argument in favor of infant baptism, but not in the usual way. The argument is not that there is evidence of the practice of infant baptism throughout church history (though there is). The argument is rather that the shape of church history is more compatible with paedobaptist than with credobaptist beliefs.
That is: The church did not appear in history in fully mature form; it is still far from fully mature. Were the infant churches of the apostolic age Christian churches? Did the troubled Corinthian congregation count as a Christian communion? Galatia? We should say Yes, since Paul treated these churches as churches.
Infant churches are Christian churches, immature and inadequate though they may be. Ergo….
Were I a credobaptist I would argue that the Corinthian congregation, flawed as it may have been, was considered a Christian communion on the basis of their profession of faith in Christ. Something no infant is capable of. So I won’t likely be using this argument in the future. How about you?
HT: Chuck Huckaby