I would've loved to have been able to retain my belief in credobaptism over pedobaptism, but my objections to infant baptism melted in the face of early church history. Although this forum is called a debate forum, I'm not really looking so much to defend infant baptism as to see what answers someone can come up with against the following points, taken from an article by Jordan Bajis at the Greek Orthodox website. These were sort of the nails in the coffin for me regarding opposition to infant baptism. There is no record of a post-apostolic invention of infant baptism, when it began and who began it, or where it originated. It is mentioned, and assumed to be the normal Christian practice, in the second century, and described in the third century as the traditional practice handed down by the apostles. There are no protests against the validity of infant baptism from anyone in the early church, even those regarded as heretics, except for those who advocated waiting until one's deathbed, although some other people supported waiting until the age of three for baptism. God established a covenantal, corporate relationship with the tribes of Israel in the Old Testament, yet some today interpret the New Testament as abolishing the faith of an entire household with the father at its head in favor of a solely individualistic faith--not Biblical. What about the many Biblical meanings and early Christian understandings of baptism other than the one defining it as a visible sign of inward repentance, meanings such as the sacrament of regeneration (Titus 3:5), a grafting into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13), a passage from the reign of Satan into Christ's authority (Romans 6:17), the expression of the manifestation of God (Luke 3:21,22), an admission into God's covenant (Colossians 2:11), the Lord's act of adoption and our putting on of Christ (Galatians 3:26,27)? Why should these things be taken away from the small child of a Christian family? If it was the norm to baptize children at a later age, why is there no evidence in Scripture or early church history of instruction given to parents on how to help their adolescent children prepare for baptism? If it is granted that baptism is for the remission of sins, why would the Church ever want to give baptism to infants if there were nothing in the infants which needed remission? Would not the grace of baptism, in this context, seem superfluous? Add to these points, mostly taken word for word from Bajis' article, the archaeological record dating to circa A.D. 200 showing epitaphs of little babies who had been baptized "as believers," and my stand against infant baptism wilted. Any responses?