It seems funny to me, as I move on in life I realize that things I had thought were so certain were really based on lack of informational disclosure. Yea, I'm being really generic here, but I am going somewhere with this. Basically, this is to say that I've learned a lot of straw men in my younger years.

Tonight we're studying pedobaptism vs. credobaptism, i.e., baptism of children vs. baptism of belivers. I've never really looked at it in depth before. I never really bothered to care. But it breaks down like this:

Credobaptists baptise as a symbol of regeneration, whereas pedobaptists baptise as a sort of replacement or evolution of circumcision. On the assumption that baptism's purpose is a symbol of regeneration then baptism of childeren who are unable to make a profession of faith would be misplaced. But that assumption cannot necessarily be made. Credo's assume their conclusion and then go about proving their position is true. In terms that most people don't understand that's called an existential fallacy.

I don't like those.

Is infant baptism theologically wrong? Not in the slightest.