I was raised credo-baptist, but definitely wavered about 15 years back. I do find the Reformed rationale for infant baptism somewhat plausible and even quite appealing in certain respects, but ultimately falling short of being a “good and necessary” doctrinal conclusion. In the end, to me, it’s just too theoretical and derived, whereas I believe such a central and practical aspect of a sacrament should find very specific and direct indication in the New Testament. (I’ve outlined elsewhere why I just don’t see the household baptism passages as fulfilling that requirement.) A crucial issue in all of this is whether corporeal circumcision is effectively replaced by water baptism. While scripture does clearly draw a typological correlation between physical circumcision and spiritual circumcision, it never indicates a replacement of the physical application of circumcision with physical baptism. If that were the case, then at least one plain, simple statement to that end would seem requisite, especially considering the severe problems created by the Judaizers over circumcision (e.g. Acts 15, Galatians 5). Likewise, the argument that the Jews would have certainly assumed or understood various baptismal references and language used in the NT as alluding to such a succession fails to account for the fact that in their immediate context some of these passages were directed at or prominently involved gentile believers. I have seen various Reformed answers to these points, but have not found them convincing. Historically, which is of course only of secondary significance, the first clear references to infant baptism in the early church begin to appear around the end of the 2nd century. Yet it is notable that the covenant argument for infant baptism is absent in any of the early justifications given for it. Again, there are one or two limited and fairly abstract comparisons made between the age involved in OT circumcision and defending infant baptism, but the actual rationale given for the practice is always related to the cleansing of original sin and/or regeneration. This poses the notion that the original covenant basis for infant baptism was completely lost within just a few generations after the apostolic age. While perhaps possible, it seems there would surely have been at least a few more appreciable vestiges remaining in one or two locations. So it seems much more likely and consistent with these writings to conclude that the error of baptismal regeneration gradually crept into the church, which then prompted various practices. Several of the 4th and 5th century church fathers bypass scripture altogether and instead directly appeal to apostolic tradition as their reason for baptizing infants. The first yet still only very partially-orbed theological arguments covenantally connecting circumcision and baptism seem to come from the medieval Catholic Schoolmen. The first full-orbed covenantal argument for infant baptism appears to have come from Zwingli. Mode, also in a secondary way, poses a problem for me. For numerous reasons I am convinced that NT baptism was intentionally performed by immersion, which obviously is not intuitively or practically well-suited to infants. Could there have been exceptions to this mode in the NT, say for the physically infirmed? Theoretically, yes, but I don’t see any particular indication of this in the relevant texts to go by. Further, the outward means of the sacraments are intended to sensibly portray certain spiritual truths. And I have to agree with the historical consensus that with regard to water baptism this includes proclaiming the concept of death, burial and resurrection with Christ, to which, in my estimate, only immersion will sensibly answer. Over the years most these points have had multiple PB threads dedicated to discussing them. So I’m not here to necessarily debate them again (at least not on this thread), but simply to share some of my thinking relative to the question in the OP.