I'm incredibly late to this discussion, but a thought I had considered expressing earlier... I personally wish the term "paedobaptist" would go away, and so would the term "infant baptism." I think they are misleading, and the terms have simply been grandfathered in because the profession of infants is the real dividing line, since both Credos and Paedos both believe in professions prior to baptism in the case of adults, but what to do with infants is not agreed upon. But the terms "Paedobaptist" and "Infant Baptism" don't get to the marrow of the position. I would much rather use the term Household Baptist because it gets much closer to the core principle than does Paedobaptist. At the least, the term incorporates into itself the approved example of Scripture, showing that we submit to the Regulative Principle by following the approved examples given in the New Testament itself, properly understood within the whole teaching of the New Testament, and in the scope of the whole Word of God. As Ted Donnelly said, it doesn't matter to a Paedobaptist (Household Baptist) whether any infant was in any of the New Testament baptized households at all. However, for the Credobaptist it matters a great deal, because if even one single infant was baptized the whole Credobaptist position falls apart. But our principle remains intact with or without infants.