I'd like credo-baptists to answer these questions (if anyone is still following this thread).
Give me an example from the New Testament of a person who accepted Christ, was baptized, and who had a household and they were NOT baptized.
The wording of the New Testament is that "households" were baptized. Not "all the individuals of the household believed and were baptized" Rather, "he was baptized, he and all his family."

Second, find for me an example in the New Testament of someone who grew up in a Christian home, and was not baptized until after a credible profession of faith.

Please stop slinging the accusation that we paedobaptists are only following traditions. Listen to Kevin's words, and you'll know it's not true.

-Abu Tulip

I haven't really gained the impression from the comments on this blog that anyone is arguing that baptism is of primary doctrinal importance.

On a global level though, this is largely true. What disappoints me is the hard line many credobaptists take in relation to membership. For example, the church pastored by Mark Dever (who I respect greatly) excludes people from participating in communion unless they are baptised as a believer, by full immersion. I find this appalling.

However, to their credit, some credobaptists such as John Piper have given thought to the idea that the local church ought to be an expression of the universal church.

I hope that groups like The Gospel Coalition will be useful in reinforcing the importance of the things that unite us as evangelicals and the relative unimportance of secondary matters.

after reading through my own comment again, i apologize for not being more irenic myself, and i apologize on behalf of my credobaptist brethren, as we often elevate this issue too high and with far too little grace.

Can we not give the benefit of the doubt to him and the majority of historical church fathers that have also held this view, that they have carefully studied the scriptures to reach such a conclusion on baptism & covenant theology? I assert that you can at least recognize and respect their opinion, even if you disagree with it, even on the most fundamental level.

Even if this were a close-handed issue (i.e. no room in orthodoxy for alternative views, such as substitutionary atonement), aren't we still to respond with grace, not just truth?

I am very wary of statements like "I don't follow traditions – I follow the Bible!" – I think it is arrogant to spend 15 minutes (or years) studying scripture, and lightly shrug off the past 15 centuries of thoughtful study & tradition.

However, Sola scriptura! Even the most established traditions of the church are not authoritative – doctrine should be questioned, and if found wrong, opposed (hence the reformation!), but this should not be done lightly. But I digress… I'm only 22 – what do I know?

As I mentioned in my earlier comment, the argumentation for the opposing view is being done at the level of "primary doctrinal importance" as I suspected it would, although it is still being done with civility. It seems that the passions are always the highest on the side of credobaptists. I can't recall ever seeing a similar post on "Why I dunk believers" where the paedobaptists rise to any similar level, to rebut. I'm sure I stand to be proven wrong, but it seems that the paedobaptists are much more irenic when it comes to this issue. That has been my experience by observation in the blogoshere, and in personal, face-to-face conversations on the subject.