Recently I came across MacArthur view on Baptism while reading comments on Facebook. (Which was on another subject: Immediate baptism after conversion)
Since it was well known that MacArthur is considered a calvinist, I naturally thought he would be in agreement with paedobaptism. Which even John Calvin devoted a whole chapter 4:16 in his Institutes to.
I found one of his sermon on such subject. Perhaps a re-affirmation after the debate with R.C. Sproul.
From the first talk, I noticed while using many reformers' quotes, John mainly found the ones that supported his point of view, in spite of their infant baptism advocacy. Quoting John Calvin only once or twice as well. Perhaps he just has too much respect for Calvin to debunk the man who's written much of the stance on paedobaptism throughout history.
It does motivate me to look deeper into such subject. And I came across this page.
And as for MacArthur's first point against infant baptism: That it is not in scripture, I will respond that while the Bible does not discuss the age group of baptism, I do know that the Bible affirms that baptism is for those who are human beings, sons of Adam.
What I could gather, the root cause of this sort, is the definition of baptism as whether or not it is a sacrament of repentance and faith as Rev. Bryn MacPhail puts it. So begins the debate.
I would also note that to some extend, this is also affected by the mode of baptism.
So while many would claim the reformers are more liberal on this matter, I would say that whenever there's a chance to show that grace precedes human actions, without breaking the doctrine of salvation, it is not wise to cover nor hinder such opportunity.
Since it is normal to have disagreements even among family, I don't see much problem as long as we can agree to disagree so that the root cause is clear and truthfully identified, lest we err in our judgment against others and make false accusation in hearts.
FB debate on Millennium, but led to Baptism, I summarized the debate between paedobaptism vs. credobaptism here:
I see. I don't know who Doug Wilson is. But paedobaptists generally don't scoff at credobaptists. In fact, we consider Baptists' baptism valid. However the reverse, should the Baptists be consistent in their doctrine, cannot truly call paedobaptism valid.
But this gracious acceptance of credobaptists by the paedobaptists has nothing to do with trying to embrace everyone as we have been falsely accused of bowing to Rome on the same issue. In fact, it has to do with the verse you quoted: "believe and be baptized". And other verse calling for only ONE baptism.
However, such verse (i.e. Mark 16:16) is not to be taken as the Baptists do, meaning that those who SAY they believe and then WANT to be baptized are truly saved. Which allude to work salvation, not covenantal. The same passage also says whoever does not believe will be condemned, not whoever does not WANT to be baptized will be condemned. Therefore, this maintains the wonderful mystery that baptism is a seal indication that the grace of God is prior to human response. We never say that baptism guaranties or indicates salvation as Rome does, but we will ask the Baptists: Do you think those who baptized in your churches will not walk away from grace? (this is a practical question and not a doctrinal one on whether or not one could lose salvation after regeneration)
Of course, we would also use the household baptism in Acts as a possibility of paedobaptism involvement. Though it cannot be explicitly proven so, we would say it cannot be explicitly proven to be forbidden as well. This will then connect to church history on baptism, that there were already indication of infant baptism in early arts and mention of it in Augustine's time, when nobody debated against infant baptism. Therefore, the question should never really be when infant baptism began, but WHEN the argument against infant baptism really began instead. It is not as simple as Baptists today make it. The issue is complex.
Though sort of off topic, but if baptism has any say in dispensationalism debate, then it is central to covenant. Because since there's only one covenant of grace since Adam to now, the physical mark of grace of God that is prior to human response has always been present. Therefore, Calvin was not wrong when he connects baptism (regardless of gentiles or Jews) to circumcision (national). As baptism, not infant dedication, is organically sound in Scripture.
That's the gist of it. I wish this to be a friendly discussion, as it seems to be what I gather from your end.