So, I agree with you that baptismal regeneration was not a controversial topic in the early church.  However, although the theology of baptism did not change, the practice did, over time.  Gradually, the church added anointing with oil, the saying of certain creeds and prayers and other traditions.  This happened as soon as the early first century, as demonstrated by the text known as Didache.  In addition, the age of baptism of children of believers occurred earlier, so that by some time in the late third century, infant baptism was practiced.  Cyprian of Carthage commanded it in the mid fourth century.  By that time, a justification for the practice was beginning to be taught. Cyprian taught something akin to what we call the doctrine of Original Sin, teaching that infants are born already imparted the sin of Adam, thus necessitating baptism of infants.

You ask why not quote the church fathers across the board?  The answer is that we do!  I do all the time!  Please read my book series on Church History:  The Christian Story: Finding the Church in Church History, available at www.ipibooks.com.  The question is not who we quote, but who we are more likely to trust.  It is my belief that NONE of the church fathers should be considered as inspired sources of authoritative truth.  I leave all authority for truth to the inspired and canonical Scripture–the 66 books of the Old and the New Testament.  I do not give authority whatsoever to any of the church fathers.  However, I read them with interest, both for historical reasons, and also to understand both when and why they believed what they believed and taught.  As a general rule, the very earliest church fathers taught things more closely aligned with the Scriptures.  This is more or less common sense, as church practices diverged over time.  It is not at all surprising that none of the church fathers in the late first century (Didache, Clement of Rome) and the second and early third centuries (Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc.) never mentioned infant baptism, simply because it was not practiced by the apostles, and is obviously in conflict with New Testament teaching, such as the requirement for faith and repentance before baptism!

People do not ignore Augustine.  Believe me!  He is perhaps the most important figure in the primitive church in shaping what became Roman Catholicism.   He taught and practiced infant baptism, as well as supporting false doctrines such as Original Sin and Total Depravity.  I read him with great interest, but I reject his false teaching on infant baptism, both because history tells me that it was an innovation of the late third century, and, more importantly, because the practice violates clear teachings in the New Testament.

John Oakes