Under the mystery religions Rome required rites (Oblations) and promises parents would raise their children in respect of the Roman Gods. Infant baptism took their place as the initiation right.

The initiation joined Roman citizenship to religious citizenship. This was similar to Judaism where one is born into the state and circumcised. Yet, Christians do not become Christian infants at physical birth but spiritual birth. Wouldn't it be just as sensible to tie our circumcision to the spiritual birth as a believer as in Colossians 2:12.

Roman citizenship meant certain benefits but also certain obligations such as adherance to Roman law. It also meant the state exercised control over the future of the individual and minimized self-determination.

With the advent of infant baptism came the denial of self-determination, which may be the most dangerous aspect of Catholocism and later Protestantism. Self determination is America's idea of freedom. Catholicism as a ruler always destroys freedom.

Donatists argued Catholic persecution against them was a doctrine removing self-determination.

        "God created man free in his own image. How, then, am I to be deprived of that by human lordship which God has bestowed on me? What a sacrilege, that human arrogance should take away what God has bestowed on me, and idly boast of doing this on God's behalf? "It is a great offence against God, when he is defended by men. "What must he think of God who would defend him with outward force? Is it that God is unable to punish offenses against himself? "Hear what the Lord says: Peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth, give I unto you. "The peace of the world must be introduced among contending nations by arms and the force of war. The peace of Christ invites the willing, with wholesome mildness; it never forces men against their wills." In reply to this eloquent and forcible argument of Gaudentius, in defense of a primordial principal of the Donatists, Augustine, with entire unfairness, reasoned in the following style: According to these most fallacious and most vain reasonings of yours, said he, the reins would be relaxed, and all classes of transgressors might sin with impunity, without restraint, and without correction; and the king would have no power or control over his kingdom, for the correction of any offenses; the general over his army; the judge in his province; the master with his servant; the husband with his wife; the father with his son. In the midst of this controversy, Augustine said to his opponent that he knew not the scriptures nor the power of God, which induced him to contend so strongly for man's free will, and against coercion in religious concerns. 

Thus Augustine said he had the right as a governor to force people to be Christian. Later commentators agreed in many respects. Donatists thought it a sacrilege. Of course Augustine was wrong, society can have law and order without forcing every obedience upon man.

Romans 1:5 16:26

according to the  command of the eternal God...for the obedience of faith

Paul originally taught the Romans obedience was to be through faith, by God's will.

Government can allow and protect the teaching of the Gospel without forcing adherence. Teaching a child, right or wrong, still leaves them the choice later in life.

Augustine's argument would later be used by Muslim's to enslave Catholics to Islamic doctrine. 

Catholic's would use Augustine's argument of a king creating order by instituting religious doctrine as kingdom law when they were in authority, but openly rebelled against kings who were not Catholic, thus disrupting order themselves.

The rejection of self-determination by later writers in favor of institutional coerscion is sort of shocking.

Personal self-determination is indeed a lofty priviledge; still, it is not consistent with the truth to isolate the individual; the unity of the family in Christ, the consecration of the household through grace, the entire subjection of all to one lord...

A commentary on the Holy Scriptures: critical, doctrinal, and ..., Volume 4

 edited by Johann Peter Lange, Philip Schaf

In their view man does not have the right to personal self-determination, and involuntary ritual is a grace bestowed by the Christian parent and also by the christian state. Yet, this doctrine could be taken to mean the church could dispose the non-complying parent in behalf of the child, taking control of the family unit, the church determining in behalf of those they want to be Catholic or Protestant, depending upon who is in control at the time.

Of course the Roman govt decided for the people and institutionalized infant baptism as law.

So, did household baptisms really take away free will, not if you complied by choice as the households of the New Testament. The members of the household were old enough to decide. 

Acts 10:3 

"feared God with his whole house"

Many taught the word household implied infants, but probably not. Abraham was commanded to teach his household. Thus they were old enough to understand instructions. Much like Acts 2:39, "to your children", may be by command or promise (the promise is to you and your children as many as the Lord our God shall call)and not as infants since a calling is involved. It is "to as many as the Lord our God shall call", it would be with a calling.

Gen 18:19  For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. (Households are taught and keep instruction)

Households can be influenced by command, which gives the option of compliance.

Act 10:48  And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. 

This household was mature enough to

1. Fear God Acts 10:3

2. Be commanded Acts 10:48

3. Pray Acts 10:48

Since it was a command for each individual the idea of self-determination still existed. See also

Act 2:38  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 

Be Baptized infers personal choice and giving permission.

In Rome teachers originally said baptism was a choice.

And for [water baptism] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed. (Justin, First Apology 61)

The command of baptism was for each person, therefore all commanded had choice. It was 

 "as many as the Lord our God shall call"

Yes, Catholics and Protestants would remove self-determination, it seems God never did. By this wouldn't they be making salvation impossible, by using force it removes faith and love which are wholly necessary.