Boosterseat_91
Puritan Board Freshman
Again, I did not want this to become another debate on baptism.......but.That was really my challenge to you - show me how an explicit verse to refute paedobaptism is not required or show me an explicit verse that removes the inclusion of believer's children in the covenant. Then I will take a wack at answering your questions
There is no explicit verse to refute paedobaptism because there is NO explicit verse that states that circumcision has been replaced by infant baptism.
If you can show me one explicit verse to prove me otherwise then I will show one to refute.
The command is "repent and be baptized". Tell me how can a child repent?
Not entirely. The question is: Are the children of believers still in the covenant or were they abruptly excluded in the NC administration? The first would be proven by silence on the issue and implicit affirmations of it in the NT (which is what we see). If children are in the covenant then it follows they are to be given the covenant sign.
If children are no longer in the covenant then there must be an explicit verse to tell us such. As John Murray puts it, "“In view of the fact that the NC is based upon and the unfolding story of the Abrahamic covenant, in view of the basic identity of meaning attached to circumcision and baptism, in view of the unity and continuity of the covenant grace administered in both dispensations, we can affirm with confidence that evidence of revocation or repeal is mandatory if the practice of principle has been discontinued under the NT.”
Now, if you're saying that Acts 2:38-39 qualifies as such a verse, you are sadly mistaken. In fact, Peter's reference to their children is easily recognizable as covenant language - it's built off of the "thee and thy seed" promise of Genesis 17:17. This, again, silently assumes covenant inclusion of children. In other words, it proves the opposite of what you are trying to say!
As to your question about an infant repenting: First of all, God can regenerate infants. We certainly have no foundation to say a child cannot be regenerated until he can adequately profess his faith. Secondly, yes the adults were to repent and then be baptized and when they did so, their children were to be baptized as well for the promise was to them too. Think of the OC - any Gentile proselyte had to repent and believe in Jehovah to receive the covenant sign. But not only did he receive it, his whole household did as well, including his sons who may not have been "able" to repent. Your objection could be used as much against the OT as it could infant baptism, then. The answer is Peter is not changing anything in Acts 2, he's speaking covenantally and saying you repent and believe and be baptized and all your family with you by virtue of your faith. It is the same concept as in the OT.
Do you not agree that there must be evidence of revocation in order for something to be repealed (not that it must simply not be repeated in the NT like Dispensationalists believe)? Does it not make sense that the children of believers, having been included in the historical covenants with their parents which are out workings of the COG, would not only not be excluded but be expanded to include females as well as it expands to include Gentiles in the fullness of the COG in the NC?
This is an inherent aspect to your view of covenant theology, so I believe infant baptism is very pertinent to the discussion.
Last edited:
