I am a paedobaptist but I have been trying to understand the Reformed Baptist case for excluding infants. So being a fairly sensible chap I turned to John Gill who states:
"Seeing circumcision was no seal of the covenant of grace, baptism, which it is pretended was instituted in the room of it, can be no seal of it neither, and so not to be administered as such to the children of professed believers, as is said ."
This he repeats in most of his pamphlets on baptism. Could anyone explain this to me...what was Gill thinking? Have I missed something?
"Seeing circumcision was no seal of the covenant of grace, baptism, which it is pretended was instituted in the room of it, can be no seal of it neither, and so not to be administered as such to the children of professed believers, as is said ."
This he repeats in most of his pamphlets on baptism. Could anyone explain this to me...what was Gill thinking? Have I missed something?