SDG, cool nick. Welcome to the boards. I hope you enjoy your stay.
I agree with practically everything Ron said. I am just going to add a little extra for thought.
Ron said.......
Quote
The "Reader's Digest" version is that God promised Abraham and the elect seed in Christ (Galatians 3; Romans 9; Genesis 17) salvation w/o condition. Even though the covenant promise pertained to the elect in Christ, God commanded Abraham to administer the sign of the covenant to his household (which would include infants). Circumcision was the sign that one was a member of the visible people of God, but it was not intended that the sign be reserved for only those who professed the true religion (since infants were to be counted among that number). The New Covenant is made with the elect as well. The only question is whether the New Covenant requires us to no longer consider the children of professing believers as subjects for the visible sign of entrance into the visible people of God. This argument cannot be refuted by a baptist. Rather they address a different argument, which is not the paedobaptist argument.
As I have stated before we cannot know, infallibly, who is elect. Therefore baptism cannot be for the elect only. This begs the question, "for whom is baptism for?". It is my understanding that there has always been a visible/invisible distinction concerning the Church. The visible church is made up of all professing adults and their family. The invisible Church is made up of the elect, which surely contains some who cannot make professions of faith (infants, handicapped, etc.), though this is another issue. Since baptism only for the elect is not possible, I adhere to baptism for all visible covenant members. The OT and NT and practices throughout church history are reflective of this.
Then Ron said.......
Quote
Reformed baptists will argue that the old the covenant was established with believers and unbelievers, whereas under the new, they will argue, it is only made with believers. From this premise they reason further that the covenant sign is now to be applied only to those who profess faith in Christ, since they believe that the New Covenant is now made only with the elect. Their reasoning is sound, but their starting premise is incorrect, which leads them to a faulty conclusion. The point is, the old covenant was not established with the non-elect, which Galatians 3, Romans 9 and Genesis 17 clearly and unambiguously teach. Accordingly, my first paragraph is what Baptists should deal with, IMHO.
I have yet to see a didactic teaching showing the change of administration. Equivocating profession with election is indefensible. The NT shows that all adult converts did indeed give a profession prior to baptism. However, I believe it was the same in the OT for adults. The question isn't about adults but their families. The NT has several of these examples of OIKOS baptism. Making the descriptive prescriptive can also lead to wrong conclusions as well, i.e. footwashing.
Ron then stated.......
Quote
I find it interesting that Peter couched the command to baptize at Pentecost in the language of the Abrahamic covenant. Are we to suppose that the Jews did not baptize their infants on that day, especially in light of the fact that for 2000 years infants of professing believers had been included in the outward administration of the entrance-sign to the covenant?
I couldn't agree more. The historical grammatical method of interpretation makes the paedo understanding fit the context better. If there was such a difference in applying the visible sign, I missed the command in scripture. The question isn't about which covenant we are under but how the covenant sign is applied. I believe it is applied to believers and their families.
Combined, the sign being administered in the OT under a familial setting, the regular practice of household baptisms in the NT, the historical practice of all of Church history and my understanding of the visible/invisible distinction, helped me to become a paedobaptist. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Please feel free to ask further questions.
