anotherpilgrim
Puritan Board Freshman
Hey everyone,
The main reasons paedobaptists argue for the command to apply baptism to covenant children is the continuity of covenant administration between the old and new covenants. So, the argument has usually been that since that continuity is assumed it does not require explicit restatement in the new covenant.
While attempting to explain this to someone, they asked a question I'd like everyone's input on; namely, is it valid to assume that the new testament readership would have taken the same principle of covenant inclusion for granted? Jewish christians would have understood it of course, but isn't majority of the new testament addressed to non-jewish christians, and therefore this assumption that they would understand this convenant inclusion by default, a false one, and therefore we should expect explicit addressing of covenantal inclusion and not assume it by default in relation to baptism?
Thanks!
The main reasons paedobaptists argue for the command to apply baptism to covenant children is the continuity of covenant administration between the old and new covenants. So, the argument has usually been that since that continuity is assumed it does not require explicit restatement in the new covenant.
While attempting to explain this to someone, they asked a question I'd like everyone's input on; namely, is it valid to assume that the new testament readership would have taken the same principle of covenant inclusion for granted? Jewish christians would have understood it of course, but isn't majority of the new testament addressed to non-jewish christians, and therefore this assumption that they would understand this convenant inclusion by default, a false one, and therefore we should expect explicit addressing of covenantal inclusion and not assume it by default in relation to baptism?
Thanks!