discipulo
Puritan Board Junior
I would not use the particular phase “in the covenant”, I would agree that there is continuity between OT and NT, and that continuity extends to blessings and favor and God shows upon the children of believers.
However, that does not automatically, or logically mean that children ought to be baptized.
(...)
Baptism is found and introduced in the NT so we go to the NT to determine the rules for baptism. Child training and raising up children in the fear of the Lord are found in both testaments so we do look at the OT for rules and guidance on that matter.
Thank you too. Well the way I see it is
In the Jewish context where all the household was in the Covenant, with all the bonds of love and confidence that it brought, such a radical change would have to be thoroughly addressed by the Apostles.
But in fact Peter addressing the men of Judea confirms and reassures them that the promise is for you and your children Acts 2:39
So he is exactly stating that the Promise for the Household remains unchanged.
Like Joel Beeke writes
How could a converted Jew regard the New Covenant as better Covenant, if now his children were to be excluded from God’ dealings with his people no longer receiving a sign of God’s covenant promise? (Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism page 58)
So if believing parents were not supposed to have their children baptized, like they would immediately and naturally understand, how there is not a single Apostolic Admonition or Commandment preventing infant baptism?
Because the Covenant of Grace, as being inclusive of the Household, is so central and continuous
throughout Redemptive History and in all Covenant Dispensations,
By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence
prepared an ark for the salvation of his household (Hebrews 11:7).
the Apostles mention and even emphasize the Sacrament of Baptism for the Household.
The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.
And after she was baptized, and her household as well (Acts 16:14-15).
And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately
he was baptized, he and all his household. (Acts 16:33)
In the same passage, a Household baptism is even clearly differentiated
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas 1 Corinthians 1:16
from individual Baptisms, that surely also occurred in certain cases, like the Ethiopian in Acts 8
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius 1 Corinthians 1:14
(considering Gaius, since Crispus Household is mentioned in Acts 18:8)
So In my humble opinion the implications in favour of the Baptism administration to the Children of Believers are very clear.
.
Last edited: