[!NOTE] Protestant Paedobaptist View

1. [[Covenantal case for infant baptism]]
2. [[Household Baptism in NT]]
3. Acts 2:38-39, "the promise if for you and for your children"

[!NOTE]

• Roman catholic Paedobaptist View
  • [[Catholics believes that baptism is necessary for salvation|Baptism is necessary for salvation because it causes regeneration]]
  • [[Catholics believes that faith is not necessary for baptism to be effectual|The effect of baptism doesn't require faith of the recipient]]
  • baptize every infant so they can be saved

• Infant Baptism
  • Future Grace in Baptism
    • How can we know that the Child will not turn away? What happens to their baptism then if they turn away
    • We also don't know whether someone will turn away in Believer's baptism too. But shouldn't we try out best to guard it from happening? And if commitment to Christ is a personal decision, then shouldn't it be left to the person to decide on their own. And not by the church?

History of How Infant baptism became the norm

• No scriptural basis
• Augustine was the one that made it popular when he said that Baptism washes away sin and that infants who died not having been baptized was banned from heaven

Children were brought to Jesus (Matt 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17)

• Brought to be blessed, touched and prayed for. Not to be baptized

[[Covenantal case for infant baptism]]

Practical Objection

• Confuses the children of their need for personal repentance and faith, with Baptism

![[Hammett - Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches A Contemporary Ecclesiology#Who May Be Baptized?]]

Sources

• [[Understanding Baptism (Church Basics)]]

• [[Grudem - Systematic Theology An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine]]

• [[Hammett - Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches A Contemporary Ecclesiology]]

• [[Ligonier Ministries – Baptism Debate A Paedobaptist Position with R.C. Sproul]]

• [[Ligonier Ministries – Baptism Debate A Credobaptist Position with John MacArthur]]

• [[Baptism Three Views]]

• [[Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries]]

• [[Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?]]

• [[The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism]]

• [-] [[40 Questions About Baptism and the Lord's Supper]]

• [-] [[Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace An Appraisal of the Argument That as Infants Were Once Circumcised, So They Should Now Be Baptized]]

• [[Institutes of the Christian Religion]]

• [[Catechism of the Catholic Church 2000]]

• [[Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma]]

• [[Doctrine - Frequently Asked Questions - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod]]

• Some topics of discussion

  • What happens to Infants that die without getting baptized?
    • This is one of the main reason Catholics Baptize babies (I believe...)
  • For Presbterians, is baptism a personal commitment to Christ? Or is it more like Circumcision, where you are just born into the family?
  • History of Infant Baptism
    • Did the early church practice infant baptism?
    • Tertillius mention of Child Baptism in 160 AD

[[Doctrine - Frequently Asked Questions - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod]]

• But in the Old Testament, just because people are included in the community doesn't mean they are true Israelites

• So the New Covenant was better because only those who are true Israelites are included... Not a mix

Paedobaptist would say that the New Covenant was better. It now includes both male and female infants.

But Credobaptist would say that the New Covenant is now better because it only includes those who obtained the promise. The New Covenant Community is no longer a mixed group of true and false Israelites.

Baptist and Paedobaptist sees the church differently

• Paedobaptist sees the church community similar to the Old Covenant Community.
• Baptist sees that the New Covenant Community have to be regeenrate.
  • It spun out of an desire for the church to not be mixed

The Sign can signify future promise, without saying that the person have the content of the future promise

Sign can be given to the person after faith (Abraham), or before faith (Issac)

Infants of believing parents are "set apart" as in put into an environment that's condusive to God's blessing. But those that are in the covenant community doesn't mean that everyone was/is sanctified inwardly

Most adult baptist are first generation believers. So won't be practicing infant baptism

But why give the symbol to people who don't have the content?

NT writer writes as if they are all believers

NT writer writes as if they all have the inward signs

Still too much continuity for me

• Are the NT sign same as the OT sign in that they can be administered to infants of believing parents without faith?

In the New Covenant we would say that you are not born into the new covenant community. Just like parents are to raise up their children in the Lord, but there's no guarantee that they will be believers.

In the Old Covenant, the old covenant community were ethinical. So anyone who was a Jew, or those who wise to become a Jew would get circumcised.

What if they didn't become a believer? What happens to God's promise then?

Believer baptism would have the same problem, because a profession of faith doesn't necessarily equals saving faith. But it's a problem with both, except in the believer's baptism we are trying to guard against baptizing those who are false by not making those who didn't even make a profession to be baptized. And it doesn't confuse being saved with getting baptized...

One passage that was never discussed in this discussion was the Jerusalem Counsil

It is decided that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised or become Jews to be Christian. Wouldn't this translate to how the New Covenant would work?

Baptizing infants seems to follow the same idea as the Old Covenant where external work is done to show you are part of a community but true isaelites are shown by their circumcised heart. The New Covenant community should not be shown by those who were baptized but those who repented, believed and profess Jesus to be Lord.

What different sources believe about meaning of Baptism

• [[Hammett - The Meaning of Baptism]]

@kurt No definite proof of infant baptism untill the third century

• [[Paedobaptists applies the sign of union with Christ, with those who are not united with Christ]]
• [[Paedobaptists confuses being born of Christian parents with being born again by the Spirit]]
• [[Paedobaptists mistakes God's forming His New Covenant Community the same way as His Old Covenant Community]]
• [[Paedobaptism undermines the Church's saltiness and lightness]]
• [[Paedobaptism dissolve two crucial differences between circumcision and baptism]]
• [[Paedobaptism makes God's promise less of a promise]]

• New Testament

  • Baptism given to those who responded to the gospel message in faith
  • The Authors assumed that those who have been baptized are believers

• New Covenant Community should only consists of true believers

• What Baptism is

  • A symbol that shows what has already happened to the believers
  • An initiating rite into the Church (New Testament Community)

• [[The Arguments from the New Testament Narrative Passages on baptism|New Testament Narratives suggest that only those who have a credible confession of faith are baptized]]

- NT authors assumes that all those who are baptized are believers (Gal 3:27, 1 Cor 1:13, Col 2:12)

• [[The Argument From the Meaning of Baptism|The meaning of Baptism as the the outward symbol of the inward transformation suggest that only regenerated believers are to be baptized]]

Inconclusive Historic Results

A study on the historic evidences for Credobaptism or Paedobaptism has gone mostly inconclusive as evidences can be interpreted to favor either side of the conversation. Where presupposition greatly affect findings that doesn't exactly tell us what was happening during the time of the early church. Jeremias and Kurk Alan.

Since I don't feel adequate enough to investigate the literature of the early church history and consider that historic evidence are secondary to Scripture. I conclude that the historic evidences leads to inconclusive results and that both Credobaptism and Paedobaptism seems to have been practiced in the first four century of the early church.

paedobaptist seems to have tradition behind it. Since it has been practiced for more than 1000+ year of the Church's history. It would be hard to believe that God would allow the church to practice what is contrary to His will for so many years.

Evidence also suggest that Paedobaptist became prevelant in the fourth century because they though that baptism cleanses sin, and that is necessary for salvation. This leads to the Roman Catholic tradition that baptism is necessary for salvation without faith on the part of the one being baptized.

= Into

Baptism has been an important ordinance that has been passed down from Jesus since the start of the New Covenant. In Matthew 28:19 before Jesus ascends up into heaven He tells His disciples to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And in the New Testament baptism has been practiced by the Church and the meaning of Baptism has also been expounded upon by the New Testament authors (Acts 2:38, Romans 6:4, 1 Peter 3:21). The legitimacy and important of Baptism is agreed upon by all denominations of Christianity however, there has been disagreement in who should receive this ordinance of Christ in the Church.

In most of church history since the 5th century, paedobaptism has been the prevalent view. Where baptism is administered to infants of Christian parents. Even after the Protestant reformation many denomination still continued the paedobaptist tradition. The view on paedobaptism was challenged in the 1500s with the Anabaptist movement. Where displeasure with the state of the church led to the rise of regenerate church membership. Where only regenerate believers should be included in membership. Thus, credobaptism, the view that only professing believers should be baptized came back into view of the church history.

= Paedobaptists Views

Presently, there are three main branches of paedobaptists. The Roman Catholic Church's view, the Lutheran View, and the Reformed Protestant View. Denominations within the Reformed Protestant View that practice Paedobaptism include Episcopalian, Methodists, and Prebyterians.@grudem[975] In the follows sections a brief overview of each position will be presented. Out of these three views the Reformed Protestant View seems to be the strongest position for Paedobaptism. Therefore, a more in depth investigation of its arguments and objects will be tackled. Then, the credobaptist position will be presented, along with its arguments and objections.

== Roman Catholic View of Paedobaptism

The Roman Catholics practice paedobaptism because they believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. They believe that baptism is what makes someone a Christian. They recognize that baptism was an important command by Jesus. The presence of the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit during Jesus' baptism show cases the important of baptism (Mark 1:9-11). Roman Catholics believes that the act of baptism itself causes regeneration, therefore by baptizing babies it starts the regeneration process in the baby (Titus 3:5, Eph 5:26). Ludwid Ott says in his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, "Baptism is that Sacrament in which man being washed with water in the name of the Three Divine Person is spiritually reborn"@ott198[350] It makes the person able to overcome sin, and it remove Adam's original guilt. And since faith of the subject is not required for baptism to be effectual, they believe that baptism should be administered to infants. Catholics also believe that baptism can only be performed by priests. Though in unusual circumstances, even baptism performed by unbelievers is through to be valid. Such as one an unbaptized person is closed to death.

This view is deeply troubling because if baptism it self saves, even without requiring faith that means salvation is no longer by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 6:23). Roman Catholic uses John 3:5 and Titus 3:5 to argue for baptism being necessary for salvation. In those two verses Paul and John were referencing Ezekiel 36:25-27. Meaning that being born of "water and the Spirit" and the "water of regeneration" both refer to being spiritually born again. They are not teaching that baptism regenerates a person.@Grudem1994[973-974]

== Lutheran View of Paedobaptism

The Lutherans believe that a person is saved by faith and grace alone in Jesus Christ. They also believe that baptism is a means of grace. Meaning that a person can be saved through Baptism, just like how one can be saved through hearing the word of God. Therefore, baptism for the Lutherans is not necessary for salvation because there is other means of Grace. But they believe that Baptism is able to impart grace onto the person that is baptized. It is effectual without faith on the subject of baptism itself. Therefore, they baptize infants so that grace may be imparted on them. Lutherans believe that what happens in baptism is God's act, therefore the person is still saved by "grace alone". Since Baptism is a means of grace, through baptism God can create faith in the heart of an infant. Though they do not understand how this happens.

Although we do not claim to understand how this happens or how it is possible, we believe (because of what the Bible says about Baptism) that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant. @lcms2026

This faith cannot yet, of course, be expressed or articulated, yet it is real and present all the same (see, e.g., 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38-39; Titus 3:5-6; Matt. 18:6; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim. 3:15; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13).@lcms2026

However, there is no clear scriptural support that baptist creates saving faith in infants. Scripture consistently shows salvations as hearing the gospel message, repentance and faith, justification and then baptism. Baptism never occurred prior to saving faith in the New Testament (Romans 10:17; Acts 16:31; Ephesians 1:13; Galatians 3:26; Romans 5:1). Passages such as 1 Peter 3:21 and Acts 2:38–39 are often quoted for baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, however they do not explicitly teach that baptism creates faith in infants.

= Credobaptist View of Baptism

Credobaptism is the view that baptism should only be administered to believers, those who are able to give a credible confession of faith. The denominations that practice credobaptism are anabaptists, and baptists. Bobby Jamieson gives the following definition for Baptism:

Baptism is a church's act of affirming and portraying a believer's union with Christ by immersing him or her in water, and a believer's act of publicity committing him or herself to Christ and his people, thereby uniting a believer to the church and marking off him or her from the world.@Jamieson2016[p??]

The credobaptists believe that baptism is a symbol of what has already happened to the believer. Specifically, their union with Christ through death and resurrection. Which is symbolized through the immersion in the water and coming out again. Baptism makes the invisible, the person's faith and commitment to Christ public. It is an act of obedience to Christ's command to be baptized(Matthew 28). Because it is emphasized as a symbol of what has already happened credobaptists do not believe that baptism saves a person or that it would impart grace, since it would have already exists before being baptized. And because of this they also would not baptize infants. Since infants have no way of showing any evidence of regeneration or able to commit themselves to Christ.

In the New Testaments only those who have responded to the gospel message in faith were baptized. In Acts 2:41 and Acts 8:12, baptism were given to those who "received" or "believed" in the gospel message, those who repented and trusted in Christ. In Acts 10:44-48, baptism is appropriate for those who have received the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Galatians 3:27, Romans 6:3-4, and Colossians 2:12 all assumes that the content of the sign of Baptism has already happened to those who have been baptized. They "have put on Christ", they have been "buried" with Christ, and was "raised" with Christ in baptism. In Galatians 3:27, Paul assumes that baptism is the outward sign of inward generation, for those who have been baptized has already put on Christ. In Romans 6:3-4 Paul does not use the language of "into the covenant" or "into the covenant community" for baptism. But instead uses "Those who have been buried with Christ and have put on Christ".@Grudem1994[970-971] And finally in Colossians 2:12, it can not be said about infants that they have been buried, or were raised with Christ through faith because they do not have the ability to exercise faith as infants. In the case of the household baptisms as well, a number of them indicates saving faith on the part of all of those who were baptized. In Acts 16:32-34, Paul shared the gospel first to all that were in the Philippians jailer's household. Likely everyone present would be able to understand the gospel and were able to respond in faith. In the case of Stephanas in 1 Corinthians 1:16, they were all converts and were faithfully serving in the church (1 Corinthians 16:15).@Grudem1994[970] Therefore, the New Testament authors assumes that those who have been baptized are believers. Therefore, the outward symbol of beginning the Christian life, should only be given to those who showed evidence of having begun the Christian life.

Furthermore, credobaptists believes that there is sufficient discontinuity between New Covenant and the Old Covenant, and so the New Covenant Community is not a mix group like the Old Covenant Community and that Baptism is not a replacement of circumcision. New Covenant was made because the Old Covenant requires the people to follow the laws. But they were unable to, the Old Covenant showed the Israelites that they required a circumcision of the heart. Therefore, to be able to have the sign of the covenant (baptism) without having the reality of the covenant (regeneration) under the New Covenant seems to seems to miss the whole point of the New Covenant. The New Covenant will not be a covenant like the Old Covenant (Jeremiah 36:32), its members will be those who know the Lord who knows His laws in their hearts (Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 36:26-27; 37:14). If the universal church is composed on only believers, then the goal of the local church too is to be composed of only believers. We should not lower the church's standards just because it is difficult. The New Testament authors has anticipated that false believers will creep into the church, so they also prescribed church disciplines in order to restore them into true believers, or put them out of the Church (1 Corinthians 5:11). Description of the local church in the New Testaments also assumes that they are composed of true believers only (1 Corinthians 1:2, Ephesians 1:1, Philippians 1:1, Colossians 1:2). @hammet

There are also several practical benefits to believers baptism. It gives the believer a chance to witness to what Christ has done for them. It is also an evangelistic opportunity has many invites their friends, family to hear their testimony. The obedience of the believer to follow Christ into baptism leads to greater faith. The church's participation and witness of the baptism also strengthens the church. And finally it keeps the church holy and pure. All of these are lost or are missing elements in paedobaptism.

== Historic Argument for and against Credobaptism

Several points for arguments for the continuity between the New and Old Covenant and household baptism has already been covered in the section under Protestant View of Paedobaptism. For this section instead of historical objection to credobaptism will be made.

The paedobaptist has been the prevalent view for most of the church's history and the church for a long time also accepted the local church as a mixture of believers and nonbelievers. If believers membership was so clear in the New Testament why for more than a thousand years the church has been a mixture? This is true for more than one thousands years until the reformation, but not true for the first four centuries. And when it started in the second century it was widely debated @Hammet @Kurkaland. It could be attributed to relative biblical ignorance, and the union between Church and State that happened when Roman Emperor Constantine changed Rome in a Christian state. Prior to this, persecution kept the population of Christian low but after becoming Christian was easier and even desirable. Many people signed up to become priest because it comes with many benefits. This pattern continued and becoming Christian was so easy that there were not really any true conversion. The Donatists protested in the fourth century that the church should only consists of genuinely holy People. But Augustine argued for a mixture of believer and nonbeliever in the church using Matthew 13:24-30 but the metaphor weeds and wheats is for the world, not for the Church. Augustine appealed to the state against the Donatists and the Donatists separated from the Catholic Church in North Africa.@Hammet[??] At the same time, infant baptism were becoming the norm due to the teaching that Baptism cleanses sin, and that baptism is necessary for salvation.@Aland[101] Augustine again was instrumental in this as he argued for the total depravity of infants opposing the heresy of Pelagianism at that time which pushed further the practice of infant baptism. This leads to the Roman Catholic tradition that baptism is necessary for salvation without faith on the part of the one being baptized. However, once the bible became readily available, interpretation for regenerate church membership was renewed almost immediately.@Hammet The anabaptist movement was the first to practice believer's baptism again. Looking at history, the factor that led to the prevalence of infant baptism are not founded on Scripture, but instead on trivialization of becoming a Christian when church and state combined, the false belief that infant baptism saves, and an over reaction against the heresy of Pelagianism. Furthermore, traditions have to be interpreted by Scripture to determines whether certain it is are right and biblical. Investigation on the practice of the early church also seems to result in inconclusive result as one's presuppositions can affect how one views early church history as found by both Jeremias and Aland's investigation where they come to two opposing results looking at the same historic documents.(@Jeremias @Aland)

== Objections to the Protestant Paedobaptist Position

The Old Covenant Community was formed through lineage, but the New Covenant Community will be formed through a heart change though the Holy Spirit. The Old Covenant sign of circumcision was to show people that they needed a circumcision of the heart because the people failed to obey God despite being circumcised (Deuteronomy 10:16, Jeremiah 4:4). God promised that in the New Covenant, his people will have a new heart (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:26-27). This New Covenant will be different from the Old Covenant. The New Covenant community will have the law written on their heart. This new covenant community is not expanded by familial descent, but rebirth. So only those who have been reborn of the Spirit are apart of it. Baptism fulfills that by being a sign of "I have been united with Christ, I have a circumcised heart" (Romans 6:1-14). Paul equates circumcision in the old testament, not with baptism but with the circumcision of the heart in the New Testament (Colossians 2:11-12).

The New Testament writers assumes that those who have been baptized are those who have the reality of the sign. Romans 6:3 says "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized in to his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.". Colossians 2:11-12 says "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power working of God, who raised form the dead." In both passages, Paul assumes that those who have been baptized have also have the reality of being dying with Christ, buried with Christ, and raised with Christ. If baptism is to be a sign of what has happened to the person internally, then infant baptism takes away this meaning.

1 Corinthians 7:14 is not about baptism or infant baptism. Paul is responding to the situation where many have converted to the faith while already married to unbelievers. They are afraid that the association with unbelievers will make them unclean as the Old Covenant has stipulated many times to not intermarry with Gentiles (Deuteronomy 7:3-4, Exodus 34:15-16). But Paul answers on the contrary that in the New Covenant instead of becoming unclean through marriage with the unbeliever the believer will actually make the unbelieving spouse holy. The reasoning might be that through this relationship with the believer, the unbelieving spouse is blessed by the presence of the believer and that they will be more likely to repent and believe. And in the same way their children will not become unclean but they will also be made holy through the believer's presence. Paul has also not argued in this passage that the children nor the unbelieving spouse are to be baptized. If the case is true that God deals with his covenant people as a family unit, why is it that no Paedobaptists ever argued to baptized unbelieving spouses?

Paedobaptist says that baptism is just the sign of God's promise. But how can Acts 2:38-39 be a promise, if most infants who gets baptized do not have the evidence of faith later?@jamieson2016 The New Covenant Promise is suppose to cover the gap of being in covenant and fulfilling the covenant? Unlike in Old Testament, where they are in covenant with God but they were unable to fulfill it (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Furthermore, Acts 2:38-39 is not talking about infant baptism but that this promise of salvation is now available "for you and for your children and for all who are far off" if you repent and believe in Jesus.

Practically, infant baptism also confuses being born of christian parents as with being born again by the Spirit. Paedobaptist do not believe this, but their practice says otherwise. The practice of infant baptism communicates that children born of christian parents have something different in them, as oppose to just different environmentally.@Jamison2016[p??] This also confuses the children to believe that they have already been saved, but they themselves might not have the personal saving faith that is required. And thus leaving them just as nominal Christian without really wrestling whether the faith is theirs or just their parents. Furthermore, Paedobaptism undermines the Church's saltiness and lightness. By incorporating people who are not reborn into the church, the church's purity is jeopardized. While it is true that believer's baptism also does not guarantee that everyone who are baptized are true believers. I believe the Church should practice due diligence in guarding who or who should not be incorporated into the Church. Automatically incorporating infants of believing parents is not a faithful way of preserving the saltiness and lightness of the church. Furthermore, how can the church practice church discipline if many of those who are in the church were baptized as infants and so never made the personal commitment to Christ and His Church? Paedobaptist may later verify the faith of those who have been baptized as infant with the rite of Confirmation. This give the person a chance to give a confession of faith and commitment to Christ and the Church. But this practice is never practiced in the Early Church or were given by Christ. And it functions exactly the way baptism is suppose to be. So why not wait for the child to grow up and make the confession of faith on their own terms? Additionally, infant baptism also doesn't contribute anything different to the infant. In infant baptism there is no faith, no repentance, and no comprehension of the gospel, and it does not save. It is no different than any child or infant living in a Christian home (1 Corinthians 7).

== Reformed Protestant View of Paedobaptism

=== Covenant Case for Paedobaptism

The main argument for paedobaptism for the Reformed Protestants is the covenant case for paedobaptism. The argument goes like this: In the Old Covenant circumcision was administered to infants of the covenant community. Baptist is the covenant sign of the New Covenant as Circumcision is the covenant sign of the Old Covenant. Therefore, infants of believers under the New Covenant should be baptized. This view sees high continuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

In Genesis 15 Abraham had faith in God, he was then given the sign of the covenant in Genesis 17. In Abraham's case, he had faith before receiving the sign (Romans 4:1-12). And then Abraham was commanded to administer it to every male offspring of his as well and any foreigners that were brought into his household. Those who fail to circumcise were to be cut off from God's covenant community. In Exodus 4:24-26, God threatened to kill Moses because he delayed circumcision to his children. So all the children that were born from parents under the covenant community were given the sign of the covenant as a sign of God's promise to them without having faith first.@Sproul It was a promise of redemption that points to Jesus Christ. All the male infants received the sign of the covenant without understanding the covenant and without having faith in God. But the sign acted as a promise from God that He will fulfill the covenant. This means that in the Old Testament at least in one time in history, God has explicitly commanded that a sign of faith be administered to a person who does not yet possess that which the sign signifies.@Sproul[15:30] Therefore, Paedobaptists believe that you can have the sign of the covenant without faith, but you can not have what the sign signifies without faith. There were Jews who believed that you are saved by the sign. The Pharisee thought they were children of Abraham because they were circumcised (John 8:33). But Paul says only the person who are circumcised inwardly are saved (Romans 2:28-29). In the Old Testament circumcision were also given to any gentiles that wanted to convert to Judaism but only after they made a profession of faith. Therefore, paedobaptist also practices believer's baptism. This mirrors the baptisms that happens in the New Testament, for almost all accounts of baptism in New Testament refers to adults or first generation believers. Because of this most Paedobaptists do not see baptisms in the New Testament as evidence to only baptize believers.

=== God Still Deal With His Covenant People as a Family Unit

Paedobaptists would point to household baptism are examples of infant baptisms in the New Testament. Though there are no explicit mention of infant baptism in the New Testament. Paedobaptists suggests that infants of believers were baptized in the various household baptism in the New Testaments. Such as the baptism of the household of Lydia in Acts 16:15 "And after she was baptized, and her household as well." The Baptism of the Philippians jailer in Acts 16:33 "and he was baptized at once, he and all his family." The baptism of the household of Stephanas in 1 Corinthians 1:16 "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas". It is likely that there are infants included in the household and since these verses mentions that all of the household were baptized. One can conclude that the infants were also baptized.

Paedobaptist also sees Acts 2:38-39 as specific reference that teaches believers to baptize their infants because Peter said that "Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sin, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." Since baptism is believed to be a sign of God's promise to His people, Paedobaptists see this as a confirmation that children of believers are included in the New Covenant Community and should be baptized as well. Oscar Cullmann, a Swiss New Testament scholar argues that in the early church period the phrase "for you and your children" not only just possibly included children, but he believes that the word was used with specific reference to infants but R.C. Sproul think this is too much of a stretch. @Spourl2020[19:00] Though we can see a close connection of this phrase with the the phrase "you and of your offspring" that has been repeated six times in Genesis 17:1-14. This further solidifies the continuity between the Old Covenant sign of circumcision with the New Covenant sign of baptism.

1 Corinthians 7:14 is also used as support for infant baptism. Paul says that the unbelieving spouse of the believer, and their children is made holy. To be holy is to be set apart, to consecrae, or to be placed in another or different setting or environment. @Sproul2020[29:49] Paedobaptist sees the parallel between this language of being made holy with how God has set apart Israel as a nation. The unbelieving spouse is set apart but "not saved" just like how God set apart the nation of Israel. Further more, the language of "your children would be unclean" is the language used when putting someone outside of the covenant. <Sproul2020, 30:00> Therefore, in 1 Corinthians 7:14, we see that God still works with his Covenant people in the New Covenant as a family unit.

=== Summary of the Paedobaptist position

In the Old Testament, circumcision does not convey redemption, it is the sign of redemption. In the New Testament, baptism also doesn't convey redemption, it is a sign of many things. It signifies cleansing, regeneration, sanctification, baptized with the Holy Spirit, a sign of our being buried with Christ and raised with Christ. But signs do not automatically communicate the inward, it is just a promise of God that they would recieve the fullness of redemption that is promised in the Gospel. And since God commanded that the signs be administered to the children of his people in the Old Covenant. Since God has not explicitly commanded that to stop, in the New Covenant believing parents are to continue administering the sign of the covenant to their people as a sign of God's promise. The pattern of the household batisms seems to suggest that this pattern has continued in the early church.

= Conclusion and Final Verdict

It seems that the tipping point in the arguments between the two position of paedobaptism and credobaptism is on how much continuity there is between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. That will determine what one believes about New Covenant community. Whether it should consists of only believers, or whether it should be a mixture of believers and unbelievers. The Paedobaptists sees high continuity between the Old and the New Covenant. Therefore, they believe that the New Covenant Community is similar to the Old Covenant Community in that familial relationship determine whether you are part of the Covenant or not. Their presupposition makes baptism in the New Covenant the natural replacement for circumcision from the Old Covenant. Likewise, credobaptist sees more discontinuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Their presupposition makes the New Covenant Community to be made up of only those who are born again in the Holy Spirit. Being the new and better covenant, its community ideally do not contain false believers but those who are genuine believers. Circumcision is replaced by circumcision of the heart, an act that is done by the Holy Spirit. And one then publicly proclaim that this act of God has happened to them through Baptism. Whereas, paedobaptists baptizes infants in hope that God will give the infant grace in the future.

My presupposition and what I believe to Scripture to be saying is that the New Covenant is new and better than the Old Covenant in that its covenant community only consists of true believers. This is the reason why God gave the New Covenant, because the people of the Old Covenant cannot change themselves to fulfill the law (Jeremiah 31:32). God promised that in the New Covenant He himself will write the law on their heart so that they can keep them (Ezekiel 36:26-27). Therefore, those who are in the New Covenant community are those who have been born again by Holy Spirit (John 3:4-8). Baptism should only be administered to those who can give a credible confession of faith signifying that they have believe and trusted in Jesus Christ.