The trouble with this sentiment is that New Testament texts themselves which deal directly with the subject of Baptism, discuss the Sacrament in terms of its Covenantal grounding. Paul calls Baptism, “The Circumcision of Christ”.
This in and of itself necessitates a consideration of Baptism within the context of Covenantal Continuity.
1. In the New Testament we discover the nature of baptism defined. In the definition, something must be said about the person baptized. Its central significance is that the one baptized is said to be savingly joined to Christ…
Yet as presbyter Steve Schlissel points out, it is incorrect to demand an absolute equivalence of Substance with Symbol. Were this equivalence to be granted, then on what grounds could the Baptists deny the baptismal regenerationism of the otherwise-anabaptistic Disciples of Christ, who maintain that only through the act of Baptism is one “savingly joined to Christ”?
According to the Reformed view, however, the efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered. (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIX, paragraph VI) Moreover (and this is vital), the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Spirit to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time. (ibid)
Thus, our concern in the administration of baptism is not to ascertain the regenerated status of the candidate, but simply to ascertain if, according to Scripture, he is lawfully to be regarded as a member of the covenant which baptism signifies and seals.
2. In every clear New Testament example, the person baptized made a credible confession of faith in Jesus Christ prior to receiving the sacrament….
Chantry is not even addressing here the critical “silence” issue which the “Baptist argument from silence” must address: The fact that infant inclusion within the Sign of the Covenant had already existed as a Covenantal ordinance for two millenia. If Jewish believers, who had already included their children in the Sign of the Covenant for 2,000 years, were now expected to exclude their children from the Sign of the Covenant, one would expect a specific commandment indicating that this change in sacramental practice was being instituted.
And yet no such commandment is found in the New Testament. Schlissel again:
Furthermore, he will see in Peter's Pentecost sermon the confirmation of his presupposition of continuity: "Repent and be baptized...The promise is for you and your children (Acts 2:38,39)." The household baptisms hold no problem for him, whether there are infants or not. (See Acts 10:48 (cf.11:14); 16:15, 33; 1 Cor. 1:16) Mr. Continuity will understand that if, after two thousand years of having their children included in the covenant, the fulfillment of that Covenant in Christ now meant the exclusion of their children from the covenant (for if they are in fact members of the covenant, to withhold baptism would be to exalt the sign above the reality signified), if they were now excluded, that would not only be regarded as covenant regression, it seems reasonable to assume that quite a ruckus would be raised over that very point and would have needed to be addressed in the early church. So again, silence is what Mr. Continuous expects and finds.
The Covenant is Visible and One.
As noted, the parallel passage in Luke includes infants in the blessing. And one of the critical points here, is the fact that Jesus said that these infants were already “of the Kingdom of God” – already Citizens of the Kingdom.
Jesus enjoyed the advantage of already knowing His Own, having perfect confidence in who was Elect, and who was not. We do not enjoy this advantage; but we certainly pray it to be true of our children, and do not hesitate to bring them to our King for His blessing.
B) Acts 2:39 has also been pressed into service to support infant baptism. "For the promise is unto you and to your children” ,….The promises do not belong unto the children of believers apart from effectual calling. Only those children who receive this saving grace of God may be conceived of as being heirs of the spiritual promises.
True -- And irrelevant to the case.
The fact that many Israelites grew up to be Idolaters in adult life, did not change the sacramental ordinance of their inclusion as infants in the Sign of the Covenant.
C) Household baptisms are called upon, by paedobaptists, as evidence of infant baptism in the New Testament. There are four references: Cornelius (Acts 10), Lydia (Acts 16), the Philippian jailor (Acts 16), Stephanas ([Corinthians 1). None of the references say that infants were in these houses….Infant baptism can be found here only by those most anxious to do so….
More to the point, these passages do not affirm the presumption that Baptism must necessarily follow an individual profession of belief. The anabaptist has, after all, staked his claim upon he ground that this is the unanimous example of the New Testament – and represents a discontinuity of sacramental practice from the Old Testament.
But as Schlissel has demonstrated, no such commandment of discontinuity is found in the new Testament – whereas a common practice which is found (household baptisms) conforms easily to the Covenantal model, but only with the inclusion of certain implicit assumptions does it conform to the anabaptistic case.
D) I Corinthians 7:14 is another favorite verse. There we are told that children are "holy". The text does not have even vague reference to church membership or baptism. it is talking about mixed marriages in which one spouse is a believer and the other is not. The question is whether such a relationship is proper, moral, or holy for those who were converted after marriage to the unbeliever. Paul reasons from the obvious to the doubtful. It is obvious that your children are not bastards. They were born in wedlock. They are holy. Therefore, it ought to be clear to you that your marriage relationship is holy. Don’t feel guilty about it or wish to be free from your obligations. If the word "holy" suggests a covenant relationship or cultic purity, making the children proper objects for baptism, then the unbelieving spouse is also a valid candidate for the sacrament. The verb "sanctify" has precisely the same root and signification as the adjective "holy." And it is the holiness of the spouse that the passage belabors.
Chantry protests too much. The fact of the matter is, Paul says that the unbelieving spouse is entitled to certain Covenantal advantages in regard to his marriage. While the unbelieving spouse might abandon or divorce the Christian for non-Covenantal reasons, the Christian must treat his/her unbelieving spouse with Covenantal respect, and must not abandon or divorce that spouse for non-Covenantal reasons.
However, this does not speak to the matter of Covenantal observance. In the case of an adult convert to Covenantal observance under the Law, the adult convert was required first to profess adherence to the Torah, and then would be granted the sacramental seal of the Covenant sign.
However, once an adult convert professed adherence to the Torah and received the Covenant Sign, their children were to be raised as full members of the Covenant, and granted the Covenant Sign as infants.
No commandment specifying a change in the Covenantal order is found in the New Testament.
The argument has hung upon a syllogism that goes something like this: There is a unity between the Old and New Covenants. Circumcision in the Old is parallel to baptism in the New. Infants of believers were circumcised in the Old. Therefore, infants of believers should be baptized in the New…. Immediately we Baptists raise our first objection. There is here a serious hermeneutical flaw. How can a distinctively New Testament ordinance have its fullest — nay, its only foundation — in Old Testament Scripture?
Chantry merely presumes sacramental discontinuity here. But presumption is not argument. The fact is, Paul specifically called Baptism “the Circumcision of Christ”, and as Benjamin B. Warfield points out, in like manner the Lord’s Supper is rightly regarded as Christian Passover:
The Biblical model, then, is Covenantal continuity, not discontinuity.
The Covenant is Visible and One.
Chantry is not even addressing here the critical “silence” issue which the “Baptist argument from silence” must address: The fact that infant inclusion within the Sign of the Covenant had already existed as a Covenantal ordinance for two millenia. If Jewish believers, who had already included their children in the Sign of the Covenant for 2,000 years, were now expected to exclude their children from the Sign of the Covenant, one would expect a specific commandment indicating that this change in sacramental practice was being instituted.So you and Schlissel are saying Old Covenant circumcision equals New Covenant baptism. As Hebrews 10 and other scripture indicates so strongly, Christ abolished the Old Covenant of a national Chosen People and replaced it with a spiritual Chosen People. Certainly, we've covered this ground many times. However, the New Covenant does not correspond point-for-point with the Old Covenant. Not even close. So the the Old Covenant=New Covenant argument for infant baptism is inconsistent with the remainder of the theology of the Reformation.
And yet no such commandment is found in the New Testament.