Paedo or Credo here are a few things one must consider before throwing out Reformed paedobaptism as an incomplete, Roman Catholic aspect of Reformed theology:
- 1500 years of Church history.
- All the Magisterial Reformers were paedobaptists.
- Household baptisms. It’s not as weak an argument as most people think. Check out Lee Iron’s Oikos formula.
- Baptism as the new circumcision, the new sign of the covenant.
- The condition to repent and believe before being baptized is given to those who are not within the new covenant. Quoting passages of the apostles’ requiring faith and repentance before baptism in the book of Acts does not go against paedobaptism. The issue is not whether people outside the covenant must repent and believe before they enter the covenant, but whether children of believers are within the external covenant.
- Certainly infants being circumcised did not understand what was happening to them.
- Not all Israel is Israel, thus circumcision was never meant to guarantee regeneration, but was a symbol of membership in the external covenant.
- Not all people who make a profession of faith are truly regenerate.
- The idea of the remnant in OT Israel shows that God made a distinction between true Israel and physical Israel, yet all who were under the covenant were circumcised.
- Peter says that the promise is not for the men alone, but for their children.
- The children of believers are holy.
- Jesus loves the little children.
These are just some things that have been in my head. Gotta get back to studying.