Paedoists misunderstand & take verses out of context
On Baptism and age of accountability
The issue is really around not understanding Scripture accurately, and continuing to be open to God teaching them about "what Scripture actually says". This is why there are different denominations. They stopped reforming to recieve what God really revealed in Scripture. They hold to a set of beliefs and refuse correction.
On Credo vs Pedo belief:
Let's examine these perspectives, with Scripture.
1. The Covenant Framework Difference
• Reformed/Presbyterian (paedobaptist) churches see baptism as the new covenant sign that corresponds to circumcision under the old covenant (Gen. 17). They apply it to believers and their children because, in their covenant theology, the children of believers are still considered "in the covenant," even if not regenerate yet.
• Reformed Baptists & other Christians argue that the new covenant is made only with the regenerate ones (Jer. 31:31–34, Heb. 8). Therefore, the sign should only be applied to those who actually believe.
2. Household Baptisms in the NT
Paedobaptists often appeal to the so-called “household baptisms”:
• Lydia (Acts 16:15)
• The Philippian jailer (Acts 16:31–34)
• Crispus (Acts 18:8)
• Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16)
They emphasize the formula: “you and your household” (e.g., Acts 16:31). They [out of context] argue this shows a covenant pattern like in the OT—when the covenant head believes, the whole household comes under the covenant sign.
3. The Reformed Baptist & Christians Response
Reformed Baptists push back and say:
• Context shows faith is always required. For example, Acts 16:32–34 says the jailer’s household heard the word and believed in God before baptism.
• The text never explicitly mentions infants being present, let alone baptized.
• The NT pattern is always “repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38), never baptism apart from personal faith.
• Therefore, using “you and your household” as a blanket justification for infant baptism imports Old Covenant assumptions into the New, rather than letting the NT define the practice.
4. Bottom Line
Yes — from a biblical view, many covenantal paedobaptists lean heavily on household baptism verse/texts as part of their case. But the others (those who examine Scripture) would say they are reading them through an Old Covenant lens, assuming continuity of covenant administration without properly accounting for the discontinuity the NT highlights (new covenant members = regenerate only).
We know not all of Israel was saved nor would be. Just cuz they did a ritual doesnt make them saved. Likewise God circumcised hearts. Thus, believers salvation.
Here’s how that works out:
1. Old Covenant Circumcision = Mixed Community
• Circumcision marked national Israel as God’s covenant people (Gen. 17).
• But it was external — not all who were circumcised were truly saved (Rom. 9:6–8). Not a internal conversion.
• Moses, Jeremiah, and Paul all stress that what God really wanted was circumcision of the heart (Deut. 10:16, Jer. 4:4, Rom. 2:28–29).
So, in the Old Covenant one could be a covenant member without being born again.
*Being born in Israel, didn't mean you were saved. Jesus called highest religious folk broods of vipers, and sons of Hell. We must be born again, (to be a child of God, to be saved, right with God).
Parents cant assume, nor force their kids into the Kingdom. They cant do a work to get them in the Kingdom either. Only God converts, and its not by baptism. Salvation is by Faith, a work done by God.
2. New Covenant = Regenerate Community
• Jer. 31:31–34 and Heb. 8 emphasize the new covenant is not like the old.
• Every member of the new covenant knows the Lord and has God’s law written on their heart.
• Therefore, the new covenant doesn’t include unbelievers in the same way.
Infants dont *know the Lord*, cuz they haven't been born again yet. They haven't Repented & obeyed the Gospel as Jesus called people to do, in Mark 1:25.
That happens when theyre older, after *understanding* sin & the Gospel, & *respond* in obedience to it, at convertion. Then they get baptized showing "testimony" of what had happened to them. Not before salvation. Baptism always *follows* after conversion.
From this perspective, baptism (the new covenant sign) shouldn’t be given just because someone is connected to a believer — it’s for those who have faith themselves. [You cant believe, till you comprehend & respond].
3. The Ritual vs. Reality
• Doing the ritual (circumcision back then, baptism now) doesn’t equal salvation. ✨️
• But the big difference is:
• In the old covenant, the ritual was given broadly (to the whole nation, infants included).
• In the new covenant, the ritual is only for those who actually have the reality of conversion [hearts circumcized],(regenerate believers).
So we don’t deny continuity, but the discontinuity is key.
This is where the two camps diverge:
• Paedobaptists: stress continuity → “Since children were in before, they’re in now.”
• Biblical credoists [converted first & then get baptized]: stress the newness → “Now only believers are in; the covenant is not mixed anymore.”
Hope that helps.
