Reformed Theology Help with baptism without a debate please  Calvinism

Help with baptism without a debate please

Reformed Theology Help with baptism without a debate please  Calvinism
Help with baptism without a debate please

Hey all, hope all is well. So I've been studying a lot about God's covenants recently and what I believe is the best framework within which to interpret scripture. I can see too much continuity between the Old Covenant/s and the New for dispensationalism to be an option, and New Covenant theology presents all sorts of other problems. So I have come to the conclusion that federal covenant theology is the only way that makes sense.

Now I understand the claims of both 1689 federalism and 1646 Westminster, how the continuity/discontinuity in covenants results in the respective view of covenant inclusion. Basically, I can see both very easily, how do I come to the conclusion which one is correct? I have a couple of issues in either direction I would like someone to explain if possible please.

Looking at 1689 Particular Baptists, there is a huge gap historically, in the mid 2nd century infant baptism is described as the universal practice of the church, I understand that we have little form this time period but it's difficult to believe that the true apostolic practice vanished off the face of the earth within a hundred years with now written documentation surviving in opposition?

Secondly, there seems to be specific mentions of Oico baptisms with regards to inclusion of families in the covenant, I understand Luke writes that all had heard the word, but in my experience, it is not normal for whole families to come to faith at once, so to claim this for each of the oico baptisms creates issues for me pragmatically, can anyone answer these objections satisfactorily?

Now to the 1646 Paedobaptist. When Galatians 5:3 ties circumcision to the law, how is it possible to see the Abrahamic covenant as one of Grace/unconditional rather than a conditional works one? I understand the duality in the covenant best explained by Berkhof however surely to accept this it must follow that there is an element of baptism in the NC administration that is part of the covenant of works and is conditional?

Thanks for your help, Calvyn

Link
Submitted by CalvynS