I have much love for Dr. R. Scott Clark and all he has done, and continues to do for the Kingdom.
But the article below is one of many reasons I wasn’t sold concerning paedobaptist Covenant Theology, and what results from that (the infant baptism tradition).
As you read the article you will find that it is based entirely off a biblical passage not even discussing baptism, and proceeds to generalize texts in a way in which those in the Reformed world would never allow our Arminian brothers and sisters to do.
I understand his presuppositions in this article (circumcision = baptism, baptism is a seal, New Covenant not really new as most would think, etc.). Of course we deny these things as our presuppositions are different. But the question still remains? Why do my paedobaptist brothers seem to consistently generalize passages only when it comes to defending the infant baptism tradition?
I would encourage you to read this article to see if the same inconsistencies I mentioned above are as obvious to you as they are for me? Do you see the same generalization of texts taking place that us in the Reformed Tradition would not accept concerning other biblical doctrines?
ruiz1689 