The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism Quotes

“When the New Testament tells us that this or that "household" (as many English translations put it) was baptized in connection with Christian faith, what would the first hearers have thought?”
― Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism

“Finally, the forensic context reminds us that God is bound by his covenant both to save those who turn to him in Christ and to punish those who spurn the promise and judge themselves unworthy of everlasting life (Acts 13:46). If covenant children do not respond to God's covenant promises and mercies, the sign of baptism will testify against them on the Day of Judgment. "Unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required" (Luke 12:48). Covenant breakers, who fail to appropriate covenant privileges, will reap God's covenant judgment instead of his covenant blessing.24”
― Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism

“Because God's covenant, the framework within which he operates, has not been changed. There has been no explicit instruction which says that God has altered his modus operandi, his way of operating, with regard to infants receiving the covenant sign and seal, as John Murray has pointed out.20The promise
which says, "I will be your God and you will be my people," given to Abraham to embrace not just him but his family, still stands; and it is still, in the words of Peter, "unto you, and to your children." Children would therefore naturally be regarded as subjects of baptism, just as they were of circumcision in the Old Testament.21”
― Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism

“How could a converted Jew regard the new covenant as a better covenant, if now his children were to be excluded from God's dealings with his people, no longer receiving a sign of God's covenant promise?
If such were the case, Peter and later Paul would surely have had to face that question repeatedly. And yet it is never debated or even mentioned in the NewTestament. Peter and Paul are never called upon to answer the question: Do we baptize the infants of believing parents?
Why not? Because Acts 2:39 and other texts underscore that the. covenant is the polity or constitution of God's kingdom. It's the way he operates his church, in both the Old and New Testament eras.”
― Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism

“We have to remind ourselves that the multitude who heard Peter's sermon on Pentecost was Jewish. It included Jews from Palestine, proselytes, and dispersed Jews from other parts of the Roman Empire and beyond. The Old Testament was all they had of the Holy Scriptures. As they listened to Peter preaching from those Scriptures (twelve of the twenty-two verses of Peter's sermon in Acts 2 contain quotations
from the Old Testament), they could have understood his words in only one way-as a reference to the promise in God's covenant and the fact that that promise extended not only to believers but to their children as well. To interpret Acts 2:39 in light of the New Testament Scriptures, which did not yet exist, as do many Baptists," is to engage in hermeneutical error and can only lead to a serious misrepresentation of the mind of the Spirit.
The Jewish multitude had Jewish expectations-not just about the Messiah, but also about the way in which God works with people.”
― Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism

“Second, as the words of Gabriel, Mary, and Zacharias indicate, the covenant promise is always made, as Peter says, "unto you, and to your children." Peter included children in Acts 2:39 on account of the content and structure of God's covenant fellowship with his people ever since the days ofAbraham.”
― Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism

“It is important to remember, however, that baptism is not merely a sign of God's grace-it is also a seal. Baptism does not simply signify what Christ has done, nor does it only demonstrate the parents' devotion.
Baptism is also God's own continuing, visible pledge to his church that he will fulfill his covenant promises to those who place their faith in him.”
― Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism

“But if baptism will not make our children Christians, then why should we administer the covenant sign and seal to them? The most important answer is that we baptize because God makes promises to believers and to their children. In baptism we honor God by marking out and acting on the promises that reflect his grace both in blessing parents who act in devotion to God and in blessing the child being devoted to him in covenantal faith.”
― Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism

“Infant baptism is typically resisted by people in North American culture today because they (1) do not understand the continuation of the covenant of faith made with Abraham and its application to all believers today, (2) are not informed of the representative nature of covenant headship, (3) do not understand how a covenant sign is a seal (i.e., that baptism is a visible pledge that covenant promises will apply when the conditions of faith are met, so that the sign does not have to be tied to the moment that one believes in Christ), (4) do not realize that children would have been included as members of households that were baptized, and (5) cannot conceive of "dunking" a baby, if one's only experience with baptism involves immersion.”
― Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism

“The frequency of the household baptism accounts demonstrates that it was normal and consistent with the ancient practice of the continuing Abrahamic covenant for heads of households to see that the covenant sign and seal was applied to all in their home. No evidence indicates that children were excluded from these households. Rather, two thousand years of covenant practice, combined with the absence of any command to exclude children, indicate that household baptisms included infants.”
― Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism

“Philippian jailer asked Paul, "What must I do to be saved?" it was natural and scriptural for the apostle to reply, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-you and your household" (Acts 16:30-31). Paul's words do not mean that the rest of the household would automatically come to faith in Christ, but his presumption was that the faith of the head of the household would ultimately govern the commitments of the rest of the man's family. As a result, the jailer's entire household was baptized that night (v. 33).”
― Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism

“when we read the New Testament accounts of baptism, every person identified as having a household present at his or her conversion also had the household baptized.”
― Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism

“Since the covenant remains, but the sign changes, New Testament believers would naturally expect to apply the new sign of the covenant to themselves and their children as the old sign had been applied. Since the old sign was applied to children prior to their ability to express personal faith, there would be no barrier to applying the new sign prior to a child's personal profession of faith in Christ. Baptism would function both as a sign and a seal of the household's faith in Christ. As a seal,
baptism would indicate the visible pledge of God that when the conditions of his covenant were met, the promised blessings would apply.”
― Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism

“While the covenant continues, its sign changes to reflect what God has done to maintain his promises. The bloody sign of circumcision that prefigured the shedding of Christ's blood no longer remains appropriate after the Lamb of God has shed his blood once for all in order to remove our sin (cf. Heb. 10:10; 1 Peter 1:18).Therefore, New Testament believers receive a new sign for the covenant that indicates what Christ has accomplished for them. Baptism with water is the sign of the washing away of our sin”
― Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism

“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.... The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2:38-39). Peter frames his call to salvation in Christ in covenantal terms by speaking of a promise that applies to his listeners and to their children as well as to others who are yet far off. The apostle assumes that God continues to relate to us as individuals and as families-that the covenant principles are still in effect.”
― Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism

“The validity of a seal is not dependent upon the time that the conditions of the covenant accompanying it are met. Like the seal of a document, the seal of circumcision could be applied long before recipients of promised and signified blessings met the conditions of the covenant. The seal was simply the visible pledge of God that when the conditions of his covenant were met, the blessings he promised would apply (cf. Rom. 4:11).”
― Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism

“circumcision was God's pledge to provide all the blessings of his covenant when the condition of faith was met in his people. Our faith does not actuate God's covenant or cause it to be extended to us-he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4)-but our faith does claim (and live out) the covenant blessings that God provides by his grace and pledges with his seal.”
― Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism

“Circumcision was God's way of marking his people with a visible pledge to honor his covenant for those who expressed faith in him.”
― Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism

“Because God's promises extended to Abraham's house, he was to devote all that he had to the Lord by use of the covenant sign. This meant that all who were part of Abraham's household in that ancient society were to be devoted to God by circumcision-sons, dependent relatives, and servants (Gen. 17:23; cf. Ex. 12:43-48).”
― Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism

“After making the covenant with Abraham to bless him and his descendants by grace through faith, God provided a covenant sign both to mark those who were recipients of his promise and to signify his pledge to provide for those who had faith in him. It is important to remember that the sign was given after the covenant was made; it was neither a precondition of the covenant nor a means of conferring it. Faith was and is the sole condition of knowing the blessings of God's covenant.”
― Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism

“Being fully committed to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, I believed on biblical grounds that regenerate believers cannot lose their salvation (John 10:27-29; Rom. 8:30). I concluded that unregenerate members of the visible church can be
covenant breakers in the new covenant.This meant that there was continuity in the way that membership in the covenant was administered. The signs of the covenant are for members of the visible church. Since this is so, even the youngest members, infants, can be included in the visible church and receive the sign of inclusion. This was the critical theological point for me.”
― Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism

“We baptized you when you were little, too. We promised to raise you to trust Jesus. The pastor put water on your head. We use water for washing, and when we baptized you, we asked God to wash away your sins. The pastor said "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" for you, too. That means that he asked God to be your God. Now you belong to him. We all want you to believe in God for yourself, but baptism means that you are never all by yourself. See how the family always comes to baptisms and how the whole church is there? Our family came, too, and we pray for you. The people of the church care for you, too. We teach you and pray for you, so you will belong to God all of your life.”
― Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism