The case for baptizing the children of believers rests primarily upon the essential unity of the covenant of grace in the Old and New Testaments, as well as the fact that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of that same covenant (Col. 2:11–12 ). God commanded that the infants of believers should receive the sign of the covenant, and He has never revoked this command, even though the sign has been changed from circumcision to baptism. Peter’s appeal in Acts 2:38–39 (“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the L ORD our God shall call ”) is almost an exact parallel with the covenant of circumcision given to Abraham in Genesis 17:4, 7: “My covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations…. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.” The inference from all of this is that, just as infants received circumcision, which was the seal of the righteousness that comes by faith and of the circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:28–29, 4:11 ; Deut. 10:16 ; Jer. 4:4 ), so the infants of believers should continue to be counted as heirs of the promises under the new covenant sign of baptism. Both circumcision and baptism are spiritual signs and seals of faith, given to a spiritual people, in the context of the spiritual covenant of grace.

RYAN M. MCGRAW, BY GOOD AND NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE, 53.