The unbloody sign of baptism replaces the bloody sign of circumcision (just as the unbloody Lord's Supper replaces the bloody Passover).
Therefore, if you're keeping score, circumcision = baptism, passover =Lord's Supper.
Now, most Paedobaptists (specifically Reformed ones) baptize infants on the basis of the infants inclusion in the covenant of grace via the infant's parent's faith. That is, because of Federal Headship, that is, because the federal head (father) of the household is a believer all those in the household should be baptized. This concept came out in the debate between Pastor Bill Shisko and Dr. White a while back. Pastor Shisko stated that because the father of a household believed, everyone in the household should be baptized, regardless of faith (including teenaged unbelievers.)
However, when it comes to the Supper, these same folks note that Paul warns in 1 Corinthians 11 that those who partake of the Supper are to do so in a worthy manner and that "he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly". Their claim is therefore that since Scripture demands that one be able to "judge the body rightly" (NASB) and those who partake without "discerning the body" (ESV) do in fact "eats and drinks judgment on himself". Thus they view that only those who have professed faith and are able to "discern the body" are proper recipients of the Supper.
The report by the OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) on Paedocommunion of 1987 also makes the connection of Communion to the Passover stating (this report was not adopted by the OPC):
The Passover was in some sense transformed into the Lord's Supper.It should be clear therefore that Presbyterians (and the Dutch Reformed who argue likewise) view Communion as the fulfilled type of Passover. Note also that this report recognizes that children partook of passover and that the OT and NT sacramental terminology is interchangeable and there is "fundamental unity of the covenant (and its sacraments). Yet they recognize that 1 Corinthians 11 requires some responsibility on the part of the partaker to "discern the body", that is that the elements being served are representations of Christ's shed body and blood and in such are holy things that God uses as means of grace to His people.
In the words of institution our Lord transformed the words used at the covenant-instituting meal at Sinai (Ex. 24). (one exception)...
Children did participate in the first Passover, and were at least permitted to participate in subsequent celebrations of it, while in the New Testament there is no explicit prohibition or command regarding the participation of children in the Lord's Supper. (one exception)
The interchangeability of Old Testament and New Testament sacramental terminology demonstrates the fundamental unity of the covenant (and its sacraments). Cf. I Cor. 5:7; 10:2; Col. 2:11
As there was a definitive Passover and then a commemorative, so there was a definitive Lord's Supper and then a commemorative; in both cases the latter was the celebration of an accomplished redemption.
[ Baptists who have trouble with this last bit should take into account Keach's Catechism, a baptist catechism created by one of the writers of the London Baptist Confession of Faith wherein he writes:
Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.
Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation?The Baptists of the 17th century had no difficulty with covenantal and sacramental language as commonly used by their paedobaptist brethren. I encourage Baptist believers to read Keach's Catechism as well as the LBCF if this terminology troubles them. ]
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them.
Q. 99. Wherein do Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God?
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God in that they were specially instituted by Christ to represent and apply to believers the benefits of the new covenant by visible and outward signs.
Within the past few decades the debate within Protestant Paedobaptist circles over the issue of paedocommunion has been no small matter. No less than R. C. Sproul Jr., son of respected Presbyterian pastor, teacher and Reformed celebrity R.C. Sproul, has taken the position that consistent understanding of covenantal theology requires paedocommunion as the counterpart to paedobaptism. That is, if baptism is the circumcision of the New Covenant and the Lord's Supper is the Passover of the New Covenant, and if infants and children were the right recipients in the Old Covenant administration, then they are the proper recipients of the means of grace in the New Covenant administration. They believe therefore that since federal headship is the means by which a infant is considered the proper subject of baptism, and since both baptism and the Supper are "means of grace", and since the Old Testament pattern is that infants and children were proper subjects of both circumcision and the passover, they should likewise be the proper subjects of the New Covenant fulfillment of those types. The "Federal Vision" movement reignited this debate to some extent with many of whom this label has been applied to taking the paedocommunionist viewpoint.
We Baptists agree with our paedobaptist brethren of the anti-paedocommunion stripe in this one point, that faith is in fact a requirement for communion. 1 Corinthians 11 clearly expresses the view that one must be able to generally understand what is going on to be considered a right recipient of the elements.
We however believe that the Scriptural pattern, time and again is that one is to "believe and be baptized" (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38 , Acts 8:12, Acts 18:8, etc.) and that one is to "repent and be baptized". We do not believe that Acts 2:39, usually partially quoted, provides any support for the view that faith is not a requirement of baptism. In fact, we note that there is much, much more support in Scripture for the view that faith is a requirement of baptism than there is for faith being a requirement of the Supper. If one is just looking content-wise, the number of verses relating baptism and faith far outnumber those for faith and communion.
That said, one must wonder why, if one can have the sign and seal of the New Covenant administered to them without their believing, and in fact (as some argue) even if they're unbelieving members of a believing household, on the basis of federal headship, why federal headship does not apply in the one sign that Christ Himself calls "the New Covenant in my blood". Why, if federal headship alone dismisses all the requirements of faith for baptism in Scripture does it not also apply to the Supper? Surely the faith of the federal head of the family, and their ability to discern the body, can apply for the Supper as well as baptism?
Why is there unity in the sign of circumcision but disunity in the sign of passover? Why are infants and children denied these means of grace?
I would like to suggest that it is simply inconsistent for paedobaptists to administer baptism to their children on the basis of federal headship and yet deny them the body and blood of our Savior. I would also like to suggest that this inconsistency shows a major crack in their argument for paedobaptism, for when it comes to the Supper they argue like Baptists demanding evidence of faith before allowing them at the table.
Dr. White, in his debate with Pastor Shisko asked about the nature of the New Covenant and why infants and children baptized therein are lost if they truly considered "in" the New Covenant. I don't believe he got an adequate answer then. I also note that a post-debate follow-up in the New Horizons magazine Pastor Shisko wrote:
We should stop using the term "paedobaptism" (baptism of infants) and use the more biblical expression "oikobaptism" (baptism of households). The point is not that infants were baptized in the New Testament, but that whole households were baptized.... Certainly in the missionary context of Acts, there had to be faith in new converts to Christianity before they could receive the sign and seal of Christian baptism (in the same way that Abraham received the sign and seal of circumcision only after he believed the promises of God, Rom. 4:11-12). But even as whole families were received as part of the covenant people in all previous ages, so that pattern continues in the New Testament. If, in fact, this household principle was abrogated in the new covenant, one would not expect the household formula to be used as it is in the New Testament.
Yet in the very next month's issue the following was written by James T. Dennison about paedocommunion:
But we dare not admit children without a credible profession of faith. Far from bestowing privileges of blessing upon them, to do so is to hang millstones about their necks.
In that same issue Stuart R. Jones wrote:
Precisely how much discernment a child is capable of and how much understanding is necessary for worthy participation is another matter. The new covenant is simultaneously more accessible and deeper than the old covenant. The demands of the new law are simpler and more far-reaching as the royal law of love. The call to daily cross-bearing is more far-reaching than rabbinic parsing of Old Testament law.
The strange, inconsistent nature of this argument should be evident without much further posting. Even though there is not a single verse in Scripture commanding, commending or even suggesting the baptism of infants, and in fact many, many verses clearly stating the pattern of "believe and be baptized", paedobaptists argue that infants and children should be baptized in the New Covenant because they were circumcised in the Old. And yet, though infants and children partook of the passover meal in the Old Covenant, since there is one passage stating that one should "discern the body" as a requirement for partaking the Supper, they bar the table to infants.
Finally, I want to note the nature of the paedobaptist argument against the Baptist position. As seen in R. Scott Clark's replies to my previous post, there seems to be a lot of rhetorical dishonesty in regard to how Baptists both view other believers and their own children. Just as Clark declared that " According to the Baptists I'm not a Christian" Pastor Shisko calls into doubt the Baptist's love and care for their children, or belief in the saving nature of the New Covenant saying "Baptist views cannot account for the language used of children in the New Testament. While it is true that Jesus did not baptize little children, what did he mean when he took little children and said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven"" and "On a Baptist model, how is it that children are included among "the saints" in Ephesians 6:1-3 and Colossians 3:20 (cf. Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2)?". Both of these men have enough contact with Reformed Baptists to know that these statements and these questions are illegitimate. Reformed Baptists believe that Protestant Paedobaptists are believers, we also believe that God saves children of believers by the same power that raised Christ from the dead, with or without their baptism or partaking of the Supper. Again, Baptists believe that their children may in fact be members of the New Covenant, we do not require a profession of faith to "prove that one is elect" or "regenerate", rather, we note the clear pattern of Scripture that those who profess faith are the proper recipients of both baptism and the Supper. Furthermore we suggest that, given the nature of their argument against paedocommunion they recognize that our argument against paedobaptism is identical in nature. Thus either their argument against our position is untenable or their argument against paedocommunion is, but they cannot have it both ways.
Update:I found another article by R. Scott Clark on infant baptism in which he states:
Passover (like the other feasts) differed from circumcision, however, in the same way that baptism and the LORD's supper differ: circumcision, the first covenant sign was applied to infants and adults alike, and was a mark of entrance into God's covenant people. The Passover feast was restricted to those who are able to understand God's redeeming acts because it was a sign designed to nurture and lead to growth.Yet the OPC states:
Children did participate in the first Passover, and were at least permitted to participate in subsequent celebrations of it.
Who is right?