Update: I have since changed my position on this after having more thoroughly (at least as much as a lay person can) studied covenant theology and the cohesiveness of the Abrahamic and new covenant as essentially being one in the same, and seeing how this thought carries over into the NT in multiple places, and would have been a basic presupposition of first century Jewish thought (i.e., what shall we do with our children?). Long story short, I’m a paedobaptist now. The podcast has since disappeared below. However a newer debate between the two can be found here: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=531151725250

————————————————–

http://www.aomin.org/podcasts/20071108fta.mp3

All Gospel-believing Christians believe those who confess Christ as Lord and Savior should be baptized. This is pretty much without exception. However, what are we to make of infant baptism, such as in the Reformed Presbyterian tradition (who I am in agreement with on every point of doctrine except this)? Should infants be baptized to Gospel-believing Christians? This debate is between a Reformed Baptist (James White, a credobaptist, that only confessing believers should be baptized-my position) and a Presbyterian (Gregg Strawbridge, paedobaptist, in addition to confessing believers being baptized, so should the infants of those believers). Listen to this and decide for yourself. Very good … and they did the whole debate over Skype, pretty cool.

It is my opinion paedobaptists bring a lot of presuppositions to the New Covenant from the Old Covenant, and in doing this, they read a lot of things into the text of the New Testament that are simply not there. And I have not been convinced otherwise from the arguments of paedobaptists. You have to come with a preconceived idea of including infants in the New Covenant when coming to the texts presented in the debate to be able to come to the conclusion they do. James White does an excellent job of showing that if paedobaptists were consistent in their application of the text of Scripture to baptism, just as they are to other more important points of doctrine like monergistic regeneration, this would not even be an issue. However, it is because of their lack of good exegetical analysis that this position exists. I believe James White does a fine job of pointing out these inconsistencies going to the very same texts used to defend paedobaptism in argument against it.