I was glad to see yet another brother taking R. Scott Clark to task for his pompous and divisive stance on who deserves the title of "reformed". James White takes Dr. Clark to the theological woodshed for his inconsistency and his over the top statements. Dr. White makes the perfectly valid claim that while we stand shoulder to shoulder with many of our paedobaptist brothers on so many issues, when it comes to the 16th century cultural holdover of infant baptism their hermeneutic completely changes. Dr. Clark's outrageous claims have been noted here before, including his contention that any church that doesn't baptize infants is not a "true"church.
I especially liked what Dr. White said about infant baptism and Acts 2:39:
2) Evidently there is a Presbyterian Codex of the Bible that has a variant reading at Acts 2:39. All texts that I know of read as follows:
For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.
But I cannot tell you how often I hear my Presbyterian brethren handle this text in the exact same fashion as the Jehovah's Witnesses handle John 14:28 (it ends up being merely "the Father is greater than I am") or Arminians handle Matthew 23:37 ("how often I wanted to gather you but you would not"). The clear indication of tradition is seen in how Acts 2:39 is truncated in the thinking of my brothers so that it is simply "the promise is to you and to your children." What is the promise? What is the context? Why leave off the rest of the sentence both in meaning and application? The promise is for the Jews who heard Peter, to their children, and to all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." The promise of forgiveness upon faith and repentance, along with the promise of the Holy Spirit, is for Jew ("you and your children") and Gentile ("to all who are far off") based upon God's electing grace ("as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself"). Changing this to merely a statement about "you and your children" involves an eisegetical shift in hermeneutics that my Presbyterian brethren would never allow in discussing the Trinity, justification, or the resurrection, but when it comes to this one topic, all of a sudden things change.
That is excellent stuff. Using Acts 2:39 as a support for infant baptism is so incredible, such a stretch that is boggles the mind that paedobaptists still use it (at least parts of it "your children", while ignoring the context of the passage which has nothing to do with infant baptism). The fact that Acts 2:39 is so often cited as New Testament support for infant baptism is proof positive of how weak the argument really is. I don't always agree with Dr. White in content or in tone but in this case he is right on the money.