Infant baptism and anachronistic versions of "continuity"

This is a short follow-up to my post of a few days ago.

There I presented a lengthy argument. But now let me instead briefly summarise the main arguments in succinct form, "that he who runneth may read it". The two paragraph version (omitting lots of supporting and side arguments).

The Reformed paedobaptist, quite correctly, notes that the New Testament has a complete absence of argument, debate or teaching about modifications to arrangements for children of believers being part of God's covenant. Quite incorrectly, he concludes from this resounding silence that no changes have been made and that thus the Old Testament arrangement of inclusion remains, uncontroversial in everyone's eyes.

The significant errors here begin with the idea that the Old Testament itself focussed as the significant unit upon "believers and their children". It did not. This is an anachronistic back-porting of something related to, but subtly and importantly different to the real concept of "Abraham and his seed". In the Old Testament, Abraham and his seed received the promises and (the male seed) were circumcised as a sign and seal of this. Once we recognise this, we then note that the New Testament has many and frequent teaching sections (gospels and epistles) in which controversial change is announced and explained. There is a new identification of who Abraham and his seed are - one which cuts out many who before were included, and brings in, even to dominate, many who previously were far off. The New Covenant cuts across family lines, and Abraham's family is constituted around being born again, born from above; those who have faith are the children of Abraham. There is no "Abraham and his children - and their offspring too". The concept of "believers (Abraham's children) and also their seed" is not faithful to either Testament; it is anachronistic in both ages, over-emphasising New Testament distinctives in the Old Covenant era, and retaining fulfilled Old Testament scaffolding during the New. Paul, most directly, addresses the question of the distinction between Abraham's seed and his children in Romans 9, showing that right at the beginning God, intentionally, made it clear that automatic inheritance via bodily descent has never been a permanent part of God's plan, under-cutting the Reformed paedobaptist assertion of uninterrupted continuity at a stroke, in the first and second generations.

So, quite simply, there is an entire silence about the controversy that Reformed paedobaptists demand to be addressed in the New Testament because their demand is unreasonable. They wish the apostles to announce a development in a concept that is different in important ways from the actual Old Testament concept, and hence an unfair and invalid demand.