Depends a lot on just how new is the NC, as tend to see it as all new, and that those under it would be the redeemed of the Lord jesus!I just listened to Ligonier Ministries debate on Credo v Paedo baptism. MacArthur argues for credo and Sproul argues for paedo.
The verse upon which Abrahamic Covenant and New Covenant hinge is found in 1 Corinthians 7:13-14.
If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
The argument is that a sign of the Abrahamic covenant is circumcision. The sign of the New covenant is baptism. Children, not yet believing, were circumcized into the Abrahamic covenant so that they might be set aside to know God. Thus children who are baptized into the New covenant so that they might be set aside to God. In neither situation did it mean the children were saved. In both covenants salvation is by grace through faith alone. One was never saved by circumcision nor is one ever saved by baptism.
"A Paedobaptist Position on Baptism" from Ligonier Ministries A Paedobaptist Position on Baptism by R.C. Sproul
MacArthur has a different take on the passage in 1 Corinthians 7.
"A Credobaptist Position on Baptism" from Ligonier Ministries A Credobaptist Position on Baptism by John MacArthur
That is why would hold to believers baptism....