Could a baptist explain to me why God no longer includes children of covenant members in the covenant promises?
-
-
No, because employees are not part of the household, not under federal headship. If employee is bonded to you (doesn't happen any more) and is living with your family as a family member, and chooses not to come to faith, then you put them out of your house. Ergo, no baptism.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Logic only breaks down if you assume 21st century familial relationships are supposed to be the norm.
-
This is why I've noted in the past that credobaptism is specifically a pagan-Gentile-viewpoint, that is, it's removed from Biblical federal headship and family relationship God expressed for 2000+ years of redemptive history.
-
So you would baptize an adult, unconverted household slave?
-
I don't have any household slaves... but if the slave was to be part of the covenant community, attending the same meeting of the covenant people of God that the family was, then yes. Hence Scripture "whole household" was baptized."
-
How about a new believer whose wife is a staunch anti-theist? Should his wife be baptized?
-
No. You can't force someone who doesn't want to be baptized to be. They also wouldn't probably be part of the covenant community (ie:church)
-
That sounds kind of credo of you.

-
Not at all.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.