Quote
PrestorJohn said:
I think that the paedobaptists should realize that in the economy of the new covenant that the command to baptize households means those that profess faith and their children. And it doesn't mean to baptize everyone indiscriminately just because the head of the household believes.

Can you give me an example of "household" meaning that in any other context? In other words, it seems that you are possibly leaving yourself open to the charge of special pleading when it comes to the subject of baptism and households.

Quote
Speaking as a baptist I would maintain that the economy of the new covenant being a better covenant than the old calls for a different administration of that covenant to wit only those that profess faith should be baptized.

Yes, I understand. I've read both sides of the issue. And I would say that someone like Paul Jewett, for example, makes as good a case as can be made for the idea of credobaptism. I don't contemn (or condemn) your pov. But I do think it is important to demonstrate the "why" of these changes in adminstration that you propose. Do such changes advance the covenant of grace or do they retard it? In what ways do they advance or retard? These are the kinds of questions I'm proposing. If children should not be baptized (even though they had been circumcised for something like 2000 years at the inauguration of the new covenant economony), is it not passing strange that nothing was said to that effect?