A Debate on Baptism: Part 2

At this point I will present my first question to Mr. Ohlman. You may find Mr. Ohlman’s first question, my introduction and response here.

The main concern I have with the creedo-baptist perspective is, what I believe, an arbitrary standard in regards to continuity, specifically with Mr. Ohlman. Mr. Ohlman is a theonomist, so he affirms God’s law as being the ethical standard for his life and his neighbor’s. The theonomic position roots from the biblical teaching of covenant continuity. The old covenant passed away, yet we are still commanded to forsake our own way, love God and love our neighbor. The apostles even appeal to the law of God to prove their dogmas.

If covenant continuity is true, then what makes anyone think that children no longer have a birthright? I could understand a dispensationalist denying infant baptism, but for a theonomist who affirms continuity, it remains a mystery. If children in a family of God’s people are never mentioned to have been given an outward sign, the teaching of household salvation still remains a problem for the creedo-baptist position. (1 Cor 7:14) Households were saved from the plague that fell on Egypt. Moses’ family was saved from the flood because of his righteousness.

My question to Mr. Ohlman is this: “What gives you the idea that children are no longer to be brought into the people of God by means of outward sign (baptism), when children were always considered a part of God’s people?”