The issue with the household baptisms is not whether their were infants in the household; rather, it is whether the other members of the household made a profession of faith or not, which is the credo requirement. I believe these examples are clear, crisp evidences that the other members of the household did not.
Originally Posted by Herald
I don't think this is a "partisan leap," but rather allowing the text to speak for itself and then making sense of it from the covenantal perspective. So, with Abraham (Genesis 17) and throughout the OT, we see household circumcisions; in the NT, we see household baptisms. So, if one proves that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant, then the correspondence immediately follows.
Stillwater Reformed Presbyterian Church
"On every hand it is assumed that 'religion' is a private luxury of some people, having nothing to do with public life. The First Amendment to the Constitution, intended to guard against an official state church, has been interpreted by legislatures, court decisions, and public opinion that there can be no connection between the government on one hand, and 'religion' on the other hand. Therefore, God has been placed on a reservation, and education, culture, law, politics, and life in general are to proceed as if there were no God. God is not dead, but His terrifying judgment hangs over a nation that treats Him as an irrelevant, private matter."
Johannes G. Vos
November 1, 1980