[mildly] Alright, Rich. I wasn't promoting the credo view, ye ken, simply referencing it.
This is not a typical "Reformed Baptist" view as I am aware. Typically Reformed Baptist exclude their children from being members, that is unless they die, and then they fight for the notion that they were in the New Covenant without a profession.
we ought to wait until they manifest their election by bringing forth the fruits of it demontrating they belong to the covenant and then baptise them.
I believe that Baptism testifies your repetance and turn to faith in Christ. I see that consistently throughout the bible. (This includes circumcision. Abraham didn't beomce circumcised until he was declared righteous before God. Romans 4)
My gut reaction was to say no, but I suppose it would depend upon their age (how old was Isaac?)...but then there is the whole where does the age of discretion begin debate.
The circumcision of the flesh is replaced by the circumcision of the heart.
Not if they didn't profess.
Even in the OT, is the slaves in the house didn't profess, if they denied that they wanted to follow Jehovah, if they wanted to continue to worship false God, etc., they were not circumcised.
Now, I guess you could argue that this idea isn't true.
That, even granting all of the above, the slaves would be circumcised. So, we'd have, say, Moses, circumcising unwilling participants. Now, if you weren't willing, how would you feel about someone cutting parts of your member off with an ancient knife? So, was Moses running around like a manican, trapping running slaves, tying them down, and then cutting their members while they were kicking and screaming?
And then, these God haters were forced to take offerings to the priest? They were forced to repent, partake of the passover, etc?
Wow, what an interesting view baptists have of the OT.
Seems odd to me. But I think my paradigm makes more sense and is more plausible: Adults have always had to profess, children have not..
He wouldn't be included as a covenant member.
There were plenty of pagans who lived in Jewish territory, I think we can assume they were "asked" to turn unto Jehovah. If they did not, they still lived amongst the Jews, just not as a covenant member.
At any rate, if the salve "always did the will of the master," then we'd have all the slaves being circumcised because they professed faith and turned from their idols only to follow Jehovah.
So, even if your point is true, it just underscores my point.