My only dispute would be that in Jesus, the definition of “seed” has been changed, or transcended. It’s not longer a line of blood but of Spirit, which leaves out the unregenerate. We are called to raise godly children, but we are now called to raise the nations as well. This fact shapes the way the Old Covenant informs our understanding of the New.

I’m enthusiastic for a federal vision as well. I just reckon this practice ties it to Old Covenant limitations, a “looking in” instead of a continual “looking out.”

I see this basis for typological credo-baptism as a new stage in the baptismal discussion, as the church slowly returns to reading Scripture typologically, and I hope people interact with it.

Nevertheless, I remain unconvinced that the covenant is ever made with individuals. The covenant is always a corporate act with “you and your seed.” Your point that this seed is not bloodline related is a good one, although this was apparent even when the covenant was made with Adam even. The true bloodline is always one of grace and adoption, from Adam to Christ, and has always included Gentiles. If it were a matter of blood, both Abel and Cain would have been part of it, but the bloodline proceeds through Seth, not Cain, Jacob, not Esau, and so on.

But then, I’m an enthusiastic FVer.

My argument is that it is only a creating and initiating ordinance for ministry. Throughout Scripture, in type and antitype, it puts people in government. It’s the white Israelite robe with four blue tassels, the New Jerusalem. It is for those from whom water now flows.

Baptism is a new birth, but from a tomb, not a womb. It is for one who was dead under the Law and now is alive in Christ.

So, caretaking does include baptism, but it is the vindication of the work of the law (repentance) and the authorisation of a new mediator. So the baptism is for the caretaker, not for those sheltered. It is for the Temple water chariots who carry the healing waters to the nations.

If you click on the baptism tag here, you’ll find all manner evidence for my credobaptism, including the matrix structure.

Baptism is for all those who believe, and their children. I do agree about what you say about bloodlines (great stuff, actually), but like James Jordan says, all baptism is infant baptism, and all children are adopted. Baptism means that God takes back the child that He gave to you, kills it by drowning it in the baptismal waters, resurrects it into the covenant and gives the child back to you as the child’s caretaker or guardian, not as their bloodline parent.

My perspective is that circumcision symbolized the beginning of the “means” of the Law, and a circumcised heart was the “end.” It led to regeneration, but did not begin it. Then baptism follows the circumcised heart. It is the “means” of resurrection, and actual resurrection is the end.

So, our children should be under the sound of the gospel as “flesh” set apart for the fire. But they are not yet filled with fire. The gospel cuts out hearts until we are ready to be baptized.

Regarding the typology in the ark, it contained “You” (the Noahs), “your children” (the next generation of Noahs, all married), and “those afar off,” the “Gentile” animals who “believed” and submitted to Noah for protection. Besides the sacrificial animals (in place of the warrior bridegroom), all the “Gentile” ones were in pairs. So this is a picture of the New Covenant, where everyone pictures the marriage of the faithful warrior bride. Infants were not a part of the picture until after the flood. Baptism is for those who can say “amen” for themselves. And of course, as I keep saying, New Covenant offspring are not the same as Old Covenant offspring. Paul had plenty of kids. So did the Ethiopian eunuch.

Also, once you were in the ark, you didn’t get out into the flood. Not possible.

Hope that makes sense.

To the contrary, baptism *does* put a person (including a person’s children) in the ark. Absolutely. Baptism places them in the covenant, which, in the case we’re talking about, happens to be the ark. Baptism is the sign and seal of regeneration, justification, adoption, and all the rest of it. Baptism *is* the gospel embodied.

Obviously nobody is denying that personal internal regeneration is necessary for salvation, but Peter says that baptism saves us. It puts us in the ark until such a time as we choose to jump out into the flood.

Covenant Succession certainly ran along family lines under the Old Covenant. Every now and then, where necessary, God would shake the turntable and the needle would jump a track. The line of Achan was cut off so God jumped from the line of Zerah to the line of Perez (which included Rahab). We see the same thing, of course, in Jacob and Esau, but also in the Lord’s awarding of the priesthood to the line of Phinehas.

But all these track jumps were within the bloody boundary of Abraham. Satan could wipe out the Succession quite easily, and he almost succeeded a number of times.

The beauty of the New Covenant is that it is supposed to jump tracks ALL of the time. There’s no way Satan or his human cohorts can keep a lid on it. In fact, persecution simply causes it to jump and spread all the more!

Godly parenting under the New Covenant is, quite demonstrably, put in second place by the apostles. This doesn’t mean it can be ignored, as many baptists and others do. But it simply isn’t God’s primary means of Covenant Succession any longer. Witness is. The only reason it sticks to family lines is because we preach the gospel to our kids. If all we have to show for our witness is godly kids, we are not living under the New Covenant, and we are not taking the risks demanded by the New Covenant.