Nice quote, but inaccurate, and I STILL see no textual argument?<br><br>Let us do more than exchange articles select a text to discuss!--Your Choice???<br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]What I have to say next is critical to understand. I see four main reasons why I was a Reformed Baptist: 1) I was dispensational to some extreme in my thinking because of an abrogation of the Old Testament covenant in an extreme manner, 2) I studied the doctrine of the “covenant” from the New Testament backwards to the Old Testament, 3) I defined the “sign” of Baptism strictly as, “the outward sign of the inward work of regeneration,” and 4) I thought that the terms "salvation" and "new covenant" were coextensively the same thing.<br><br> In point “1”, there is much to explain and most “Reformed Baptists” will vehemently deny this as I did (I can already hear them mumbling to themselves in consternation!) Suffice it to say that I will be addressing this in future articles. My “Reformed Baptistic” theology, from a covenantal perspective, was dispensational – I could not escape this to some extent even though I did not see how this could possibly be. <br><br> Point “2” is more prevalent. If you attempt to understand the Bible beginning from the New Testament and work backwards into the Old Testament you will almost always end up Baptistic. If you argue from the New Testament backwards then you have begun with a wrong hermeneutic. This idea is very important. I had, in reality, neglected it. <br><br> Point “3” is also very important. The very ideas associated with the ordinance of baptism in the new covenant for me as a Baptist were different than one who believes in Covenantal Theology. This is a result of the manner in which I understood what “covenant” theology is all about. I was in error about my understanding of covenant theology. This again will be addressed in future articles.<br><br> Point 4 is critical. If you think the New Covenant is coextensive with salvation, you will always wind up Baptistic. This is probably the most serious error in trying to understand the arguments here. Every covenant in the Bible, from Adam forward, included unbelievers. The New Covenant, in this respect, is no different. That is why Christ can promise salvation and damnation in the same breath to those in the New Covenant. (1 Cor. 11, Heb. 6 and 10). Until the Baptist comes to grips with this, there is no way for him to understand Covenant Theology because he radically transforms the nature of God's covenant when he deals with the New Testament.<br><br>In my “switch” I realized that as a Baptist I continually and forever argued against secondary notions and not by the basic and key ideas which are foundational for the rest of biblical interpretation. I was arguing about the color of the horse when all along I should have been arguing about the structure of the cart he was pulling.</blockquote></font color=blue> My Retraction, A 15 year Reformed Baptist turns Paedo-Baptist

Reformed and Always Reforming,