Originally Posted by Meta4
I just don't see what it has to do with baptism. It would be more obvious to me were one talking about covenant theology versus dispensationalism.
Again, at the risk of being too brief/simplistic, in Covenant Theology, in the OT circumcision was the sign of the covenant [of grace] and in the NT baptism is the sign of the covenant [of grace]. This, for Baptists, is where the 'discontinuity' between the OT and NT comes in. Much has to do with one's interpretation of Jeremiah 31:31ff. Baptists believe that "new" means something different from the old covenant. Classic covenant theology says "new" means an expansion of the old covenant; a new universality and spirituality, but the essence of the old covenant remains the same.

If you haven't listened to the debate between Robert Strimple and Fred Malone on baptism, it might be of some help to you in understanding how baptism is directly affected by one's theology of the covenant. You can find those 3 sessions and even download all three to your own PC to listen to at your leisure by going to The Highway main page > Calvinism and the Reformed Faith > Ecclesiology > Sacraments: "Debate on ‘Infant Baptism’" - Dr. Robert B. Strimple vs. Dr. Fred Malone - WSC March 10, 1999.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]