Hello, If you've been keeping track of the posts on the PB these two weeks you've probably noticed that I've been posting lots of questions on Covenant Theology lately. The reason why is this: I am a Reformed Baptist. But many Reformed Baptists have told me that (1) I should adopt 1689 Federalism. And (2) I've had several folks this past year call me a "deepwater Presbyterian" or my theology as "immersed presbyterianism." And some have said that (3) my current set of beliefs is inconsistent as a baptist. Finally, (4) I had one person tell me that 1689 Federalism was THE baptist position and there were not other ways to interpret the data from a baptist perspective. Presently if the 1689 Federalism position is THE consistent baptist position I need to rethink being a baptist. If this is where it leads, then it seems to (1) stress the discontinuity of the OT and NT too much, (2) make the OT primarily about physical things and physical peoples and not primarily spiritual realities which culminate in Christ. Here are my current beliefs (as a Reformed Baptist): -The Bible is one book, of primarily spiritual things. It is not about natural things, or natural promises. -Following Adam's Fall into sin, the Covenant of Grace was immediately revealed to Adam in Gen. 3:15. - All OT believers participate in the Covenant of Grace. It is an active reality because people were being saved by it, even in the OT. -The Covenant of Grace does not equal the New Covenant. The New Covenant is the culmination of the Covenant of Grace. Those OT "covenants of promise" were also part of the Covenant of Grace in that their chief purpose was to point to Christ and not to deal with some physical tribe of people. - The Mosaic Covenant was not merely a "ministration of death" but merely so due to unbelief. It also contained gracious promises and types of Christ. There was grace in the law. -This Covenant of Grace is one covenant with many different dispensations, which all point primarily to Christ and culminate in the New Covenant. Eph 2:12 calls these the "covenants of promise" and therefore, are not primarily about the physical nation of Israel but the Promise of Christ, the True Israel, into which all of God's people are incorporated into. -God doesn't have two people, a physical seed and a spiritual seed. God had Israel. Believing Gentiles were grafted in; unbelieving Jews were cut off. But though there are different types of branches, it is all one tree. God's OT promises dealt with this one Israel, we cannot divide up the promises into physical and spiritual Israel. -Galatians 4 is not contrasting Sara and Hagar with some supposed covenant with Hagar, but is contrasting the Abrahamic Covenant with the Mosaic? (I need more help on this issue). - The signs of the covenant which place a person into the external administration of the covenant are not guarantees of salvation. Thus we cannot baptize only saved people. We only baptize those, to the best of our knowledge, our actually in the internal administration of the Covenant (IN Christ). Presbyterians trust that the general promises to the children of believers is enough while baptists also want to see actual professed faith. I do agree that there is, in fact, a general promise to the children of believers. Now for some questions: What else am I missing? Where am I wrong? Can I be a consistent baptist with my beliefs above? Is there another possible position as a baptist without adopting 1689 Federalism?