I heard RC Sproul mention Luke 2:72-73 in relation to the Abrahamic Covenant today.
"To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
The oath which he sware to our father Abraham"
I think this passage does a lot to undermine various baptist understandings of the Abrahamic covenant and promise. It shows that God's oath in Gen. 12 is part and parcel of the covenant in Gen. 17, and it shows that thr Abrahamic covenant was a spiritual covenant with Christ as its object. It also cuts against a sharp contrast between an oath or promise and a covenant that wouldn't allow Gen. 3:15 to be the beginning of the covenant of grace.
Robert, I think both sides of the issue can affirm that both ordinances were intended to mark out the visible people of God. Baptists, of course, reserve the NT ordinance for those who’ve articulated their standing in Christ.
Thank you all for your replies. After reading them the Baptist perspective is so deeply rooted in my thinking that I need to step back and retrain my thinking from the ground up to understand Presbyterian views. I appreciate every bodies responses and will consider them as I evaluate this further.
Robert, I think it is great how you are open-minded to examine other views. Please note, myself, I do not come from a Presbyterian POV, but Reformed, and particularly that of the PRCA. As I said on that other thread we were both in, "the Presbyterian view of the covenants [is] just as problematic as the 1689 Federalists, and the PRCA approach I use [is] the best".
The Presbyterians do give the 1689 Feds occasion to object, what with the complexity they often introduce in their presentations and defenses of the paedo view. I discerned that from more closely studying the 1689er's objections to the Presbyterians.