Well Fred would be right except for one very serious error. Paul used the O.C. to explain the new! Even Hebrews shows the fulfilling of the O.C. in the New. Look at Hebrews 11, where does the author begin on the issue of "faith?" Thus, the proper hermeneutic is to use the Old to explain the New—a principle taught in every seminary I know of (most of them Baptist), except when it comes to baptism & eschatology—interesting!

Dispensationalism basically looks at the Covenants and see them as individual trees. Each tree then may have some of the other items of the other covenants en-grafted in on a case by case basis, but the covenants themselves are separate. The trees grow until they reach their full scope of purpose and then are replaced with another.

Covenant theology sees ONE tree that has different things added to it for further revelation from era to era (w/epochal adjustments). Covenant theology sees more of a continuity in the covenants then does the dispensationist. Covenant theology sees God revealing His master plan more and more throughout the ages as opposed to the dispensationist who sees it constantly being replaced. For the paedo, the progression of the Covenant in time begins in the Old Testament and ends up in its fulfillment (not replacement) in the New Testament—a proper hermeneutic.

Thus, the hermeneutics of the camps are not equivalent and they end up with different views not only in baptism, but eschatology, et. al. You can begin with the middle of the book and look backward and you will most always end up credo or you can begin at the beginning of the book and you will almost always end up paedo. So, I guess it boils down to how you learn to read. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/read.gif" alt="" />