Hi Joe

Sorry I am rehashing an old thread, but unfortunately it took me quite a while to research some of your points and even now I feel like I am only scratching the surface.

You said: “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!”

So far in my research of the issue, what I have found tells me that the common Reformed understanding is that the OT is the background and foundation of the NT, but also that the NT is the final interpreter of the meaning of the OT.

To quote Augustine (from Fred Malone): “The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed.”
Also from reading Fred Malone on the issue, he didn’t learn this from a Baptist Seminary; he learned it from Presbyterians at Reformed Theological Seminary.

I want to be as respectful to you as possible, but by you saying that the OT should be the final interpreter of the NT, it would seem to me that you are making the same error that Norman Shepherd and the Auburn Avenue theology makes.
Let me explain this by quoting O. Palmer Robertson
O. Palmer Robertson -- from "The Current Justification Controversy"---

"In attempting to make relevant the movement from election to reprobation of Israel under the old covenant, Mr. Shepherd asserted that the individual elected according to Ephesians 1 also could become reprobate. But it must be questioned whether he has communicated adequately the progress of Scriptural revelation as described by Vos. Instead of letting the finalized revelation of the New Testament provide the framework for understanding the shadowy form of the Old Testament, it may be that Mr.Shepherd has allowed the typological forms of the Old Testament to exercise too much control over the manner in which the New Testament is to be read. As a consequence of this perspective on election, a corresponding perspective emerged in his development of the idea of a “justification” that actually could be lost (97)."

Please understand I am not saying you agree with Shepherd and Auburn Avenue theology, I am just saying that they come by their theology through the same hermeneutical principle you are espousing.
I hope I am in some way misunderstanding what you are saying.
Please forgive me if this post sounds disrespectful, believe me it is not meant to be.

Tom