The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Question for my credo friends

Jimbo,<br><br>The consensus is that 85% of the N.T. consists of either direct quote or allusions to the O.T. To be sure, without the O.T., the N.T. would be incomprehensible. In fact, the fundamentals of the faith are grounded in the O.T. no less than the N.T. and are the surety that what the N.T. says is true. Our Lord Christ made frequent references to the O.T., even for the purpose of showing His identity as the Messiah. Augustine has probably said it best when he said, "The N.T. in the Old is contained. The O.T. in the New is explained" (paraphrased [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] ).<br><br>Once again we are confronted not with a debate about WHO should be baptized, but rather the issue is [color:blue]HERMENEUTICS</font color=blue> and specifically continuity vs. discontinuity. Does "new covenant" mean TOTALLY new, i.e., completely discontinuitous with the "old covenant"? If it does then, IMHO, there is hardly enough information in the N.T. for anyone to establish a doctrine for it. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img] Well, I could go on and on with various caveats which Baptists really are unable to give reasonable answers for. But of late, I simply don't have the mind to spend more time arguing over these types of things. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/igiveup.gif" alt="igiveup" title="igiveup[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,