Here's a quote from this week's chapter in Gill: "But our practice is not at all concerned with the parents of the persons baptized by us—whether they be Christians, Jews, Turks, or pagans—but with the persons themselves, whether they are believers in Christ or not." This sentence, in my estimation, seems to sum up the whole difference between the Baptistic view and the Reformed view. The Reformed view centers around looking at the New Testament through the lens of the Old. So, their perspective is skewed to imply state and national dealings in regards to the new covenant. In other words, infant baptism is an extension of the union between church and state that is fundamental to the Reformed view of the covenants. The Baptisitic view is completely the opposite of this. Viewing the old covenant through the lens of the new, we find that national dealings are abrogated. Entrance into the new covenant is based upon personal union with Christ, not birth right. This makes the issue of baptism a gospel issue. It's interesting to me that no doctrine can stand in isolation. All the doctrines of the Bible are tied in together, and our view of one affects our views of the rest. What are your thoughts?