This is my comment at http://adampowers.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/my-letter-concerning-infant-baptism/ :
I was previously a Presbyterian and Reformed Christian (for 27 years) . My simple advice-don’t go there-infant baptism and Covenant Theology. It will cloud your thoughts and ruin your understanding of the Law and the Gospel.
As for circumcision as the complete parallel of baptism-this is not so. There is also continuity/discontinuity issues there. The NT equivalent of circumcision is “circumcision without hands” or regeneration.
And yes-paedobatist when asked about baptism regarding adults-will sound like baptist-check Heidelberg and Shorter Catechism. Then they flipflop in their theology when it comes to their children. The promise theology is derived Acts 2. But I am sorry-there is no promise there for infants-only for children who was part of the mob that crucified their Messiah. That promise theology is eisegesis. They did not make a contextual interpretation of that passage. And it includes also those who are far off-and we don’t baptize them all-only those “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” and “verse 41 So those who received his word were baptized”. If only I read this wholly-I had been spared of the troubles of 2o+ years.
BTW, Federal Vision and Reconstructionist problems stems from this “Infant baptism and Covenant theology”. They may disavow any knowledge or associations- but they cannot deny the pedigree.