Do you know WHY you are a Baptist now?
In my experience,
most (not all) Baptists who switch do so because they don't actually have a good grounding in Baptist covenant theology and they get "Wow"-ed by the (seeming) consistency of the paedobaptism covenant theology.
Anyway, I never "switched" from one to the other. I was an unbeliever until my late 30s. I was 38 when I became a believer. I always "sort of" understood credobaptism to be "true" even as an unbeliever / nominal Christian. But once I was converted, I had to take a good hard look at every pre-conceived notion I had about what I thought I knew about the Christian religion.
I became "reformed" (i.e. a Calvinist) very quickly, because God's sovereignty in all things, including election unto salvation, was so blatantly obvious in scripture that I couldn't ignore it, even though it went totally against everything I'd ever been taught.
After realizing I was a Calvinist, I needed to decide whether I believed in paedobaptism or credobaptism so I knew whether to join to a Presbyterian church or a Reformed Baptist church. I was introduced to 1689 Federalism (I didn't know the name for it at that time, but I was introduced to the principles) and "Westminster" Federalism (aka, paedobaptist covenant theology) around the same time and so I studied them both.
Ultimately, the issue (to me) boils down to these points:
1. Is the New Covenant
the same covenant or
a different covenant with respect to the Abrahamic Covenant / Covenant of Circumcision?
2. Were Old Testament saints saved
BY the Old / Abrahamic Covenant?
3. Is it legitimate to import the rules for circumcision over to the rules for baptism?
4. Does each biblical covenant stand on its own or do prior covenants inform us how to understand later covenants?
I concluded that the answers to these are as follows:
1. The New Covenant is a
different covenant with respect to the Abrahamic Covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant promised the New Covenant, but did not provide salvation. The Abrahamic Covenant brought forth Christ. Christ provided the New Covenant.
2. OT saints were saved "under" the Old / Abrahamic Covenants, but were not saved "by" the Old / Abrahamic Covenants. Only the New Covenant is the "Covenant of Grace" and is the only Covenant by which anyone was ever saved. The New Covenant saved OT saints. The New Covenant was not "formally established" with sacraments and such until Christ, but the benefits were nevertheless available to the saints.
3. Circumcision was a positive ordinance, not founded in natural law. Baptism is a positive ordinance, not founded in natural law. Baptism is to be administered according to its own rules, not the rules of Circumcision. Circumcision went away and is gone.
4. Each biblical covenant stands on its own. Covenants are not "natural" constructs, they are institutions of positive law. Therefore covenants are not regulated by the rules for other covenants. They are regulated by the rules for themselves.
With all that said, I concluded that the command for baptism is to baptize those who make a profession of faith, and no others. So I've been a Reformed Baptist and nothing I've seen from the paedobaptist side has been particularly compelling since.
I strongly recommend the following two books, both by Samuel Renihan:
From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704) (Centre for Baptist History and Heritage Studies) [Renihan, Samuel D.] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular...
www.amazon.com
The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom [Renihan, Samuel] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom
www.amazon.com