# Rerelease of Baptism of Disciples Alone



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 10, 2008)

The Baptism of Disciples Alone

There is also a prepublication discount for the book set up by Founders.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 16, 2008)

Someone asked if there were any significant revisions in the book. Here is what Stan Reeves found out. 



> Here's the word I got from Ken Puls, who runs Founders Press:
> 
> > Fred Malone has made several edits throughout the book, providing
> > additional quotes and clarifications. The book has been reformatted,
> ...


I have already ordered mine.


----------



## Herald (Jun 16, 2008)

When I get some funds in my book budget I'll order my copy.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 16, 2008)

Thanks! I ordered it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 16, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Thanks! I ordered it.



You won't be disappointed. I read the first edition years ago.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 16, 2008)

He:

Do you guys believe that this is the definitive exposition of the CB position?

Curious,

-CH


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 17, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Someone asked if there were any significant revisions in the book. Here is what Stan Reeves found out.



PuritanCovenanter, note one of the rules from the RBDL is:
"The individual posts are not intended to be posted to other mailing lists. Posts should not be used beyond this list without the permission of the posting party. It's the gracious thing to do."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 17, 2008)

CalvinandHodges said:


> He:
> 
> Do you guys believe that this is the definitive exposition of the CB position?
> 
> ...



It is an exposition. If someone wanted to know a stronger definitive CB expostion I would refer them to Nehemiah Coxe's Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ. He is one of the Particular Baptists from the 1600's and probably had his hands deep in the 1677 (1689) LBCF. 

I think the strength of Malone's book is that he does hold to a Covenant Theology and has had to deal honestly with a lot of the theology of His past.

But I would recommend the Coxe book first.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 17, 2008)

Stephen L Smith said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Someone asked if there were any significant revisions in the book. Here is what Stan Reeves found out.
> ...




I asked Stan if I could post this before I did. He said, "Yes, please do."
I know the rules. Thanks for the reminder though.

FYI... Stan Reeves is the Moderator of the rblist.org. It is an email list for Reformed Baptists. There are a few Presbyterians who participate some also.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 17, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> > He:
> ...




Thanks:

I appreciate Dr. Malone's (and RB's in general) commitment to Covenant Theology. I read Dr. Malone's essay, "A String of Pearls Unstrung" as an RB, and it was the misuse of Covenant Theology - especially in the realm of Jeremiah 31 - that caused me to question the RB theology in general. A misuse that many RB's here have echoed, and I have pointed out in previous posts.

If Dr. Malone has improved his covenantal argument, then I would be most interested in reading it.

-CH


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 17, 2008)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Thanks:
> 
> I appreciate Dr. Malone's (and RB's in general) commitment to Covenant Theology. I read Dr. Malone's essay, "A String of Pearls Unstrung" as an RB, and it was the misuse of Covenant Theology - especially in the realm of Jeremiah 31 - that caused me to question the RB theology in general. A misuse that many RB's here have echoed, and I have pointed out in previous posts.
> 
> ...



I received my copy in the mail today. I have discussed Jeremiah 31 with many here. I will probably agree with Malone. It has been a few years since I read his book so I need to reread it. I did start rereading it this morning. And maybe we have also discussed it. I remember a thread which the topic was basically saying that the Jeremiah passage should be interpreted 'now and not yet', so to speak. And with was being proposed I disagreed. If you want to start that discussion up again you can start a new thread. I am not sure how much I would be able to partake in it but I am sure I would some. I remember discussing it with PM and was sharpened significantly because of my interaction with him. 

So start a new thread if you want to discuss it.


----------

