# "The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism" by Jeffrey D. Johnson



## BaptistPuritan

This thread is for the sole purpose to see if anyone has read the book titled "The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism" by Jeffrey D. Johnson. If you have not read the book please do not comment unless you know something about the author that is interesting or something like that. I do not wish to debate this issue in this thread. I would like to hear some thoughts about the book and hopefully gain some wisdom. If you have not read the book I would say it is a book that is worth your time whether you are credo or paedo. I would just like to hear from both sides and see what you thought of how Johnson presented the material. Thanks.


----------



## Notthemama1984

If this is not too much to ask, would you mind giving a few simple reasons why you feel the book is worthy of reading? I am not going to argue or anything. I am simply trying to see if the book does have something I would like to read in it.

Thanks.


----------



## MW

I'm sorry if I'm breaching the OP's wishes; I haven't read the book but I have read write-ups, reviews, and extracts, and intend on reading it in full some time this year. The reason why this book is fascinating to me is owing to the fact that it follows a specific formulation of covenant theology which is gaining ground in reformed paedobaptist circles -- that is, a dichotomous view of the Abrahamic covenant, and the idea that the Mosaic covenant is a republication to Israel of one strain of that covenant, which is ultimately fulfilled by Christ. A few years ago on this board I opposed this formulation and specifically showed the way it would argue against paedobaptism. Now, it would appear, the chickens have come home to roost.


----------



## BaptistPuritan

Good question. First Thomas J. Gentry (Pastor of Covenant Presbyterian Church and President of Veritas Theological Seminary) had this to say about the book "If I were a Baptist, this argument would be the one one I would want to share with my Presbyterian brethren or anyone considering leaving the Baptist camp to become one. It truly is a must read and should be in the library of every serious student of covenant theology." This book gives the Baptist more ground to stand on than some other books on the topic. Nevertheless which ever camp a person is from they can benefit from this book, so that they will be ready to give a defense or answer for the hope that is in them. I hope that answers your question. I found it a really good read and has shown me many things that I have simply just not heard or read before. Thanks.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Both Rev Winzer and you have piqued my interest. I will have to add it to my list of books to read.


----------



## ac7k

I am considering ordering it right now... as someone who is newly reformed and and an active member in a Baptist Church, I am looking for a good resources that explain the reasoning behind both views. What would be a good resource on the paedo-baptist side?


----------



## BaptistPuritan

Thanks Matthew Winzer. Mr. Heistand actually this book shows both views. The author himself a former paedo-baptist lays out all different views that go along with paedo-baptist and not just the Presbyterian view though that is what he mostly responds to later on in the book. I know of one book from a Presbyterian perspective by Michael Horton titled "Introducing Covenant Theology", but that is the only one I know of. If anyone has more information they are welcome to post.


----------



## Romans922

> that is, a dichotomous view of the Abrahamic covenant, and the idea that the Mosaic covenant is a republication to Israel of one strain of that covenant, which is ultimately fulfilled by Christ.



Matthew could you expand on what you mean here, just so I can be clear concerning what you are saying?


----------



## ac7k

How I wish it was available for the Kindle... I could be reading it right now...  Looking for the best deal online... Amazon has it from a third party for $8.50 + 3.99 shipping...


----------



## MW

Romans922 said:


> that is, a dichotomous view of the Abrahamic covenant, and the idea that the Mosaic covenant is a republication to Israel of one strain of that covenant, which is ultimately fulfilled by Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew could you expand on what you mean here, just so I can be clear concerning what you are saying?
Click to expand...

 
Andrew, the promises to Abraham relate to land and people, as well as to justification and salvation. What is an obvious difference is turned into a dichotomy by antipaedobaptist writers. The Mosaic covenant is painted as a national covenant with Israel which is concerned with land and people, and these are tied to the condition of works. Some reformed paedobaptists are teaching precisely the same thing. The Mosaic covenant is a republication of the covenant of works, in which Israel is promised the land on condition of obedience. The Abrahamic promise of salvation runs parallel with this. In the new covenant Christ is said to fulfil the works condition and earn the heavenly land for His people. What continues is the unconditional promise of salvation in the Abraham covenant. In this dichotomy between land and salvation, the physical and spiritual seed are separated to the prejudice of infant inclusion in the new covenant.


----------



## torstar

We're being threatened with a lecture on both baptism and covenant theology?

I dunno, it can be pretty deep waters to get into if you aren't prepared.



[And why don't I ever see dust tossed in the air over mystical unions and Reformed views on the Lord's Supper?]


----------



## ac7k

Ok, I ordered it... Now I have to wait for it to be delivered... How quaint! 

Thanks for the recommendation BaptistPuritan... As soon as I read it I will post my comments.


----------



## DMcFadden

Hmmmm. Amazon said that the third party provider only had one copy. I ordered it too (evidently at around the same time you did). This will be interesting to see who gets it.


----------



## ac7k

Interesting... It is like a duel or something... haha... Let's hope they have more than one copy... 

My order confirmation says 7:57pm PDT... 

Eric


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Reverend Winzer, other fine paedo's, and I have discussed the republication issue. We have also discussed the law / grace (gospel) dichotomy a bit. The Abrahamic and Mosaic are not a republication of the CofW in my estimation precisely because the death promised for the first violation doesn't involve a work or something to be performed (or not performed) based upon an individual's response or action as it is with the first Adam. (ie circumcision) There is a works factor in the two Covenants mentioned to some degree but there is also much grace involved in the Covenants which the CofW has no part of. A longsuffering if you will. There is a sacrament involved with the Abrahamic and Mosaic when there is not one in the CofW. BTW, I am still very much a credo only Baptist in reguards to the New Covenant and believe the New Covenant is new. It is new as Christ fulfills the Law and institutes a pure Covenant of Grace for its members. There is not a works principle involved in justification in the New Covenant. It is purely by grace through faith. And this stands true for the elect in the Abrahamic and Mosaic. But their Covenants were a mixture of both the elect and non-elect where the New Covenant is made with those who are in union with Christ as their head. And we are His Covenant Children.

I haven't read the book. Sorry. But I have read quite a few other books on the topic. And to be honest. I probably won't read it any time soon unless someone places it in my hand and twists my arm. Dr. Crampton's book was probably one of the best booklets I have read on the subject and it comes from discussing it with the backdrop of the Westminster Confession of Faith.


----------



## Pilgrim

I am acquainted personally with Jeffrey Johnson, although I haven't seen him in several years. Pergamum knows him too, probably much better than I do at this point. Johnson and his father, Don Johnson, are both pastors in Arkansas. If I recall correctly, there are several videos of Don Johnson on the I'll Be Honest site and/or their YouTube channel. 

When I learned Jeffrey was putting out this book we renewed our acquaintance online. You can see an interview I did with him on my blog: Interview with Jeffrey D. Johnson, Author of the Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism. As he notes, he didn't set out to write this book, but the project developed over several years of personal exploration of the issue after one of his friends became a Presbyterian. 

I had planned to review the book. Unfortunately, I have never gotten around to it, partly out of a desire to do a thorough review instead of simply writing a few paragraphs as I'm ending up doing here in rough form. 

I think it's fair to say that Johnson stands in sort of a middle ground between New Covenant Theology (NCT) and the Baptist covenant theology that is reflected in the 2nd London Baptist Confession of 1677/1689. He makes statements about the perpetuity of the moral law, the Covenant of Works, the Covenant of Grace and maybe some other issues that would be anathema to most NCTers. But he also makes statements about the nature of the old (Mosaic) covenant that most Baptist covenantalists would not be able to affirm, at least not in my experience. The reviews that I have seen of _The Fatal Flaw _by professed covenantal Baptists appear to have missed this. Overall however, Johnson's views seem to be somewhat more covenantal than those of many of the contributors of the book _Believer's Baptism _edited by Schreiner and White, some of whom I think would not affirm the idea of one covenant of grace with two administrations. 

Most of the people that I knew 5-10 years ago who were in the same "camp" or circles that Jeffrey runs in are basically NCT. Few are dispensational but many are not covenantal either. The men that I was best acquainted with are with few exceptions basically NCT in their views. Thus, I was surprised that he takes a more covenantal view than most of the other pastors I knew back then, although as noted he is not bound to the confession in a strict sense. (I find that's the case with many Calvinistic Baptists except for those in ARBCA and the relatively few other strict confessionalists. Others are similar to many PCA Presbyterians, sort of cafeteria confessionalists who subscribe to the 1689 with varying degrees of strictness or looseness because they see it as being the best and most comprehensive confession available. For example, many in the PCA consider the confessional teaching on the Sabbath to be extreme and have no qualms about eating out on Sunday, etc.) 

As I understand it, Johnson says that not only was the covenant of works republished in the Mosaic Covenant, but that *it is in fact a covenant of works *with a grace principle or that has some gracious provisions. In my experience, Klinean Reformed republicationists usually state it the other way around even with their heavy emphasis on republication. But I have to say that with the exception of blog posts on the Two Kingdoms that I haven't read anything by that camp (Klineans/WSCAL) at any length in a number of years and my understanding or recollection of their covenant theology may be somewhat off.

It's been about a year since I've looked at _The Fatal Flaw_ at any length, but If I recall correctly Johnson states that the idea that the Mosaic Covenant was a gracious covenant or that it was an administration of the covenant of grace is in fact the fatal flaw alluded to in the title. This does not agree with the LBCF language "by farther steps" as I understand it, which appears to clearly state that the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace. 

He gives heavy emphasis to the idea noted by Rev. Winzer that there is a dual nature in the Abrahamic Covenant, basically dividing it into spiritual and national aspects. It seems to me that this idea has more or less been a staple of Baptist theology from the very beginning, so Rev. Winzer's statement that it naturally tends toward Baptist views is correct. (On the other hand, I think that Johnson would state that not seeing it this way naturally tends toward paedobaptist views.) Johnson sharply contrasts the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants and argues as Rev. Winzer notes that the Abrahamic promise of salvation runs parallel with the Mosaic covenant. Thus, unlike New Covenant theologians, he does not deny that there is one covenant of grace. 

He doesn't address the mode of baptism as it is more or less beyond the scope of the work. 

He also gives a defense of amillennialism along with a refutation of premillennialism as part of his exploration of the differences between the two covenants and the nature of the new covenant. I haven't finished that part yet. It is essentially a second work contained under the same cover. 

Somewhat reminiscent of Richard L. Pratt's works, Johnson includes a number of helpful diagrams that help illustrate his views on the Abrahamic Covenant and other issues. 

The book is self-published. Either it or the academic work that is the basis of the book was reviewed by Tom Nettles, Richard Belcher and Thomas Gentry, some or all of which are outside his camp to some degree. So I don't think it could be fairly said that it wasn't peer reviewed as is the case with many self-published works. You can see their endorsements on the Free Grace Press website, and they are probably on the Amazon listing too. 

Unfortunately as is too often the case with self-published works, _The Fatal Flaw_ has many typos and also tends to be somewhat repetitive. No doubt these are among the "many errors" in the manuscript that he alluded to in our interview. Hopefully when this print run is through the book can be thoroughly proofread and edited and then reissued. 

Even if one may disagree with some of Johnson's statements and assertions, in my opinion the book is still quite useful since it addresses the FV and other more recent issues that I haven't seen addressed in other book length Baptist polemics against infant baptism. As I noted earlier, he also addresses eschatology and perhaps some other issues that you wouldn't normally expect to find in a book with this title.

(I apologize that I've edited this so many times. Maybe I should wait before hitting "send" next time!)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think it shows that you can take the Klinean ideas in very diverse directions. I've had a problem with the "Oh look! The Hebrews seem to have copied from the Hittites. Let's see what we just now understand about the Covenants by studying Hittite treaties..." hermeneutical principle for this reason.


----------



## BaptistPuritan

Very good responses. Thank you all for responding! I look forward to hearing from some of you.


----------



## ac7k

I received notification that my book shipped today... 

Cannot wait to read it...


----------



## Pilgrim

BaptistPuritan said:


> Thanks Matthew Winzer. Mr. Heistand actually this book shows both views. The author himself a former paedo-baptist lays out all different views that go along with paedo-baptist and not just the Presbyterian view though that is what he mostly responds to later on in the book. I know of one book from a Presbyterian perspective by Michael Horton titled "Introducing Covenant Theology", but that is the only one I know of. If anyone has more information they are welcome to post.



Jeffrey Johnson is the son of a Calvinistic Baptist preacher and has never been a Presbyterian or a paedobaptist. However he did study under the Presbyterian Thomas Gentry at the latter's Veritas Seminary in Arkansas, so perhaps that is a reason for any confusion. Dr. Gary Crampton is a former presbyterian who recently turned Reformed Baptist and wrote a book published by the Reformed Baptist Academic Press (RBAP.) 

BaptistPuritan is correct that Johnson's book provides a wider survey of paedobaptist views than you will find in many other works of its nature. Of course, whether or not some of those views are accurately represented or oversimplified will be in the eye of the beholder. It doesn't take long in this debate for charges of misrepresentation to be leveled by those on both sides. 

There are so many seminaries and schools of theology popping up nowadays with the name Veritas that it no doubt is going to lead to confusion. I know of at least three, two of which are dispensational.

---------- Post added at 04:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:05 PM ----------




Semper Fidelis said:


> I think it shows that you can take the Klinean ideas in very diverse directions. I've had a problem with the "Oh look! The Hebrews seem to have copied from the Hittites. Let's see what we just now understand about the Covenants by studying Hittite treaties..." hermeneutical principle for this reason.



I don't think Johnson makes any reference to Hittite treaties, although I suppose one could argue that Kline's work in that regard undergirds subsequent Klinean theology, which he is obviously much closer to than other conceptions of covenantalism. (I know that Dr. Clark would argue that republication is found in earlier Reformed writers.) 

Johnson has stated his admiration for _The Law is Not of Faith_.


----------



## Peairtach

Republication of the Covenant of Grace is more dispensational (small d dispensational) than the view that the Mosaic Covenant is just an administration of the Covenant of Grace. 

Credobaptism is more dispensational (small d dispensational) on the subject of the initiatory sacraments of the Covenant of Grace (circumcison and baptism) than is paedobaptism.

*Pilgrim*


> basically dividing it into spiritual and national aspects.



Apparently e.g. the Apostle Paul thinks that the Church - Jews and Gentiles - is a nation called "Israel" (Gal 5:5) and e.g. our Lord says that the meek will inherit - in some sense (or senses?) - this very physical Earth (Matt 5:5), presumably with Palestine-Israel thrown in. Our bodies are also included in the broader and fuller aspects of salvation, viz. the resurrection of the dead.

So when we talk of spiritual v. physical what do mean? 

The New Covenant seems to "cover all bases" being both spiritual and physical; but the Old Covenant '' carnal'' typology has fallen away.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Reverend Winzer, other fine paedo's, and I have discussed the republication issue. We have also discussed the law / grace (gospel) dichotomy a bit. The Abrahamic and Mosaic are not a republication of the CofW in my estimation precisely because the death promised for the first violation doesn't involve a work or something to be performed (or not performed) based upon an individual's response or action as it is with the first Adam. (ie circumcision) There is a works factor in the two Covenants mentioned to some degree but there is also much grace involved in the Covenants which the CofW has no part of. A longsuffering if you will. There is a sacrament involved with the Abrahamic and Mosaic when there is not one in the CofW. BTW, I am still very much a credo only Baptist in reguards to the New Covenant and believe the New Covenant is new. It is new as Christ fulfills the Law and institutes a pure Covenant of Grace for its members. There is not a works principle involved in justification in the New Covenant. It is purely by grace through faith. And this stands true for the elect in the Abrahamic and Mosaic. But their Covenants were a mixture of both the elect and non-elect where the New Covenant is made with those who are in union with Christ as their head. And we are His Covenant Children.


 
Randy, this seems to reflect the "covenantal baptist" teaching of writers like Waldron, Kingdon, etc. To my way of thinking it approximates closer to the reformed view of one covenant with two administrations, and only differs on the nature of the new covenant. We might be able to chart the differences by calling the covenant views A and B, and the baptism views Y and Z. "A" stands for one covenant with two administrations, "B" for two covenants with parallel administrations. "Y" is paedobaptist, "Z" is antipaedobaptist. So it seems we now have AY, BY, AZ, and BZ views, which we must learn to differentiate.


----------



## DMcFadden

ac7k said:


> I received notification that my book shipped today...
> 
> Cannot wait to read it...


 
Mine too.


----------



## MW

Pilgrim said:


> I think it's fair to say that Johnson stands in sort of a middle ground between New Covenant Theology (NCT) and the Baptist covenant theology that is reflected in the 2nd London Baptist Confession of 1677/1689. He makes statements about the perpetuity of the moral law, the Covenant of Works, the Covenant of Grace and maybe some other issues that would be anathema to most NCTers. But he also makes statements about the nature of the old (Mosaic) covenant that most Baptist covenantalists would not be able to affirm, at least not in my experience. The reviews that I have seen of _The Fatal Flaw _by professed covenantal Baptists appear to have missed this. Overall however, Johnson's views seem to be somewhat more covenantal than those of many of the contributors of the book _Believer's Baptism _edited by Schreiner and White, some of whom I think would not affirm the idea of one covenant of grace with two administrations.


 
Thanks for pinning down his position on the landscape. Very helpful.


----------



## ac7k

Dennis,

Great, we both win...


----------



## Pergamum

I personally know Jeff Johnson and can attest that one could not meet a dearer brother. 

He lives in Conway, Arkansas and is the son of Don Johnson who is an animated and energetic preacher who has also blessed me immensely as well. Both Don and Jeff have the gift of preaching and they do this in an extemporaneous and heart-felt manner that is most moving. Even their energy fits perfectly with the message such that once, Don Johnson jumped completely off the ground, literally leaping and this seemed totally appropriate and fitting to the message due to the message he was proclaiming. He could, at that point, do nothing BUT leap at that point in his message I do believe. And if you heard either of these two men you would conclude the same way with me. Some men seem especially gifted in preaching even when not especially smooth otherwise in public speaking and for both Don and Jeff I account this to the power of the Holy Spirit in their ministries.

Concerning Jeff’s book, I concur with Tom Nettle’s assessment, which states_, “However the serious theological reader might want to challenge or nuance Johnson’s proposal, each must surely recognize that his is a serious proposal that must gain a hearing in the ongoing discussions between Reformed paedobaptists and Reformed credobaptists.”_

I do not concur with every jot or tittle of Johnson’s book, but I highly recommend it and I highly regard Jeff.


A note about background:  The Sovereign Grace Baptists are Calvinistic Baptists and right now there is ongoing debate over the covenant. Some, like me, hold to more of a Reformed Baptist view that some have called “Modified Covenantal Theology” but others (I think maybe 65%) have jumped on board the teachings of Fred Zaspel and Tom Wells who advocate New Covenant Theology (which I would like to refer to as actually being NEW New Covenant Theology) and this New New Covenant Theology stresses the discontinuity of the covenants rather than their fundamental continuity, even seeming to drive a wedge between Moses and Christ, some asserting that Jesus actually abrogated the law and gave a new law in Mattew 5 instead of merely perfectly exegeting the law to its heart-core.

Due to these debates within Sovereign Grace Baptist circles, I am sure Jeff probably tried to steer a middle position between what he would view as “Traditional Reformed Covenantal Theology” which should logically lead to paedobaptism (according to Presbyterians anyway) and this now-popular position of New (New) Covenant Theology as advocated by Zaspel, Wells and Reisenger which seems to stated that the 10 commandments are irrelevant unless restated in the New Testament (a problem largely caused by an antipathy to the ongoing nature of the Christian Sabbath).


----------



## ac7k

Pergamum,

Thank you for your addition to the discussion. I am glad I bought the book and cannot wait to read it. The issue of baptism is something that I have been trying to learn more about.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reverend Winzer, other fine paedo's, and I have discussed the republication issue. We have also discussed the law / grace (gospel) dichotomy a bit. The Abrahamic and Mosaic are not a republication of the CofW in my estimation precisely because the death promised for the first violation doesn't involve a work or something to be performed (or not performed) based upon an individual's response or action as it is with the first Adam. (ie circumcision) There is a works factor in the two Covenants mentioned to some degree but there is also much grace involved in the Covenants which the CofW has no part of. A longsuffering if you will. There is a sacrament involved with the Abrahamic and Mosaic when there is not one in the CofW. BTW, I am still very much a credo only Baptist in reguards to the New Covenant and believe the New Covenant is new. It is new as Christ fulfills the Law and institutes a pure Covenant of Grace for its members. There is not a works principle involved in justification in the New Covenant. It is purely by grace through faith. And this stands true for the elect in the Abrahamic and Mosaic. But their Covenants were a mixture of both the elect and non-elect where the New Covenant is made with those who are in union with Christ as their head. And we are His Covenant Children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Randy, this seems to reflect the "covenantal baptist" teaching of writers like Waldron, Kingdon, etc. To my way of thinking it approximates closer to the reformed view of one covenant with two administrations, and only differs on the nature of the new covenant. We might be able to chart the differences by calling the covenant views A and B, and the baptism views Y and Z. "A" stands for one covenant with two administrations, "B" for two covenants with parallel administrations. "Y" is paedobaptist, "Z" is antipaedobaptist. So it seems we now have AY, BY, AZ, and BZ views, which we must learn to differentiate.
Click to expand...

 
Sorry Rev. Winzer, This confused me a bit. 

How would this look for me who holds to one Covenant of Grace with two different administrations. Would it look like AY, AZ. Because I see infants included in the Abrahamic and Mosaic but believe the New is of a purer sense only including the elect? It would be a progressive revealing of the One Covenant of Grace in my thinking. A progressive narrowing of definition concerning who is and what the Nation is. Am I making sense?


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> How would this look for me who holds to one Covenant of Grace with two different administrations. Would it look like AY, AZ. Because I see infants included in the Abrahamic and Mosaic but believe the New is of a purer sense only including the elect? It would be a progressive revealing of the One Covenant of Grace in my thinking. A progressive narrowing of definition concerning who is and what the Nation is. Am I making sense?


 
Randy, that would identify you as AZ in the scheme of things. "Y" and "Z" refer to baptism, not circumcision. Blessings!


----------



## mvdm

armourbearer said:


> A few years ago on this board I opposed this formulation and specifically showed the way it would argue against paedobaptism. Now, it would appear, the chickens have come home to roost.



Rev. Winzer, if it is not too much trouble, could you provide us the link to that former thread where you made such demonstration?


----------



## MarieP

Pilgrim said:


> This does not agree with the LBCF language "by farther steps" as I understand it, which appears to clearly state that the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace.



As a Reformed Baptist, I think you are right about that part! 

Doing some quick research on this as I type...

Also interesting is that the LBCF does not include this paragraph, which appears in the WCF:



> 2. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.



And this distinction is made:



> 3. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace (WCF)





> Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace (LBCF)



Sam Waldron explains in his A modern exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (Darlington, UK: Evangelical Press, 1989):



> The organic unity of the covenants mean that they depend on and grow out of each other. The divine covenants are not self-contained entities. They are all phases in the growth of the same plant. The covenant with Noah provides the stable context in which the redemptive purpose of God embodied in the later covenants may be pursued (Gen. 8:20-9:7). The Mosaic covenant i9s organically dependent upon the covenant with Abraham. The specific blessings of the covenant with Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:1-7, 18-21; 17:1-8) began to be fulfilled under the Mosaic covenant (Exod. 1:6-7; 2:23-25; 6:2-8; Deut. 1:8-11) The mercy of God to Israel was due to the covenant with Abraham (Exod. 32:12-13). Conversely, the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant were dependent on obedience to the Mosaic covenant (Deut. 7:12-13; 11:13-17). The blessings mentioned in these passages were originally promised in the Abrahamic covenant, but later they are dependent on obedience to the Mosaic. How impossible it is to call the covenant with Abraham a covenant of grace and the covenant with Moses a covenant of works! They are inseparable (108).



I'll have to admit, though, some of the first Reformed Baptists I knew said that the Mosaic Covenant was a "covenant of works." And they said they held to covenant theology as well. But I would say the confession is on Waldron's side...

I will have to read Waldron's chapter in more detail later, but I can't find any mention of a covenant of works- I assumed all RBs believed in that designation, but not too long ago, I heard a confessional RB pastor explain that he doesn't like the term because it implies that Adam would have been saved by works had he obeyed God, and that it does not fit the definition of a covenant. A friend said it reminded him of William Dumbrell (who I'd like to read sometime...) But I have Ridderbos on my list first...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

MarieP said:


> I will have to read Waldron's chapter in more detail later, but I can't find any mention of a covenant of works- I assumed all RBs believed in that designation, but not too long ago, I heard a confessional RB pastor explain that he doesn't like the term *because it implies that Adam would have been saved by works had he obeyed God*, and that it does not fit the definition of a covenant. A friend said it reminded him of William Dumbrell (who I'd like to read sometime...) But I have Ridderbos on my list first...



The boldened simply explains that that man didn't understand the Covenant of Works if you are explaining him correctly Marie. Adam didn't need to be saved by anything in the Covenant of Works. He hadn't fallen nor demerited anything as of yet while he was still standing in his unfallen state.


----------



## jogri17

You cannot beat Jewitt's Baptism and the covenant of grace. This books doesn't sound very substantive.


----------



## MW

mvdm said:


> Rev. Winzer, if it is not too much trouble, could you provide us the link to that former thread where you made such demonstration?


 
Mark, There were a few threads where this was discussed in 2007. I could only locate one of them:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/horton-mosaic-covenant-wcf-21024/


----------



## mvdm

armourbearer said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Winzer, if it is not too much trouble, could you provide us the link to that former thread where you made such demonstration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark, There were a few threads where this was discussed in 2007. I could only locate one of them:
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/horton-mosaic-covenant-wcf-21024/
Click to expand...

 
Thank you. Would recommend everyone to read through it.


----------



## ac7k

I received the book yesterday... Have read the first two chapters... a very good read indeed.


----------

