# The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology by Pascal Denault



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 24, 2013)

The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology
A Comparison Between Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist and Paedobaptist Federalism

Another Coming Book on Covenant Theology from a Baptist Perspective

New book coming soon: The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, Pascal Denault :


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 24, 2013)

Thanks for that notice!


----------



## brandonadams (Feb 22, 2013)

Here is my review:

I am now able to sleep at night: Pascal Denault has written the book I’ve been looking for.

Someone has finally put in print an analysis of what 17th century particular baptists believed about covenant theology. As amazing as it sounds, no other book has done this. Of the now numerous books published on baptist covenant theology, none of them have done what Denault has done. None of them endeavored to explain what the editors and signers of the 1689 London Baptist Confession meant when they modified Chapter 7 of the LBCF. Some have written how they personally interpret Chapter 7, but not necessarily how the London baptists did. Many reformed baptists have labored hard to reconcile their credobaptism with covenant theology, but for the most part they went back to the drawing board to do so, rather than standing on the shoulders of those who came before.

But, I don’t blame them. It’s not like you can find these primary sources on Amazon, or even in your library. For the most part, they’re just not in print. Reformed Baptist Academic Press did a great service in publishing Nehemiah Coxe’s treatise on covenant theology, but before that it wasn’t available in print. And still most of the other writings are not available. Denault notes: “I spent weeks communing with seventeenth-century theologians through their writings; sometimes reading them with a magnifying glass when only the original edition existed.”

The result is a unique combination of historical survey and modern polemic against presbyterian covenant theology. The value of returning to the source of 1689 confessional covenantalism is that it is decidedly different from the covenant theology of modern reformed baptists. Only two modern books articulate the same view: Jeffrey Johnson’s The Fatal Flaw in the Theology of Infant Baptism and A.W. Pink’s Divine Covenants (for the most part).

The most prevalent view amongst reformed baptists today is a modified version of presbyterian federalism. This is the one covenant, two administrations view. Denault notes “the Presbyterian paradigm of the Covenant of Grace consists in seeing only one covenant administered respectively by the Old and New Covenants. This notion was definitively rooted in Presbyterian theology when it was integrated into the standards of Westminster: “This covenant [the Covenant of Grace] was differently administered in the time of the law and in the time of the gospel [...]” (39). Most reformed baptists agree with this view. In his Exposition of the 1689 LBCF, Sam Waldron notes “The truth is that the way or scheme of salvation has been one and the same in all ages of the world. In the revelation of this scheme of salvation all the divine covenants were involved. They were its historical administrations.” But they disagree with presbyterians over what constitutes the difference in administration between the old and the new. They will say that the old covenant eternally saved some of it’s members, but the new covenant eternally saves all of it’s members – and this is the newness of the new covenant. As James White argues:



> The point is that for Niell [his paedobaptist interlocutor], the “counter-point” to which he is responding is an either/or situation: either the elements of the New Covenant described in Heb. 8:10 were completely absent in the Old Covenant (as he understands the citations he presents to assert) or they were present and hence cannot be definitional of what is ‘new’ in the New Covenant. But it is just here that the position of Reformed Baptists in general, and that seen in our exegesis, must be allowed to speak to the issue. We must agree that considered individually, each of the elements of the New Covenant listed in Heb. 8:10-12 can be found, in particular individuals in the Old Covenant… So, if some in the Old Covenant experienced these divine works of grace, but most did not, what then is to be concluded? That the newness of the New Covenant is seen in the extensiveness of the expression of God’s grace to all in it… Hence, when we read, “God’s law, the transcript of his holiness and his expectations for his people, was already on the hearts of his people, and so is not new in the new covenant,” 11 we respond by saying it is not the mere existence of the gracious act of God writing His law on the heart that is new, but it is the extensiveness of that work that is new. While some in the Old Covenant experienced this, all in the New Covenant do so… The newness of the New Covenant, as we have seen exegetically, is that all of these divine actions are true for all of those in it.
> 
> The Newness of the New Covenant



As White alludes, his position is representative of “Reformed Baptists in general”. The new and the old covenant do not differ in substance – they both renewed hearts, forgave sins, and saved eternally. They only differ in administration – some received this blessing in the old covenant, but all receive this blessing in the new covenant. But as Denault demonstrates, this view is not representative of seventeenth-century baptists.



> Coxe summarizes the Baptist distinction as follows: “the Old Covenant and the new differ in substance and not only in the manner of the administration.”… his federalism can practically be considered as the standard of Calvinist Baptists [of the seventeenth-century]. (18) … Consequently, none of them endorsed the theology of one Covenant of Grace under two administrations (58). [Note: apparently 2 or 3 Calvinist Baptists did endorse the two administration theology]


Instead of the one covenant under two administrations view, seventeenth-century baptists held to “one covenant revealed progressively and concluded formally under the New Covenant” (61).



> “[Chapter 7] is the most discordant passage of the confessions of faith. Knowing that the Baptists made every effort to follow the Westminster standards as much as possible when they wrote their confession of faith, the originality of their formulation of the Covenant of Grace is highlight significant. It is obvious that the authors of the 1689 completely avoided any formulation reminiscent of the “one covenant under two administrations” model that we find in the other two confessions of faith. This absence must be interpreted as a rejection of the theology behind this formulation and not as an omission or an attempt at originality.” (60-61)
> 
> The Baptists believed that before the arrival of the New Covenant, the Covenant of grace was not formally given, but only announced and promised (revealed). This distinction is fundamental to the federalism of the 1689 (62)… The Baptists considered that the New Covenant and it alone was the Covenant of Grace. In Baptist theology we find an equivalency between the Covenant of Grace and the New Covenant (63)…The Baptist understanding rested on another fundamental distinction: one between the phase where the Covenant of Grace was revealed and the phase where it was concluded. The revealed phase corresponded to the period preceding the death of Christ and the concluded phase corresponding to the time that followed. Therefore, Baptists considered that no other covenant, besides the New Covenant, was the Covenant of Grace.



Again, just to note the contrast between seventeenth-century baptists and modern reformed baptists, Waldron states



> “Each use of the term to refer to a divine covenant in the bible refers to a covenant made by God at some specific historical epoch. None of these covenants may simply be equated with what the [London Baptist] Confession describes as ‘the covenant of grace’… The New Covenant has sometimes been equated with the covenant of grace. As the Confession remarks, ‘the full discovery’ of the covenant of grace ‘was completed in the New Testament.’… If this theological terminology [covenant of grace] is used, however, it must be guarded carefully in two ways. First, the distinction between the divine covenants [ie new covenant] and the covenant of grace must be maintained jealously. (107-110)


I don’t mean to criticize White and Waldron and others who hold their view. I only wish to make it abundantly clear what is being said in Denault’s book. It is easy to read another book on baptist covenant theology and categorize it with the others without realizing it’s uniqueness and it’s disagreement with other reformed baptists. Greg Nichols’ “Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God’s Covenants” has been lauded as a hallmark point for reformed baptists. Derek Thomas notes “Baptists who embrace their historic Calvinistic and Covenantal roots have long since needed a robust and comprehensive treatment of Covenant Theology that includes the nuanced interpretations of the biblical covenants that a baptistic hermeneutic requires. This treatment by Greg Nichols does just that and more.” The oddity is that this treatment that has long been needed, has long existed! And Nichols’ modern treatment is not representative of the older treatment already given. Whereas Denault spends the entire book explaining the meaning of the change in LBCF 7.3, Nichols gives it a paragraph and barely mentions any disagreement. This is fine if Nichols’ main focus is to explain his personal beliefs about covenant theology, but it is lamentable that paedobaptist scholars like Thomas inevitably see it as representing the Calvinistic and Covenantal roots of the 1689.

There is a lot to be learned from seventeenth-century baptists. In particular, Denault’s book helped iron out a few wrinkles in my understanding of baptist covenant theology.

His discussion of the Abrahamic covenant and clarification as to what Coxe said about it was very helpful. He shows how the baptists answered the claims of Petto and others who saw the Abrahamic covenant as unconditional but the Mosaic as conditional (a view echoed by Meredith Kline and Michael Horton). They answered Petto’s primary text for this view (Gal 3:16-17) by appealing to Galatians 4:22-31.



> “The Baptists saw two posterities in Abraham, two inheritances and consequently two covenants… Not that the posterity of Abraham was of a mixed nature, but that Abraham had two distinct posterities and that it was necessary to determine the inheritance of each of these posterities on the basis of their respective promises… This understanding was vigorously affirmed amongst all Baptist theologians and characterized their federalism form its origin” (119-120).


But, very helpfully, Denault clarifies that this did not mean they saw two formal covenants with Abraham. They saw only one formal covenant – the covenant of circumcision (Gen 17). The other was seen only as a promise (Gen 12) (a footnote interacts with Jeffrey Johnson’s disagreement on this point, and is very helpful as well).

Denault also does an excellent job of illuminating the precise nature of the Mosaic covenant as a covenant of works, according to the baptists. I have previously objected to John Owen’s remark that the Mosaic Covenant law demanded perfect obedience. I preferred A.W. Pink’s explanation that only outward, national, general conformity to the Mosaic Covenant was required, since it was a national covenant. However, Denault notes that these two views are in harmony:



> “In agreement with the Covenant of Works, the Old Covenant demanded a perfect obedience to the Law of God, but contrary to the Covenant of Works, the Old Covenant was based on a sacrificial system for the redemption of sinners… The slightest disobedience to the Law constituted a sin punishable by death (Rom 6:23), but not necessarily a transgression of the Old Covenant. It is necessary to make the distinction between the requirements of the Law of works affirmed under the Old Covenant and the requirements of the Old Covenant itself towards Israel. The maintaining of the Old Covenant depended on the Levitical priesthood (Heb 7:11) and not on absolute obedience… the obedience required was general and national in character. God graciously overlooked the many offenses. However, the covenant would be broken if Israel habitually sinned and were marked nationally as a rebellious people who disregarded God’s Word” (137-138).


There is much to be gained from Denault’s work. It fills a very necessary gap in the existing literature on baptist covenant theology. The work addresses many of the objections and concerns raised by modern paedobaptists against modern Calvinistic baptists. For example, the recently published “Kingdom Through Covenant” defense of “progressive covenantalism” is seen by many as “the” covenantal answer to paedobaptists by modern Calvinistic baptists. But Kingdom Through Covenant really looks very little like the seventeenth-century baptists. And what’s more, these older baptists avoided the pitfalls that Kingdom Through Covenant is precisely being criticized for (see my next post). Sadly, I doubt that Denault’s work will get the attention that Kingdom Through Covenant did, although it deserves to.

Enough already: go read it!

The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology | Contrast


----------



## Herald (Feb 22, 2013)

Stephen, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I guess I'm ordering another book for my growing library.


----------



## Herald (Feb 22, 2013)

My pre-pub copy is ordered. This is an exciting time for Reformed Baptist scholarship. I expect to see more scholarly treatments on important doctrinal issues emerging in the very near future.


----------



## Herald (Feb 27, 2013)

I received Pastor Denault's book yesterday, and dove into it today. Here is what I posted about it in another venue:



> Pastor Pascal Denault lays out a clear, concise, and compelling case for 17th Century Baptist Covenant Theology in his book, "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology." I finally had the opportunity to read his treatment of Baptist Covenant Theology, and did not come away wanting. Bon travail, le pasteur Denault.
> 
> One unintended consequence of this book is that it puts to rest the contention that Baptists have no claim to the title "Reformed." While "Particular Baptist" aptly described the Calvinism of the 17th Century confessional Baptists; it has proven to be somewhat myopic when considering the breadth of their theology. Reformed Baptists are not only confessional, they are covenantal; believing in a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace (albeit with differing beliefs on administration). Quoting the appendix to the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, Reformed Baptists seek to, "follow after peace with holyness" with our paedobaptist brethren, as we both contend for the faith once delivered.



Reformed Baptist scholarship is on the upswing. I am genuinely excited about the treatments on relevant (to Reformed Baptists) theological issues that should be on the horizon.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 27, 2013)

Until about 2 years ago I was unaware of the diversity within particular Baptist thought and was under the impression that it was limited to "one covenant, two administations." That was the extent of my understanding of RB covenant theology because that's how it had been presented to me. I assumed that Jeffrey Johnson's book was beyond the bounds to some degree with regard to his treatment of the Mosaic Covenant and I think he did too. I was a bit surprised at who really likes it. Brandon's chart is quite helpful.


----------



## Herald (Feb 28, 2013)

Pilgrim said:


> Until about 2 years ago I was unaware of the diversity within particular Baptist thought and was under the impression that it was limited to "one covenant, two administations." That was the extent of my understanding of RB covenant theology because that's how it had been presented to me. I assumed that Jeffrey Johnson's book was beyond the bounds to some degree with regard to his treatment of the Mosaic Covenant and I think he did too. I was a bit surprised at who really likes it. Brandon's chart is quite helpful.



Denault writes,



> "However, in studying Baptist theology in its historical context, it becomes evident that this definition of the Covenant of Grace had a meaning that was very specific and fundamentally different from the paedobaptist understanding.
> 
> The first particularity is found in the difference between the notion of administration and that of revelation. The Baptists believed that before the arrival of the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace was not formally given, but only announced and promised (revealed)." (p. 61, 62)



He then goes on to say,



> "The distinction between the revelation and the administration of the Covenant of Grace finds its whole meaning when the second element of Baptist federalism is added to it, that is to say, the full revelation of the Covenant of Grace in the New Covenant. If the Westminster federalism can be summarized in_ "one covenant under two administrations,"_ that of the 1689 would be _"one covenant revealed progressively and concluded formerly under the New Covenant."_ (p. 63)



At first I read this with a bit of suspicion. Is not the New Covenant a completely new covenant? Hence, _discontinuity _of the covenants. But Denault employed a unique definition of Baptist discontinuity.



> "The Baptists believed that no covenant preceding the New Covenant was the Covenant of Grace. Before the arrival of the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace was at the stage of promise." (p. 63)



This is what Denault means when he says, "One covenant revealed progressively and concluded formerly under the New Covenant." The New Covenant is, indeed, a completely new covenant that was promised in the Old. He takes care to measure terms, and separate _promise _from _realization_.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 28, 2013)

Just a question for clarification's sake. How many Baptists does Denault cite? I've heard Nehemiah Coxe cited but was there a large conversation ongoing where the historical record records the works of all the particular Baptists having a monolithic opinion on the subject?

I ask because the view of the Covenants among different writers in the paedobaptist camp was very diverse. We often see people latching on to one or two of those writers who participated in the WCF assembly and concluding that this was an "accepted view" of the WCF assembly as a whole. In reality, however, those conversations were debated and what we find recorded in the Westminster Standards is not always a consensus document (as some assert) but you see some views rejected while others are adopted.

Does Denault make a case that, not only did many (all?) of the Particular Baptists at the time, share the same opinion but also that any records that show how the LBCF was formed reflect either a consensus or the adoption of some views while rejecting others?

It also occurs to me that it's difficult to argue for the adoption of any particular view of the Covenants as _the_ Baptist understanding on the issue when there is no formal method by which views are examined and approved on more than a local level. In other words, this is a good historical discussion, but what relevance does it have on the practice of _enforcing_ a view of the Covenants as _the_ Reformed Baptist view? I ask this not to be pejorative but, in the above review, it seems that there is an inherent criticism of some Baptists for holding to a form of Covenant theology and I wonder, upon what basis, such a criticism is appropriate?


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 28, 2013)

He cites 7 paedobaptists (many of them Westminster divines) and 8 particular baptists. In my opinion, although his historical analysis is insightful, he does not really look at the development of baptist thought (such as AW Pink etc) 




Semper Fidelis said:


> Does Denault make a case that, not only did many (all?) of the Particular Baptists at the time, share the same opinion but also that any records that show how the LBCF was formed reflect either a consensus or the adoption of some views while rejecting others?



Not really


----------



## MW (Feb 28, 2013)

Where does this new scholarship leave the views of men like Drs. Waldron and White?

For myself, I think it will be good for an open discussion on the subjects of baptism to have the antiopaedobaptist position on discontinuity clearly spelled out. There has been too much shuffling between positions. On the other hand, I think it will be regrettable, from a reformed theological standpoint, to see pressure being exerted on antipaedobaptists to move away from a position of continuity, which has had so many benefits, especially in bringing Calvinistic brethren closer together.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 28, 2013)

Pilgrim said:


> Until about 2 years ago I was unaware of the diversity within particular Baptist thought and was under the impression that it was limited to "one covenant, two administations." That was the extent of my understanding of RB covenant theology because that's how it had been presented to me. I assumed that Jeffrey Johnson's book was beyond the bounds to some degree with regard to his treatment of the Mosaic Covenant and I think he did too. I was a bit surprised at who really likes it. Brandon's chart is quite helpful.



Hi Chris,

Yes, I thought those very same things, too.

It seems as if calvinistic baptists are struggling to find their own unique identity (which used to be a major reason why I tried to believe in paedobaptism once, because it seemed more historical).

Do you believe in "one covenant, two administations?"


----------



## Herald (Feb 28, 2013)

Semper Fidelis said:


> It also occurs to me that it's difficult to argue for the adoption of any particular view of the Covenants as _the_ Baptist understanding on the issue when there is no formal method by which views are examined and approved on more than a local level. In other words, this is a good historical discussion, but what relevance does it have on the practice of _enforcing_ a view of the Covenants as _the_ Reformed Baptist view? I ask this not to be pejorative but, in the above review, it seems that there is an inherent criticism of some Baptists for holding to a form of Covenant theology and I wonder, upon what basis, such a criticism is appropriate?



Rich, I'm sitting in a Caribou Coffee so let me address this part of your post first.

Your question about "no formal method" can be extended to the framing of the 1689 LBC. What formal method existed for the great Baptist confession? Answer: an august body of pastors and theologians. Did they possess ecclesiastical authority? Only regarding their own congregations. Yet they produced a document that has bound a large number of independent Calvinistic Baptist churches for centuries. In other words the Confession's authority is seen in its proliferation.

Fast forward to the discussion at hand in Pastor Denault's book. There is a renewed interest in Covenant Theology among Reformed and Calvinistic Baptists. The demand is being met by authors who are studied on the subject. It is also engendering new research which we see purported in Pastor Denault's book. If his book gains traction throughout Reformed Baptist circles it will be formality enough. 



Sent from my most excellent GalaxyS3


----------



## Christopher88 (Feb 28, 2013)

looking forward to reading...


----------



## Herald (Feb 28, 2013)

For the record, let me state that I have not worked through all the points Pastor Denault makes in his book. I do not want to give the impression that one book is able to embody everything to be said on a subject.


----------



## Tyrese (Feb 28, 2013)

Thanks for posting that review Brandon. You posted, " Instead of the one covenant under two administrations view, seventeenth-century baptists held to “one covenant revealed progressively and concluded formally under the New Covenant” (61)." That's very interesting and consistent with the 1689. Because of modern books on the topic (for me mainly Covenant Theology by Greg Nichols) I never thought to question WCF 7:5. Can't wait to get this book as this is very interesting. On page 13 an 14 in Greg Nichols book he points out his view but never calls it to the readers attention that there's a difference.


----------



## Herald (Feb 28, 2013)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Just a question for clarification's sake. How many Baptists does Denault cite? I've heard Nehemiah Coxe cited but was there a large conversation ongoing where the historical record records the works of all the particular Baptists having a monolithic opinion on the subject?



In his Bibliography, Denault cites the following Baptists:

Nehemiah Coxe
Thomas Grantham
John Bunyan
Henry Lawrence
Edward Hutchinson
John Spilsbury
Benjamin Keach
Thomas Patient




Semper Fideles said:


> I ask because the view of the Covenants among different writers in the paedobaptist camp was very diverse. We often see people latching on to one or two of those writers who participated in the WCF assembly and concluding that this was an "accepted view" of the WCF assembly as a whole. In reality, however, those conversations were debated and what we find recorded in the Westminster Standards is not always a consensus document (as some assert) but you see some views rejected while others are adopted.



Denault admits that there was not a monolithic opinion on covenant theology among 17th Century Particular Baptists. To your point he calls attention to the lack of consensus on both sides of the issue. He writes:



> "One of the difficulties of our work comes from there having been no consensual interpretation of covenant theology either among paedobaptists or Baptists. When we try to define the paedobaptist approach, we will be unable to present a definition encompassing all the pieces. Similarly, there are several discordant aspects on the Baptist side. We will attempt, at the very least, to circumscribe the general theological principles characterizing the two parties which will be compared." (p. 8)





Semper Fideles said:


> Does Denault make a case that, not only did many (all?) of the Particular Baptists at the time, share the same opinion but also that any records that show how the LBCF was formed reflect either a consensus or the adoption of some views while rejecting others?



Rich, not that I can recall. I do not believe that was the intent of his book. He is trying to make a case that there was agreement among Particular Baptists of the 17th Century on a Baptist view of the Covenant of Grace. His book assumes that covenant theology was the 17th Century Baptist theological system. He uses a tabular comparison (p. 59-69) between the 1689 LBC, Savory Declaration, and the WCF on the Covenant of Grace. Beyond this general agreement he did not drill down further. Still, his work is a start.


----------



## Herald (Feb 28, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> Where does this new scholarship leave the views of men like Drs. Waldron and White?



They remain part of the dialog. Hopefully this new scholarship is building on the work of these men (plus others not mentioned). In fact, I credit them with helping to spark an interest in Baptist Reformed theology.


----------



## brandonadams (Mar 6, 2013)

> It also occurs to me that it's difficult to argue for the adoption of any particular view of the Covenants as the Baptist understanding on the issue when there is no formal method by which views are examined and approved on more than a local level. In other words, this is a good historical discussion, but what relevance does it have on the practice of enforcing a view of the Covenants as the Reformed Baptist view? I ask this not to be pejorative but, in the above review, it seems that there is an inherent criticism of some Baptists for holding to a form of Covenant theology and I wonder, upon what basis, such a criticism is appropriate?



It is clear from Denault's work that this view was by far the majority view amongst calvinistic baptist who wrote on the subject. The criticism that I express is not so much against the idea that baptist can hold differing views. The criticism was simply to note: 1) the prevailing modern view was not the prevailing seventeenth century view, and 2) Waldron is very unhelpful and incorrect to constantly teach reformed baptists that _the_ confessional view is in line with WCF 7.5. He repeatedly argues against the view of the baptists listed in Denault's book without ever naming them and without explaining that their view is the primary (if not exclusive) meaning of LBCF 7.3. Thus it is very misleading. He said this in a lecture in January:


> “The theological concept of the covenant of grace cannot be strictly identified with any particular biblical covenant… The covenant of grace is often identified with one or another of the biblical covenants. But unless one adopts the view that all of the divine covenants are really one and the same (you wouldn’t want to do that), then the identification of the covenant of grace with any one of the biblical covenants is, in my view, naive. The reason I say that is, as defined by both the 1689 and the Westminster, the covenant of grace is an overarching covenant embracing all of history after the fall. That’s what it is, as I’ll show you in a second. That’s what they mean by the covenant of grace. Therefore it is seen as encompassing the several divine covenants of Scripture. In other words, all of the divine covenants of Scripture come into being at a certain point in history… But the covenant of grace, as we’ll see, defined by the confessions, is a covenant that is overarching of all history after the fall. The 1689 7.3… The Westminster also makes this point, but is even more clearly made in the Westminster Chapter 7 paragraph 5… Both of those statements make clear that the covenant of grace includes, for the Westminster, both its administration under the old covenant and its administration under the new covenant, what the Westminster calls there the law and the gospel. And the baptist confession makes clear, this covenant is first revealed to Adam. Now, beyond all doubt I think it’s clear to say the theological concept of the covenant of grace cannot be strictly identified with any particular biblical covenant... Unless one is willing, against the testimony of Scripture, to meld all the biblical covenants together, the covenant of grace cannot be identified with any one divine covenant.”
> Contrast | The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it



As Waldron says, WCF states his personal view much more clearly than LBCF. LBCF seems to align much better with the view of the baptists quoted in Denault's book, and there is no reason to doubt that is exactly what was intended.

As Bill pointed out, this isn't a matter of enforcement. It's a matter of clarity and accuracy.



> Where does this new scholarship leave the views of men like Drs. Waldron and White?



At the very least it shows that their position is different from the majority view of seventeenth century baptists. Personally, I think the language of LBCF is still broad enough to allow their view, but I am just concerned with making it clear their's was not the _only_ or even the _primary_ view.

Stephen said:


> He cites 7 paedobaptists (many of them Westminster divines) and 8 particular baptists. In my opinion, although his historical analysis is insightful, he does not really look at the development of baptist thought (such as AW Pink etc)



That was not his intention. His work was very clearly and intentionally limited to the seventeenth century.


----------



## brandonadams (Mar 6, 2013)

> Where does this new scholarship leave the views of men like Drs. Waldron and White?



I do want to clarify that this view does not distance itself from them on all points, merely on one: the substance/administration question. So, for example, A Reformed Baptist Manifesto, with it's argumentation regarding membership in the New Covenant limited to the elect alone still finds strong expression and support among these seventeenth century baptists. Also, note that White's essay that proceeds upon these lines is included in the forthcoming title: RECOVERING A COVENANTAL HERITAGE: Essays in Baptist Covenant Theology



> RECOVERING A COVENANTAL HERITAGE:
> Essays in Baptist Covenant Theology
> Table of Contents
> Preface……………………………………………………………………………………………
> ...


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 6, 2013)

Stephen Smith said:


> Stephen said:
> He cites 7 paedobaptists (many of them Westminster divines) and 8 particular baptists. In my opinion, although his historical analysis is insightful, he does not really look at the development of baptist thought (such as AW Pink etc)





brandonadams said:


> That was not his intention. His work was very clearly and intentionally limited to the seventeenth century.



The problem I find is that Beeke and Jone's "Doctrine for Life:a Puritan theology" accuses the early particular baptists of an extreme discontinuity (see the chapter in "Doctrine for life" - Paedobaptism). I am inclined to think that the later reflections of someone like AW Pink are a helpful balancing factor here.


----------

