To be a Calvinist Baptist - or, for that matter, to be calvinistic and baptistic without necessarily saying one is either a Calvinist or a Baptist - is to be at least somewhat familiar with the confession of faith which the Particular Baptists of England published in 1689. This was the confession which the Particular Baptists used for another 200 years or so, and was the confession which Charles Spurgeon's Metropolitan Tabernacle adopted, and republished. It crossed the Atlantic, and because the first published Baptist confession in what is now the United States, as the Philadelphia Confession of Faith (because the Philadelphia Baptist Association had adopted it). For many years it was the Baptist confession of faith, until the principles of the General (Arminian) Baptists became prominent in Baptist life. Today it is the confession of Reformed Baptists here in the United States, and Samuel E. Waldron, a Reformed Baptist pastor and theologian, has produced a wonderful explanation of it. The book originally appeared in 1989 to mark the 300th anniversary of the 1689 Confession; this edition has a copyright date of 2013.
The general content is precisely what the title promises. Dr. Waldron gives each chapter of the 1689 Confession a chapter in the book, and quotes that chapter of the Confession verbatim. There is then an outline of the chapter, following which he explains the meaning, and when appropriate the history, of that chapter and its assertions. There isn't anything new here as to substance for those who adhere to the doctrines of grace, but because Dr. Waldron doesn't skimp in his explanations, the pamphlet format of the Confession becomes a thick book (588 pages counting the notes and appendices) that could easily serve as a small systematic theology. If someone who is a Particular/Reformed Baptist, or at least leans toward their views, this book will be an invaluable addition to the library, and I have yet to encounter a better source someone could go to if he either opposes or simply isn't aware of what Calvinist Baptists believe and teach, and wishes to get accurate information from the source. This book is going to go into my library in a place where I can easily reach it, for I anticipate referring to it often for many years.
I do have some bones to pick with the book. They fall into two heads - matters of production, and matters of content.
Under the first head, I must mention first a plethora of typographical errors. None of them are fatal - that is, they don't sabotage the meaning so badly that a sentence is incomprehensible - but they are exceedingly annoying, and annoyingly plentiful. From their nature, and from the ubiquity of some of them, I suspect that they derive from the publisher scanning the text of a previous edition, running it through a spell checker, and then printing the book without any further editing - a sloppy procedure which, at least as to the lack of an actual person reading in order to catch errors, seems to be proliferating like a virus these days. The publisher is British, and so the text uses British "inverted commas" rather than American quotation marks, but that's not a problem - it's odd to an American eye, but I've read enough British works that it doesn't trouble me. What does bother me is the movement of the initial inverted comma from the beginning of the words it ought to enclose, to the last part of the preceding sentence or phrase. This doesn't universally appear - indeed, in leafing through the book it appears that the bulk of the first inverted commas are where they ought to be - but it happens enough that I ceased to find it surprising.
More common are certain spelling errors - not words whose spelling is incorrect, but words that have the correct spelling but are the wrong words. This is precisely the sort of thing that a spell checker produces in the absence of a human editor. For instance, if an author wishes to write "rigid" but accidentally types "ridig," a spell checker might offer the options "riding," "ridding," or "rider," and if one simply accepts the first option, then the sentence might say that "The beam was riding throughout its length," so that the spelling is correct but it's a spelling error. The most common word this affects in this edition of Dr. Waldron's exposition is "modern." I don't think I saw more than one or two instances where it so read - elsewhere it had come out as "modem." This could be a spell checker artifact, or it could be the result of someone who doesn't know English fluently mistaking the "rn" in "modern" for the "m" in "modem" - to an unpracticed eye they could look identical, especially in certain fonts. I'm certain that these errors aren't Dr. Waldron's fault - they surely emanated from the publisher or printer (though I must confess it seems odd that he apparently didn't proofread the galleys prior to publication; one would think that an author would earnestly wish to do so to prevent precisely this sort of thing).
Another problem, which I'll put under the head of production though it might more properly relate to content, is the lack of any index. I would have loved to have a Scripture index, an index of authors, and an index of topics, or at the very least the last if the other two weren't feasible. If, as I suspect, the text of this edition comes from scanning the pages of a previous publication, then creating such indexes would surely have been simple; indexing software does exist, so that laborious manual indexing need not occupy anyone's time. And in a work of this size an index is indispensable; even though the chapters neatly organize the matter, one still might wish to see where a particular verse has a role in the entire text, or where one subject crops up in another chapter.
The head of content relates almost entirely to one topic, and I'll confine my comments to that topic - the question of who may baptize. The 1689 Confession holds, and Dr. Waldron clearly does as well, to the view that the administration of the ordinances of the church properly belongs to the officers of the church. Dr. Waldron states that these officers - the elders or pastors, as you may prefer to call them; the terms in Scripture are interchangeable - may delegate the authority to baptize to another person, but they retain the responsibility for the ordinance.
I disagree. The 1644 London Confession which preceded the 1689 document says of baptism that "The persons designed by Christ, to dispense this ordinance, the Scriptures hold forth to a preaching Disciple, it being no where tied to a particular church, officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them under no other consideration, but as considered Disciples." I carefully read Dr. Waldron's argument to the contrary, and frankly I don't find it at all convincing. It reminds me of John Calvin's argument, in his Institutes, for infant baptism on the ground that baptism is the continuation of the covenant of circumcision, which infants received. Dr. Waldron ably dismantles that argument in the appropriate place, but his argument for the administration of baptism only by the officers of the church seems to me equally weak, and to stand upon equally unsound ground.
However, in defending that position Dr. Waldron is stating the position of the 1689 Confession, and so is doing his job - and indeed I have no doubt that he genuinely believes that the Confession is correct. And I am perfectly willing to allow him this one area of error (as I perceive it, after studying the Scripture and his comments), and accept the rest of this enormously valuable book without quibble. I could never have produced this book, and wouldn't dare to attempt it, and if I did, I'm sure what I came up with would be much inferior to Dr. Waldron's exposition.
I could wish for a good editing job. I could - and do - wish for indices. And I could wish that Dr. Waldron saw things my way on the matter of who may baptize. But if every book in my library had as few faults as this one does, some of them would be in considerably better shape than they are now. I've called this book valuable, and indeed it is - it's worth far more than the price I paid for it.