The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism

by Jeffrey D. Johnson, Thomas J. Nettles (Foreword)

The Fatal Flaw exposes the inconsistencies of the theology behind infant baptism. Rather than rehashing the familiar arguments against infant baptism, this work seeks to undercut its very foundation. What is the theological system which under girds infant baptism and where does this system come unraveled? This work answers these questions by explaining the distinction in the nature of the old and new covenants and their often misunderstood relationship with one another. This critical discussion of the continuity and discontinuity of the covenants is thoroughly explored in this book. To understand the biblical connection between the covenants, it is vital to first understand the dual nature of the Abrahamic Covenant. What is the relationship between Abraham and Moses, Abraham and Christ, and Moses and Christ? The debate of continuity and discontinuity between the old and new covenants cannot be properly solved until the intended nature of the Abrahamic Covenant is fully comprehended.

Genres: Theology, Ecclesiology, Christian, Christianity

304 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2010

About the author

Jeff is the author of several Christian books, including the Amazon #1 Bestseller, The Church: Why Bother?

He is pastor/teacher of Grace Bible Church in Conway, Arkansas, a community where he also resides with his wife Letha and their two sons, Martyn and Christian.

Jeff graduated from Central Baptist College in Bible and earned his M. Rel. in Biblical Studies. He earned his Th.D in Systematics from Veritas Theological Seminary.

Along with his pastoral and publishing ministry, Jeff is a sought-after conference speaker and contributes regularly to the Reformed Baptist Blog.

Reviews

[Kevin Godinho · Rating 2 out of 5]

There were a few times while reading this book that I legitimately put the Baptist hat on and could see it their way. I sought to embody this way of thinking and examine it as if it were my personal view, to give it as fair a shake as I know how.

I get it. The New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Grace only consists of those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and are going to persevere unto glory. We do not inherit salvation by our works, but by grace through faith in Christ. Baptism is a sign of regeneration and because we have been given the insight in the New Testament about the spiritual aspects of who is a "true Jew" we now know not to administer the Covenant sign to those we do not know are truly regenerate. Children of believers do not inherit the Covenant of Grace by birth right just like infant Jews did not enter the Covenant of Grace by brith right. The New Covenant cannot be broken, etc.

Here is the problem. The Baptist conflates the New Covenant with those whom God foreknows and are predestined unto glory. While it is true that those whom God foreknows will be glorified cannot "lose" their salvation, it is also true that there will be those within history that are truly united to Christ within the New Covenant and are severed from Him due to unbelief; turning aside from a pure devotion to Christ and shipwrecking their faith, losing their election. This is what happened to the Jews. They were the elect of God, united to the Olive Tree, the Root of Jesse, Christ Himself, and were cut off. This is the exact thing Gentiles are warned about in Romans 11. Judas lost his election and Gentiles can lose theirs. There will be those who are part of the Body of Christ, have been sanctified by the Blood of the Covenant, are the elect of God, and then trample Christ underfoot by turning away from Him. Does this alter God's Sovereignty over salvation? No. God knew who they were from the beginning.

The elect unto glory, those who will persevere in the Faith by the power of the Holy Spirit until the end, those whom God foreknows are elect unto glory, God's eternal decree of salvation cannot be broken; they will never be lost, they can never be lost. Why? Because by definition they are those God foreknows will be glorified. But there are many that will come into the fold and within real time show themselves not to be true sons. The Baptist takes this to the extreme and says that because they left us they were not of us, and were never of us, therefore, were never in the Covenant. This way of viewing the New Covenant forces man to play the role of God; looking into the hearts of men and making claims he ought not to make. Taking this extreme position over-realizes eschatology and these systematics do not allow the interpreter to honestly handle apostasy passages in the New Testament. You can't fall from something you didn't have. You can't lost something if you never had it. You can't be sanctified by the Blood of the Covenant and not be "in" the Covenant. There has to be a better explanation that allows us to hold up high the doctrines of grace, election, and predestination along with real apostasy. This means that God's eternal decree of salvation must remain steadfast, untouched, unbroken, while the responsibility of man really does hold weight and can break election, without effecting God's eternal decree. God's Sovereignty and man's responsibility; the ever present tension in Scripture. If we fall too far on one side or another, we are in error.

If we say that the New Covenant, the Church, the Bride of Christ, does not consist of those who, ultimately, will not be saved, we are ignoring that the wheat and the tares grow together. God will be the One who separates the two categories in the end. Rejecting the objectivity and universality of the New Covenant is to play the role of Judge, which is something we ought not to do.

The Mosaic Covenant in and of itself is not gracious. The Law is not grace because the Law can't save. This is true. But no one was ever commanded to obey the Mosaic Law unto eternal life. The foundation of obedience to God in the Mosaic Law is faith. "But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it." (Deut. 30:14)

The Law cannot save, but Christ can. That means anyone who was being obedient to God's commands by faith (because without faith it is impossible to please God) was pleasing to Him. We see many times in the Old Testament where Israel was faithful to Yahweh in a way that was pleasing to Him and received temporal as well as eternal blessings because of it. When they fell into unbelief and worshipped other gods, they were judged accordingly. This is the same thing that happens today. God's command to His people has never been perfect obedience; works righteousness unto eternal life. Rather, He has always commanded that His people work from faith in Him and love for Him and for each other. If anyone in the Old Covenant or the New is "obedient" to God without faith, it is not pleasing to Him and is not the sacrifice He is looking for.

There is a "law" in the New Covenant that can't save too. Many commands in the New Testament seem eternally conditional. But, because we have the New Testament, we know that true obedience to God always stems from a living faith that is birthed in a believing one by the power of the Holy Spirit through God's Sovereign work of regeneration in Christ's resurrection; the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. This is how it works in both Testaments. We know this, because we have the New Testament. The Mosaic Covenant was not this Law of God requiring strict obedience unto eternal life. The purpose of the Law was to keep God's people, as a guardian and tutor pointing them to Christ, until the fullness of the times came when God sends His Messiah to redeem His people from their sins. He was always communicating to His people to trust Him and that He Himself would be the One to accomplish the impossible on their behalf. What always got in the way between God's people and their receiving eternal life, was unbelief. This hasn't changed. There is nothing new under the sun.

I'm not making an argument for paedobaptism. I'm simply saying that this way of breaking down the Covenants is inconsistent with Scripture as a whole. As far as the practice of baptism goes, in regards to a believer's child, I think either way is fine. If you want to view them as in the Covenant and give them the Covenant signs and raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord from birth, then glory be to God and may His grace be with you and yours. If you want to wait until your child initiates the conversation based on teachings, or a desire to partake in the Lord's Supper, and chooses to be baptized, then may God be glorified and His grace be with you and yours.

Neither Baptist or Presbyterian believes the water rite in and of itself saves. Jesus saves. Since this is fundamentally agreed upon, I would love to see both parties practice both methods of baptism out of a love for God and for His people, for the edification and building up of His Bride. I love my Baptist brethren, but there is a tension in my heart because of the rules and regulations they have in place regarding my children. If my 3 year old is asking to partake of the Lord's Supper and you won't baptize them so they can come to Jesus and raise the Blood of the Lamb above their door post, we have a serious problem. This is fundamentally what Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for when they were preventing the "little children" from coming.

My challenge to the Baptist is this: if you truly do not believe salvation is contingent upon the water rite, then what does it matter if you have a brother who wants you to baptize their newborn? What is most important is that the nurture and admonition of the Lord be within the eldership of the Church and home. If that is present, whether someone is baptized as a baby, when they are 3, 10, or 25, doesn't eternally make a difference. Baptism of the Holy Spirit is what makes the difference. Only saving faith will conform the person to the Covenant sign. And that is not a work any man can do. So, the work we can do, let's do inclusively, with unity and love, for the building up of the saints in Christ Jesus.

Check out my blog here:
www.laymansprogress.com

[Pascal Denault · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best modern books on CT

[Brandon · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a very thoughtful attempt at a Covenantal critique of Paedobaptism. The book is highly logical, which is exactly what I would expect from Pastor Johnson. He does a good job at explaining the history of Paedobaptism and presenting what he identifies as the 8 primary Paedobaptist approaches. He then focuses in on the Presbyterian approaches and critiques them on multiple points, including the obvious differences between circumcision and baptism (only males were circumcised, unbelieving adults were circumcised, etc.) and the exegetical problems the Presbyterian encounters with Galatians 4 and Hebrews 8.

I especially found his criticism of the different approaches to the conditions of the Covenant of Grace to be helpful, particularly his critiques of the the Rollock-Horne view, the Hodge-Kline-Fesko-Horton view, and the John Murray view. When he got to Federal Vision, he didn’t really strongly critique the view. Instead, he (rightly) presumed the absurdity of the argument and used it as a reductio ad absurdum against Paedobaptism (in fact, that’s the name of the chapter). In that regard, it was really helpful to see him demonstrate the way that Paedobaptism logically leads to Federal Vision. If I had to nitpick, I would’ve liked to see him provide more critique than that it compromises Sola Fide (though it does).

Another beneficial aspect of the book, consistent with my previous commendation, is his handling of the idea of covenant breakers. He does a very good job explaining the damage that the covenantal Paedobaptist position does to the Federal Headship of Christ and/or the efficacy of the Covenant of Grace. He also does really well at showing where Paedobaptist Covenant Theology compromises Limited Atonement and Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

I do have occasional disagreements with Pastor Johnson. For example, Johnson believes that the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works unto eternal life, whereas I believe is was a covenant of works unto Israel’s status in the land. I think the most significant way this impacts his argument is his handling of the potential Paedobaptist objection (and - if modified - “Status-in-the-Land” 1689 Federalist objection): “How could saints in the OT like Elijah, Moses, David, etc. be saved through the Covenant of Grace yet be members of a covenant of works?” I would say that the MC and CoG aren’t mutually exclusive because they are unto different ends, but I don’t know if Pastor Johnson could answer this quite as easily. It is just a slight disagreement, but still is one nonetheless.

His presentation of “Covenantal Dichotomism” is also beneficial, systematically explaining the twofold nature of the (singular) Abrahamic Covenant. It shows very well how the two fulfillments of the Abrahamic Covenant contrast and gives a solid scriptural basis for this approach. I found this chapter to be necessary for two reasons: (1) it better informed me about the twofold nature of the Covenant (2) it cleared up some confusion I had from the earlier parts of the book about Johnson’s view of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Overall, I would recommend this book to those who are contemplating issues relating to Baptism, Covenant Theology, Republication, Apostasy, and any of the other topics that this book either directly or indirectly tackles.

[Brad Atchison · Rating 5 out of 5]

After an initial reading of this book, I was very impressed with the argumentation that Jeff Johnson set forward in this. Johnson interacts with much of the historical view of paedobaptisim, how its woven into covenant theology and how it should not be.

Johnson comes from the standpoint of affirming Covenental Theology with a leaning towards a modified Klineianism. In other-words, Johnson affirms that the Mosaic Covenant was a "republication of the covenant of works". Johnson does not affirm NCT, he leaves a small critique of NCT at the end of the book. Though the work is polemic in nature (I'm not a fan of the title), the book is irenic towards the Paedobaptist view. There are not potshots, just logical discourse about the outcomes of what Paedobaptism leads to with its interaction with Covenant theology.

Johnson interacts with every major work on covenant theology from Calvin to Owen to Wistius all the way up to O. Palmer Robertson's and Horton's classic work. He even does a good job at showing he vast differences in Paedobaptist camp of how they view baptism, how they view nature of the old and new covenants, and how the Mosiac and Abrahamic covenants play into each other. Johnson also does a good job interacting with Federal Vision theology, which most Baptists have steered clear of because they believe its a "Presbyterian" problem. His critique of FV, though good, probably is not the strongest I have seen. I would have like to see a little more scriptural interaction at times. The book sometimes felt more like a history on the systematic category of Covenant Theology rather than a critique. However, that does not mean the book was devoid of scriptural interaction. Johnson, for the most part, did a good job interacting with scripture.

There were a few points in which I was wondering if I was reading some straw-men. I didn't necessarily see any. However, I am also biased by my own presuppositions. I know I will be going back to this because it is a necessary book to work through when seeking to understand the Covenental Credobaptist position and to see if I missed anything I disagreed with.. Overall, I commend this book to anyone who is trying to sort their way through figuring out what baptism means and why Credobaptism is the biblically faithful means of doing so.

[K. · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book convinced me that Baptists really only have one case for confessor baptism (I adamantly refuse to call it by the question-begging name of "believer's baptism".) And I have also concluded that I will never be persuaded of that case. This is the last book I will read on the subject.

[Leandro Dutra · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very clear take on a complicated subject. Forceful, yet irenic. I may be biased: I do not see how one cannot see the force of the evidence & arguments presented, even if I may disagree on his take on New covenant theology.

[Josh Kannard · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book should have been right up my alley, but I found myself quite frustrated reading it. Even though I agree with the author's conclusions, I just think it is a poorly written book. There were typos and grammatical errors on nearly every page, random authors cited in ways that felt out of place, and a great lack of Scripture references in support of arguments, among other things. Even though I agree with Johnson, I would have a hard time suggesting this book to anyone, especially if they were of the opposite view.

[Austin Cox · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book had a good start and a lot of potential, but some of the moves Johnson made with the Abrahamic covenant made his case significantly less convincing.

[Leah Unverferth · Rating 1 out of 5]

For an in-depth response to this book that I've written, see here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w...

Whether you agree or not with Mr. Johnson's arguments, the organization and writing of this book are very poor. He defines his view at the very end rather then at the beginning. All throughout the book, I found myself questioning "So, is this what his view is? I think this is what he's getting at but how does he explain this? What's his view exactly?" There are also A LOT of spelling errors, sloppy statements, and generally the thoughts do not flow logically.

But beyond the writing style, what do I think of the content? I am a reformed paedobaptist so I obviously disagree with his argument. Yet even then there are better Baptist books out there. Mr. Johnson's book is one big presupposition that he is correct rather than an actual engagement with the paedobaptist view. Just one example for this review:

The main point of Mr. Johnson’s book - the "fatal flaw" of paedobaptist theology; the heart, the foundational contention in the baptism discussion he presents - is that the Mosaic Covenant is not a Covenant of Grace but of Works just like the covenant given to Adam in the garden pre-fall. Yet, this foundational point in the book is incredibly deficient. If one is to set out to prove the Mosaic Covenant is a covenant of works (or a covenant of grace - either one), one must first define a covenant of works and a covenant of grace while defending such definitions with Scripture and logic. But Johnson does not give a straightforward definition of a Covenant of Works or Grace. In the garden, the Covenant of Works is truly one that requires a person's own works for eternal life. Then he claims the Mosaic Covenant is a Covenant of Works but not really because it's only hypothetical. How does this not make God a liar by teaching the Israelites they would be saved by works but they're really saved by grace? How can the requirement of perfection be hypothetical when he says the condemnation brought by disobeying such hypothetical requirements was real? Etc. None of this is addressed.

The reader can ascertain from his points some sort of definition. For instance, if the Mosaic Covenant was conditional and therefore (according to Mr. Johnson’s logic) a covenant of works, then one could deduce that a covenant of works is a conditional covenant and a covenant of grace is unconditional. The problem here is that it does not get to the heart of the issue. The main thesis of Mr. Johnson’s book is not really touched. Presbyterians disagree that a covenant of grace must be unconditional. He needs to prove the covenant of grace is unconditional but this point is no where defended. It's just not there. Mr. Johnson is seemingly so unaware of his presuppositions that arguments which he presents against the paedobaptist’s position are really nothing more than assumptions that his own view is true.

Paedobaptists of course say the Covenant of Grace is conditional because faith is required. Salvation only belongs to the believing and not the unbelieving. What does Mr. Johnson answer to this? "If faith is a condition, it is the only condition that does not contradict God’s free grace” (102).

Mr. Johnson seems content leaving this vital point at an “if.” Is faith a condition or is it not? If faith is a condition how does it not contradict God’s free grace? He does not dig into these questions. However, it is resolving this tension which leads reformed theologians to say, not “if,” but “since” faith is a condition, the New Covenant is not unconditional. It is indeed non-meritorious because God himself gives us faith on the basis of the work of Jesus. This condition is not like an employee earning a wage - something which is owed to the employee due to his contribution - but rather it is a gift which Christ procures for His people and effects in them by the power of the Holy Spirit. Still, it is real condition which God requires of the elect and supplies for them. “Without faith it is impossible to please [God]” (Heb. 11:6). Therefore, the impact this book had on me was essentially Mr. Johnson is a Baptist because - despite having written a 250 page book on baptism and covenant theology - he hasn't really given any depth of thought to baptism and covenant theology.

I truly do struggle to find good things about this book, which is a rare thing for me. I certainly mean nothing against the author who I'm sure is more godly than myself. I'm not trying to be mean but let this be a warning to Baptists who are led astray by this book. Please, at a minimum, learn the paedobaptist position for yourself and truly try to understand what we are saying. A good place to start might be the response I linked to at the top.

[Sean Brenon · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s time to start taking Reformed Baptists seriously regarding their covenants theology again. Within 100 years of Zwingli laying the foundation of covenants theology, the Baptists were there with the Presbyterians to create their own version of the theology.

The thing about paedobaptism that has always bothered me is how it allows for unsaved people in the covenant body of the NT, even though Jeremiah says that all in the New Covenant will know Him. It has also bothered me how everything in Presbyterian theology— the presence of Christ in communion, the baptism/circumcision of the heart, the communion of the Church with those in heaven— is spiritual EXCEPT for the promises to children. Johnson makes an excellent point in saying that paedobaptism is the ONLY tenet of Church polity found in the OT.

I find these to be glaring holes that nobody— Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart, Charles Hodge, BB Warfield, etc.— has responded to or discussed. That’s unfortunate, since I think Johnson does an excellent job attacking Presbyterian covenantalism but a poor job of expanding on Baptist covenantalism. In fact, Johnson says that the Old and New Covenants were ratified simultaneously under Abraham. That is actually NOT the Baptist understanding. Someone like Nehemiah Coxe, for example, saw the New Covenant as existing in promise form until Christ fulfilled the conditional Old Covenant and established the New Covenant in its wake.

That seems much more correct to me. I think Johnson overdoes the symbolism of Galatians 4 as saying that those two covenants were always concurrent since Hagar and Sarah lived concurrently. The problem is that Galatians 4 is about the present day of Paul’s time. To borrow a Zwingli-ism, I think that Galatians 4 should be taken in the sense of ‘The two women SYMBOLIZE two covenants.’ Especially since the two women were obviously not covenants themselves.

This small disagreement aside, I think Johnson deserves a lot of credit for his critique of Presbyterian covenantalism. He might defer to Klindon and Bunyan regarding his own display of covenant theology, but he asks the right questions and helps push the discussion forward for baptists.

[Nathanaël · Rating 1 out of 5]

Dans ce livre, l'auteur se propose de présenter à ses lecteurs ce qui constitue selon lui la "faille fatale" de la pratique du pédobaptisme.

Dès les premières pages, il énonce, avec raison, que le nerf de la guerre est la théologie des alliances : les baptistes et les réformés ne sont pas d'accord car ils ont une compréhension, une articulation, et finalement une théologie des alliances différente.

Le point de départ est donc correct, mais tout se gâte lorsque nous en arrivons finalement au chapitre sensé nous présenter la faille fatale de la théologie réformée des alliances. De ce chapitre jusqu'à la fin de son livre, l'auteur va s'épuiser, non sans se contredire à plusieurs reprises (selon moi), à nous expliquer que tout réside dans la mauvaise compréhension que les réformés ont de l'alliance... Mosaïque.

C'est une discussion intra-reformée, certes très intéressante, mais qui ne remet en rien en question la pratique du pédobaptisme.

Ce qui est également regrettable, c'est que lorsqu'il arrive que l'auteur fasse une concession (légitime à mon sens) en faveur de la position réformée, il s'arrête à des phrases du style "il est vrai que les réformés disent ceci/ne disent pas cela". Et c'est tout ; aucun développement, aucun examen de ce que cette concession implique, alors qu'à plusieurs reprises, cela n'est en rien négligeable.

Voilà les raisons principales qui font que j'ai été déçu de cette lecture : 1) l'auteur ne remonte jamais avant Abraham pour examiner le rôle de la famille, et notamment la place des enfants dans le peuple de l'alliance, ce qui relève de l'ordre créationnel. 2) Son interprétation des deux descendances d'Abraham est le sujet sur lequel il se contredit le plus. 3) La majeure partie du livre se concentre sur l'alliance mosaïque, ce qui est quasiment un hors sujet, en tout cas dans la manière dont cela est traité par l'auteur.

Je trouve donc que sa démarche est un échec, et je ne recommanderais cette lecture que pour connaître le point de vue d'un baptiste frôlant avec le dispensationalisme sur les alliances Abrahamique et Mosaïque.

[Michael · Rating 2 out of 5]

My rating of this book needs an explanation, simply because I cannot categorize my rating. I think this book is one of the best arguments I have encountered against infant baptism, brother Johnson is logical and well read. I would recommend this more than Dr. White's 16 part sermon series on Baptism. That being said, the overall rating is a two simply because this book could have been brilliant, but ended up self-defeating on one simple fact: brother Johnson's lack of understanding of the Mosaic Covenant. There were parts of the book he misrepresented what certain groups believe, but the ultimate issue is that he doesn't understand what Genesis-Deuteronomy is saying. And when I say that, it is not an infant baptist saying this about a baptist, it is a theonomist saying this against someone who holds to the republication of the covenant of works. His presuppositions lead him to dismiss and not understand what the Bible actually says.

[Susan Mackenzie · Rating 5 out of 5]

This deeply theological yet touchingly accessible book sets the heart singing with love, praise and gratitude to the three-personed God for His covenantal dealings with mankind, through His promise and deliverance of redemption in the Seed of the woman. Dr Johnson deserves respect and thanks for his exhaustive treatment of the subject of baptism in this context. Thirled to scripture, irenic, methodical and devoid of the speculative bluster that can slip into the rhetoric of both camps, this book is a comprehensive and reliable answer to paedobaptist overreach, eisegesis and wishful arguments from silence.

[Anthony Hall · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a good book that would strengthen those who are considering moving from the particular Baptist position to a reformed Presbyterian position on baptism. However, it was pretty shocking to read through and see so many spelling and formatting errors throughout the book. No one is perfect but amongst other mistakes author’s names were spelled wrong (James Jordan, specifically), the word covenant (in a book about covenant theology) was spelled wrong, random formatting errors, etc. And the copy I have was the revised edition published this year, so it was extra frustrating to read.

[JR Snow · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best Book on Covenant Theology

As a former theology student I’ve read a lot about covenant theology and baptism. I’m revisiting the issue later, and have been tremendously blessed by this book. This book explains covenant theology better than any textbook I’ve ever read, and it helps one to understand the credobaptist position so much clearer.

[Adam Kareus · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very detailed and extensive, this is a great work which dives into the baptism debate from the perspective of covenants. Johnson does a wonderful job showing the history, logic, and different stances within the debate. I believe that anyone who wishes to understand baptism from the Bible’s viewpoint would profit from reading this book.

[Cameron Wood · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is one of the best I have read on the subject of infant baptism. Jeff Johnson does a thorough yet brotherly critique of padeobaptists and does so with clear hermeneutics. At the heart of the book is the call to honor God’s word. The Bible interprets itself. I can’t recommend this book enough.

[thechristine · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent, clear, and thorough presentation of the credobaptist position. I found it especially helpful that paedobaptists were quoted, and their position was presented in their own words before being addressed.

[Steven Richardson · Rating 5 out of 5]

A bit dense and difficult to read in some places, but Dr. Johnson lays out the best argument against paedobaptism that I've ever read. Don't just say you don't believe in baptizing infants, know why you don't believe that.

[Truth · Rating 5 out of 5]

A help

This book was a great help in laying down what I believe and tying up ends I didn’t know how to. A great work that is too strong to be ignored.

[Mike Fendrich · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good entry level book into the baptistic view of covenant inclusion. Many errors arise from the Abrahamic covenant, this is one.

[Emi Ciupe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent baptist view on covenant theology.

[Stonewall Dixon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Simple without being simplistic. Highly recommend this book.

[JR Snow · Rating 5 out of 5]

Second Reading, December 2020. Excellent.

[Timothy Decker · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great treatment of Covenant Theology as an argument against paedobaptism.

[Peter Van beek · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book, I agree with the writer on most things he says. The book is a bit repetitive though, he could have made exactly the same point with a lot less pages.

[Pablo Ignacio Peralta Carrasco · Rating 5 out of 5]

Muchas gracias!!

Muy claro, exhaustivo, gracias por poner a disposición este material. Me aclaró más la teología pactual, las diferencias y errores del paidobautismo.

[Vitor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Apresenta muitos argumentos e muito bom para entender melhor da perspectiva Batista Pactual. Mas achei a leitura um pouco cansativa.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good. Helped me better understand both sides of the debate.

[Han · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’ve been a committed Baptist for a long time, and I’ve been studying reformed covenant theology for the past several year to understand it better, not to change my views… but to understand.

The more I learned the more I would start to feel unsettled.

I read this book as a last attempt to see if I was still a Baptist, I’m not. I can’t say I am. I disagreed with so much of this book and even felt like he misrepresented covenant theology on their view of the mosaic covenant.

Recently saw Scott Clark say that baptists have Moses blinders on, and this book echos that sentiment.

It had some really good nuggets, but there was some bad explanations of CT.