Recovering a Covenantal Heritage: Essays in Baptist Covenant Theology

by Richard C. Barcellos (Editor), Pascal Denault (Contributor), Thomas Hicks (Contributor)

This book is offered with the intent to further the discussion on covenant theology among Baptists and paedobaptists. It in no way pretends to be a fully worked-out Baptist covenant theology. It contains essays by thirteen different authors who do not necessarily advocate the fine details of every contribution, something that is quite common with multiple-author works. After the Preface and Introduction, the first main section is historical. It seeks to set a historical-theological context for the reader. The second section of this work discusses various biblical issues related to covenant theology - the Abrahamic Covenant, the Old and New Covenants, Acts 2 and Colossians 2. The third section of the book, though the shortest, seeks to put things together, though certainly not in any comprehensive sense. It is my hope that this work will both challenge and instruct Baptist readers and introduce paedobaptists into part of the thought-world of Baptist covenant theology. The Editor Richard C. Barcellos, Ph.D. Grace Reformed Baptist Church Palmdale, CA

Genres: Theology

532 pages, Paperback

First published February 3, 2015

Reviews

[Mario Morales · Rating 5 out of 5]

I so enjoyed reading this book!

I’m just going to list some of the articles I enjoyed:

For historical background, I enjoyed the first article:
1. A Brief Overview of Seventeenth-Century Reformed Orthodox Federalism by Richard Barcellos


2. Covenant Theology in the First and Second London Confessions of Faith by James Renihan
3. By Farther Steps: A Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist Covenant Theology by Pascal Denault


This one in particular just opened my eyes to the dichotomous nature of the Abrahamic Covenant. It’s basically an excerpt taken out of Jeffrey Johnson’s book entitled The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptist
9. The Fatal Flaw of Infant Baptism: The Dichotomous Nature of the Abrahamic Covenant by Jeffery Johnson


A good summary of a presentation that the authors gave during a lunch hour at Westminster Seminary in California. It’s a nice short summary that anyone could read to get a good, foundational understanding of the main points of 1689 Federalism.
16. Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology and Biblical Theology by Micah and Samuel Renihan

[Simon Wartanian · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the motherload for Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology. It deals with a very wide range of subjects touching Covenant Theology, even exegeting certain texts as Hebrews 8, 10; Acts 2:39; Colossians 2:11-12.

It contains a summarized form of Pascal Denault's book "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology" and also Jeffrey Johnson's "The Kingdom of God". It contains Owen's exegesis of Hebrews 8:6. It contains a lot of interesting historical materials that are good for a Reformed Baptist to know. It deals extensively with the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, which are usually the points of dispute between Reformed paedobaptists and credobaptists.

This is an essential work for one to understand what has been called 1689 Federalism. Although not all authors subscribe to 1689 Federalism (e.g. James White), but to what is called "20th Century Baptist Covenant Theology", the work is primarily an introduction to and an explanation of 1689 Federalism. If you want to know what Reformed Baptists believe and the framers of the Confession of the 1689 believed, get this work.

[Brandon Adams · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading the book stirred up a love for and worship of the Lord. It thoroughly developed in me a desire to see the church reformed according to the Word of God (Ch. 4) because, as Michael T. Renihan notes in Chapter 6 "The recovery of right baptism was Tombes’ personal, yet godly, obsession. He was concerned with the right practice of this ordinance for the good of man’s soul, not to win a theological point. The debate that raged in the seventeenth century was more than the mere academic production of print on paper. Tombes really believed that the right doctrine would have major repercussions in the church-at-large. I believe that Tombes was right on target. These ripples still affect the churches of our day."

James Renihan’s very helpful Introduction helps readers to understand how this rich covenantal heritage was lost to baptists in the 20th century through the combination of revivalism, modernism, fundamentalism, and dispensationalism.

Chapter 1 "A Brief Overview of Seventeenth-Century Reformed Orthodox Federalism” places particular baptist covenant theology directly in that stream by demonstrating that throughout the seventeenth century, covenant theologians built upon one another while refining various points. Coxe retained these orthodox advancements while refining them through his understanding that revelation was “progressive and Christo-climactic."

Chapter 2 (“Covenant Theology in the First and Second London Baptist Confessions”) does a marvelous job of showing how central covenant theology was to both confessions as a whole, rather than simply the focus of one or two paragraphs. James Renihan also demonstrates that these confessions were reluctantly accepted as orthodox even by those looking for any excuse to persecute the baptists. A hidden gem in this chapter is footnote 21, which states "21 Much of the following material is taken from or based upon my yet unnamed, forthcoming exposition of the 2LCF.” This work will be a blessing.

I did take exception to Renihan’s brief comment on LBCF 7.1 (69). I do not believe the Confession is stating that God’s condescension in establishing the covenant of works was rooted in God’s incomprehensibility. I did not find this explanation in Coxe. Rather, I believe the Confession is simply pointing out, per it’s proof text, that man owed obedience to God as image bearers and could not expect any reward for that obedience. Thus the reward of eternal rest/life for perfect obedience was a benevolent, or “condescending” (that is, something God was not obligated to do) offer to man.

Chapter 3 (“By Farther Steps: A Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist Covenant Theology”) is a very encouraging chapter. When baptists today have struggled to work out all the knots of covenant theology, mostly unaware of historic formulations, it is exciting to work through this chapter and see how seventeenth century baptists had already thought through and answered these difficulties. The distinction between revealed and concluded, or “promise and promulgation” does not simply help baptist covenant theology make sense, it helps Scripture make sense. Much of the New Testament’s commentary on the Old Covenant, which continues to puzzle many covenant theologians, becomes rather crystal clear.

That said, make sure to take note of Richard Barcellos’ note in the preface: "It in no way pretends to be a fully worked-out Baptist covenant theology. It contains essays by thirteen different authors who do not necessarily advocate the fine details of every contribution, something that is quite common with multiple-author works."

For example, in Chapter 3 (“By Farther Steps: A Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist Covenant Theology”) Pascal Denault explains "Samuel Petto considered that the Old Covenant did not have the same function for Israel as for Christ. For Israel it was a national covenant by whose conditions she received blessings and curses in its land (Deut. 28). For Christ, it was a covenant of works for which he had to accomplish righteousness actively and passively (Rom. 5:18-20; 8:3-4; Gal. 3:13; 4:4-5).” And goes on to note "This explanation from Petto demonstrates how he himself, and most of the Particular Baptists, considered that the covenant of works was reaffirmed with a different goal than at its first promulgation."

While on the other hand, in Chapter 16 (“Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology and Biblical Theology”) Micah and Samuel Renihan are clear that "tenure in the land was what was in view in the Mosaic law [and all of the Old Covenant]” (not eternal life). And in Chapter 7 (“John Owen on the Mosaic Covenant”), Thomas E. Hicks, Jr. clarifies that Owen "did not believe that the Mosaic Covenant extended the promise of spiritual or eternal life at all… The Mosaic Covenant contained a reminder of the covenant of works, announcing the terms that belonged not to itself, but to the original covenant of works with Adam… what was promised to the Israelites for their faith, love, and obedience under the Mosaic Covenant was not eternal life (spiritual reality), but temporal, earthly blessings, including land and physical prosperity (physical picture).” And thus, Christ did not fulfill the terms of the Old Covenant for believers. Christ fulfilled his own covenant of works, the Covenant of Redemption.

[Note: Most particular baptists expressed agreement with Owen on this point, rather than Petto. Pascal Denault has since changed his stance on this. See the Q&A session of his recent lectures on 1689 Federalism for the Reformed Baptist Seminary.]

Jeffery D. Johnson holds to Petto’s view, yet his excellent Chapter 9 (“The Fatal Flaw of Infant Baptism: The Dichotomous Nature of the Abrahamic Covenant”) is written broadly enough to be interpreted in light of either view, depending on how one views the typology of the Abrahamic Covenant.

For more on this point, google Republication, the Mosaic Covenant, and Eternal Life 1689 Federalism.

In Chapter 4 (“The Puritan Argument for the Immersion of Believers: How Seventeenth-Century Baptists Utilized the Regulative Principle of Worship”), G. Steve Weaver, Jr. helpfully places the particular baptists within their proper context as Puritans, not Anabaptists (see Chapter 5 fn 54 "It also shows some adaptation on the part of the author to antipaedobaptist concerns. Therein is found a repudiation of the prejudicial use of alleged connections between Continental Anabaptists and Antipaedobaptists”). As Weaver notes "These Baptist pastors sought to apply the regulative principle more thoroughly than had Calvin or Burroughs and the Reformed/ Puritan tradition which they represented.”

An interesting note not mentioned by Weaver is that the Westminster Assembly voted 25-24 in opposition to requiring immersion. Wright, D. F. (2007). Infant Baptism in Historical Perspective (250–252) notes the debate that ensued for 3 days, with comments such as "if we say dipping is necessary, ‘we shall further anabaptisme’ (John Ley, and John Lightfoot).” Again, Puritan baptists were operating within the stream of theological discourse of their day, not outside of it.

Chapter 5 (“The Antipaedobaptism of John Tombes”) from Michael T. Renihan presents a very interesting history of figure I knew nothing about. Renihan notes that "The recovery of right baptism was Tombes’ personal, yet godly, obsession. He was concerned with the right practice of this ordinance for the good of man’s soul, not to win a theological point.” What is interesting is that Tombes remained a non-separating Purtian his whole life, while urging the Church of England to abandon the practice of infant baptism through the publication of thousands of pages of argument and response, which nearly cost him his livelihood, save for God’s providence. He responded to every objection he was given, going to great lengths to find answers, including moving to London specifically to have access to people and books that could help answer his quest for the practice of true baptism. The result was that he laid much of the theological foundation for particular baptists to build upon.

Chapter 6 (“The Abrahamic Covenant in the Thought of John Tombes”) summarizes Tombes’ voluminous work under the foundational argument expressed in syllogism:

Major premise: That which hath no testimony in Scripture for it, is doubtfull.
Minor premise: But this Doctrine of Infant-Baptisme, hath no testimony of Scripture for it;

Conclusion: Ergo, it is doubtfull.

Chapter 7 (“John Owen on the Mosaic Covenant”) from Thomas E. Hicks, Jr. demonstrates that Owen does not easily fit into existing categories of covenant theology, and certainly not into Ernest Kevan’s claim that all covenant theology fits into two groups: those who affirmed the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works and those who affirmed it was a covenant of grace. Owen denied the Mosaic Covenant offered eternal life, and thus it was neither the covenant of works nor the covenant of grace, but was a separate covenant concerning tenure in the land of Canaan - rejecting Calvin and the Westminster formulation of the Mosaic Covenant as of the same substance as the covenant of grace.

Hicks is right on the money when he notes that “In systematic theology, the nature of the Mosaic Covenant is relevant to the doctrine of justification. If the Mosaic Covenant is strictly a covenant of grace and if justification is a verdict rendered on the basis of one’s conformity to the terms of the covenant of grace, then theologians may find sufficient warrant to conclude that it is reasonable to include good works in the verdict of justification. On the other hand, if the Mosaic Covenant is a covenant of works, and if Paul and others are arguing against justification by obedience to that covenant, then an argument against justification by good works clearly emerges in the scriptural corpus."

I would also love to see another of his comments teased out: "Careful study of Owen’s doctrine of the Mosaic Covenant could be useful in clearly delineating his political theory and explaining some of the theological motivation for his political action.” Though I am not certain this would be the case because Owen’s defense of certain political views appear to be refuted by his more mature views on the Mosaic Covenant.

In Chapter 8 (“A ‘Novel’ Approach to Credobaptist and Paedobaptist Polemics”), Jeffrey A. Massey recounts the history of the nineteenth century use of fiction as a polemic in the debate over baptism. As a filmmaker myself, his account of the debate over the proper use of fiction to advance biblical truth was particularly relevant to me. However, upon reading his summary of the novels written to defend various views of baptism, I can say I am thankful that none of the authors of this volume resorted to such methods.

Chapter 9 (“The Fatal Flaw of Infant Baptism: The Dichotomous Nature of the Abrahamic Covenant”) by Jeffrey D. Johnson helpfully presents the biblical data showing that the Abrahamic Covenant was a single covenant with two dimensions. This is similar to, yet different from Kline’s Two Level Fulfillment, and was articulated by seventeenth century particular baptists. His comments regarding circumcision symbolizing full obedience of the law from the heart (Deut 30:6) was particularly helpful.

He correctly notes “Importantly, the Mosaic Covenant did not replace, alter, or add to the condition placed upon the physical seed of Abraham in Genesis 17. It merely gave clarity to what was already required by circumcision. In other words, the Mosaic Covenant grew out of and codified the conditional side of the Abrahamic Covenant.” This is a point that is ignored by modern paedobaptist proponents of republication. On the other hand, John Murray (note mentioned in the chapter) recognized that "The obedience of Abraham is represented as the condition upon which the fulfilment of the promise given to him was contingent and the obedience of Abraham’s seed is represented as the means through which the promise given to Abraham would be accomplished. There is undoubtedly the fulfilment of certain conditions… the idea of conditional fulfilment is not something peculiar to the Mosaic covenant. We have been faced quite poignantly with this very question in connection with the Abrahamic covenant. And since this feature is there patent, it does not of itself provide us with any reason for construing the Mosaic covenant in terms different from those of the Abrahamic.” Murray greatly erred in transferring this principle to the New Covenant, yet he was faithful to the Old Testament text.

As mentioned above, I would take issue with Johnson’s statement that "the gospel that was promised in the Abrahamic Covenant was contingent upon the fulfillment of the law of the Mosaic Covenant,” depending on how it is interpreted. I do not believe Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Covenant, but rather the Covenant of Redemption. The moral law was foundational to both covenants, but I do not believe the Mosaic Covenant itself offered the reward of eternal life for obedience.

Chapter 10 (“The Difference Between the Two Covenants”) from John Owen is a helpful addition to this volume. Though it can be found in the Coxe/Owen volume, placing it here may force people to deal with his presentation within the context offered by the other chapters. I still have not seen any paedobaptists actually deal with Owen’s argument. Most seem to be entirely unaware of his unique contribution.

Chapters 11 and 12 (“The Newness of the New Covenant”) from James White is a cutting analysis of paedobaptist attempts to deal with the force of the book of Hebrews. The attempt to relegate the newness of the New Covenant to a difference in outward appearance, following Calvin, is simply untenable. It is worth noting that White holds to what has been labeled the “20th Century Reformed Baptist” view of one overarching covenant of grace with multiple covenantal administrations, in agreement with Westminster Federalism’s structure (in contrast to the rest of the volume). However, this should not detract from his superb polemic. His chapters should simply be viewed as a marvelous reductio ad absurdum of Westminster Federalism’s inability to deal with the text of Hebrews.

I thoroughly enjoyed Jamin Hubner’s two chapters (13 and 14) on Acts 2:39. He successfully demonstrates that the history of reformed exegesis of this passage has simply been loyalty to Calvin’s eisegesis, driven by a desire to defend infant baptism. I agree when he says "As a result, the Abrahamic Covenant and its features such as the recipients of circumcision are imported entirely into Acts 2:39 without any consideration as to what promise is being talked about in Acts 2:39, what the fulfillment of that promise looks like in the New Covenant, and what argument is being made in Acts 2 and how that argument is not altogether the same as Acts 3, and so on and so forth. In short, “The Paedobaptist ear is so attuned to the Old Testament echo in this text that it is deaf to its New Testament crescendo.”77 The attitude is “promise of the Spirit, Abrahamic Covenant, covenant of grace, it is all the same thing,” and “children, seed, same idea” when it comes to interpreting Acts 2:39.” In sum "An interpreter’s interest in hearing Old Testament overtones should not overthrow exegesis of the actual text."

[Note, Hubner interacts with Owen’s exegesis of this passage at one point. It should be noted that the work quoted was written by Owen in 1644 - more than 30 years before he wrote his commentary on Hebrews 8.]

[Note again: A quote from Sam Waldron that Hubner references includes a comment that Paul did not believe the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works. Obviously this is in disagreement with the rest of the volume. That was not particularly the part of the quote Hubner was referencing.]

Richard Barcellos’ Chapter 15 (“An Exegetical Appraisal of Colossians 2:11-12”) was extremely helpful in making sense of the passage. He clarifies that the fulfillment of physical circumcision is circumcision of the heart, that is, regeneration. However, he then demonstrates that the baptism mentioned here is not water baptism, but spiritual baptism, which we access through faith. This spiritual baptism (vital union with Christ) is distinct from regeneration. "Baptism does not replace circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant of grace. We have seen clearly that spiritual circumcision, not baptism, replaces (better, fulfills) physical circumcision. Baptism in Colossians 2:12 (i.e., vital union with Christ) is a result of spiritual circumcision (i.e., regeneration)… Paul does not say or imply that the sign and seal of the covenant is baptism… If it implies anything about water baptism, it implies that it ought to be administered to those who have been circumcised of heart and vitally united to Christ through faith as a sign of these spiritual blessings."

Finally, Micah and Samuel Renihan’s Chapter 16 (“Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology and Biblical Theology”) is a fitting way to end the volume. The brothers cogently summarize the particular baptist covenant theology of the volume by interacting with more modern works, appropriating their insights where valid and drawing them to the correct conclusions. "The New Covenant is the final and full accomplishment of the covenant of redemption in history” and "The covenant of grace is the in-breaking of the covenant of redemption into history through the progressive revelation and retro-active application of the New Covenant” while "The Old Covenant is coextensive with and collectively representative of theocratic Israel, defined by the Abrahamic, conditioned by the Mosaic, and focused by the Davidic Covenants. The Old Covenant, and thus each of these three covenants, differs from the New Covenant not merely in administration, but also in substance."

And there you have it. I recommend that you purchase the book, and read it too.

[Austin Cox · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a great book. This gives a positive presentation of Baptist covenant theology rooted in reformational thought but distinct from paedobaptist covenant theology which flattens out redemptive history. I appreciated the historical articles presenting the kind of arguments that 17th century particular baptists employed which called our paedobaptist brothers to consistency with their stances on the regulative principle and historical-grammatical hermeneutics.

There was a 40ish page synopsis of Denault’s major work on 1689 federalism which points out exactly where the crux of the baptism argument lies.

Jeffrey Johnson’s article on the dichotomous nature of the Abrahamic covenant was a condensed thesis presented more fully in his book on the Kingdom of God. This dichotomy view seems to be the best way to make sense of passages such as Galatians 4. It takes seriously both the historical and temporal covenant promises given to Abraham and his physical seed and the way in which the New Testament presents believers as spiritual children of Abraham through vital union with Christ.

An excerpt of Owen’s commentary on Hebrews 8:6 was reprinted which was very helpful in explaining the newness of the new covenant, the contrast the author of Hebrews makes between Old and New covenants, and the New Covenant being the only source of eternal salvation.

The three exegetical essays formed the backbone of the book.

James White provided a lengthy exegesis of Hebrews 8 in its apologetic and historical context which sought (and accomplished) to show that the New Covenant consists of regenerate believers alone. He then interacts extensively with those paedobaptist counter interpretations which seek to push Hebrews 8 into a future fulfillment. He also interacts extensively with Jeffrey Neill’s peculiar interpretation.

Hübner’s exegesis of Acts 2 was extremely helpful even though I disagree with a couple aspects. He extensively documents the lack of contextual exegesis and the importation of foreign contexts by most paedobaptist interpreters. He gives special attention to Beeke’s exegesis of the Acts 2 passage.

Richard Barcellos’ article on circumcision and baptism from Colossians 2 was especially impressive. Although tough to wade through because of his treatment of the original language, his overall argument is strong, and it clears up a thorny ordo salutis problem which is often raised by men such as Leighton Flowers as an objection to reformed theology. An objection which I have hitherto been unable to answer.

The book ends with a chapter by the Renihan brothers on biblical theology and the teleology of Old Testament covenants which typified and pointed toward the New Covenant—the Covenant of Grace.

I would’ve given this book five stars, but two or three of the articles which I didn’t mention above were not overly relevant or didn’t present their material in a helpful manner. Most of the articles, however, were fantastic.

[Pedro Issa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Baptist Covenant Theology, does that even exist?

Yes it does, say the twelve contemporary authors of this book.

Here is the background for this piece. The year is 1677, the stage, London. A gathering of puritans who held to congregational church organisation and baptism upon profession of faith elaborated a document to stand as their confession of faith. Because of the "errors and heresies" of anabaptists, radical reformers of the time, these folks were under fire for their practices. The 1677 document was, thus, a friendly and orthodox response to the accusations, based immensely in the Westminster Confession. In 1689 the confession was ratified and re-issued, and so it became known as the Second London Confession of Faith (2LCF), not to be mistaken with the First Confession, from 1644 (which also made a point in dissociating itself from the anabaptists).

So there it was a reformed, orthodox and covenantal view of the redemptive history and a deep defense of believer baptism. Time goes by and the so called "baptists" let themselves be assailed by revivalism, modernism, dispensationalism, liberalism and other 'isms' in the U.S. And some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. History became legend. Legend became myth. And for three hundred years baptist covenant theology passed out of all knowledge. Well, not that much, actually.

A strain of confessionalism - which passes through C.H. Spurgeon - may be traced up to the present. But it is now, in the beggining of the 21st century, that this theological heritage is being recovered and disseminated more widely. This book tries to be one of the means of such an endeavour, as the title clearly indicates.

It is divided in three parts: Historical, Biblical, Biblical-Theological, this last one containing only one essay. As a summary, the book is very much uneven. There are some very good essays and some pretty much desmissable. In addition, despite an established structure, one gets a picture of tons of information rather loose than tied up. This is to be expected from a "renaissance" work. The authors still seem to be groping in the dark with some issues (or perhaps this reviewer is). It is also predictable, since the work unites articles already published in theological reviews, seminar presentations and full-length book synthesis. Single works from the authors obviously present a way more coherent picture.

It is, therefore, a very sorted book. One main idea is supposed to connect them all: paedobaptist's covenant theology has misapprehended the theology of the covenants in some crucial points, fundamentally concerning the abrahamic covenant, leading to the mistake of infant baptism. A proper understanding of the historical developement and progressive revelation of the covenants entails, necessarily, a baptist view of baptism. This is not meant to be a tricky, clever, ad hoc appropriation of covenant theology. Views concerning covenants were miscellaneous and dabetable in the 17th century, and some absolutely orthodox reformed divines
depicted a covenant perspective that would fall away from paedobaptists mainstream and support the baptist stand.

Authors are not naïve, though. They're well aware they are challenging giants. This is why they summon one of the reformed Titans to fight by their side: John Owen. The so called "particular baptists" of the 17th century freely aknowledged Owen's view on the covenants as their own. One of the essays, therefore, is an excerpt of a commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews by John Owen, comprising nearly 70 pages, which is a strong point of the work. It deserves a whole special attention, considering it is a 17th century treatise.

The opening essays are rather disappointing in goal and data, but as one approaches the end of the book, specially the exegesis chapters by Jamin Hübner, attention becomes captive. In Hübner's section, a vigorous exegesis supports a fiery rhetoric that devastates, in two acts (chapters), paeobaptists's use of Acts 2:39 in their favour. Richard Barcellos' and James White's exegetical approach to Colossians 2:11-12 and Hebrews 8, respectively, also make a good case, though not as brilliant as Hübner's.

One of the main ubiquitous arguments in the book is the dual character of the abrahamic covenant, as exposed by Jeffrey Johnson and Pascal Denault in their essays. The last one is probably the best organised and best written in terms of clarity and synthesis of the whole book. Other chapters, like Jeffrey Massey's discussion of the credobaptist's and paedobaptist's 19th century novels works more as a cultural aperitif than contributes to the central arguments of covenant baptists.

In the whole, if one has a good ability to synthesize and unify great amount of sparse information, it is possible to get a very good look at the 17th century baptist theology. But it should not be expected of this book a summed up and detailed theology from a robust five hundred years tradition, such as the non-baptist Reformed. There is yet a long way to go for those who expect a baptist covenant theology renaissance, though the path seems to be paved already. Baptists might appreciate this book, paedobaptists shall criticize it. It is certainly not the definite work on the baptists side, and surely has no intention of reforming paedobaptists's mind, but only to reclaim a theological ground for reformed baptists.

[Ronnie Nichols · Rating 5 out of 5]

I would be greatly delighted to know that both my Paedobaptist and Dispensational brothers in Christ would take the time to read this book and ponder the clear and consistent argument contained therein. Chapters 9-15 in particular are amazing. Discussions of the Dichotomous Nature of the Abrahamic Covenant by Jeffrey D. Johnson, The Differences in the Old and New Covenants by John Owen, The Newness of the New Covenant by James R. White, Jamin Hubner's exegesis of Acts 2:38-39, Richard C. Barcellos' Appraisal of Colossians 2:11-12, and Micah and Samuel Renihan's explanation of Baptist Covenant Theology will give anyone hungry for truth and consistent theology much to ponder.

[John Miller · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you are on the fence about baptism, this is a worthy read. If you are solidly Baptist, this will confirm your beliefs and give you some ammunition against Presbyterians. If you’re Presbyterian, this volume will remind you why and hep you understand Baptists better. If you’re crunched for time, you can skip some of the historical chapters as they aren’t pertinent to the main point of the book.

The final chapter was good, along with Denault’s chapter, in this regard. Renihan did well showing the Baptist view while Denault clearly compared the 1689 and WCF view (his monograph is worth a read for this as well).

Of the exegetical chapters, I think Barcellos’ was the strongest, though it ultimately did not convince. His case rested on something that was contested. The chapter on Hebrews 8 and Acts 2 were horrific. This was their basic route:

“Standard hermeneutics requires this conclusion [not true], therefore the Presbyterians are wrong because they don’t agree with our exegesis.”

Of course they don’t agree with your exegesis, they aren’t Baptist! These chapters made me realize more than ever there is no such thing as dispassionate and objective exegesis. We all bring our lenses and presuppositions. We need to ask if our presuppositions are right, not pretend they’re not there.

Also, knowledge of Greek and quoting it doesn’t mean your exegesis is right, James White.

As a whole, Baptists look too closely at the text and miss the forest for the trees, especially the Acts 2 chapter. I went and read the Beeke chapter they were critiquing from Puritan theology and the author in this Baptist volume completely missed the point. What are the Jews bringing to Pentecost as far as their expectation and presuppositions? That’s the question, which affects your exegesis. A ‘dispassionate’ look at the Greek text doesn’t answer this question.

This volume could have been shorter as well. The chapter about books was superfluous.

Jeffery Johnson’s chapter convinced me there was no need for me to read his monograph.

To take a note from the conclusion of Denault’s monograph, it seems these Baptists have formulated a covenant theology for one end: to support their antipaedobaptism.

[Mitch Bedzyk · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read for anyone interested in 1689 Federalism/ Baptist Covenant Theology. There are chapters summarizing Denault’s 1689 book and Johnson’s “Fatal Flaw of Infant Baptism” book, as well a lengthy portion of John Owen’s Hebrews Commentary. Some of the earlier chapters were ok, but chapters 9-16 were the heavy hitters. They covered Jer 31, Acts 2:38-39; Col 2:11-12, a lengthy excerpt from John Owen’s Hebrews Commentary, and an excellent summary of Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology.

This book has helped solidify me as a Reformed Baptist. Highly recommended.

Would have loved to see a chapter discussing Meredith Kline’s covenant theology in comparison to 1689 Federalism.

[Timothy Decker · Rating 4 out of 5]

It started and ended well. But so much was given to the issue of baptism rather than covenant theology in general. In fact, I thought it would be pertinent to talk about baptists departure from covenant theology as the title indicates. The only reason I give this book 4 stars is because there were some excellent articles that highlight 1689 federalism.

[Chris Whisonant · Rating 5 out of 5]

I can't recommend this book enough! It's one of those "I wish I had read it when it was published!" books.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very thorough and well rounded book on covenant theology with sections on historical, systematic, exegetical, and biblical theology and how they pertain to baptist covenant theology. A useful reference that every reformed baptists should have as a reference. Paedobaptists, dispensationalists, and new covenant theology/progressive covenantalism adherents should read this book to accurately understand the reformed baptist position of covenant theology to promote fruitful dialogue and avoid strawman arguments against the reformed baptist position. This book isn't merely for doctrinal knowledge of the covenants, but also points its readers to Christ the perfect redeemer and what he has accomplished in the New Covenant via the Gospel on behalf of God's elect pointing us to the sufficiency of Christ's redemptive work as our perfect mediator.

[Matt Crawford · Rating 5 out of 5]

Any book with over 500 pages takes a bit to swallow. This one is so heavy that a couple of the units have to broken up into 2 chapters. This book is not about covenant theology. It is not even about why covenant theology is different that dispensationalism or New Covenant Theology. I do wish that the topic of federalism was more pushed aside from New Covenant Theology. NCT is not 1689 Federalism, which is the Reformed Baptist perspective, and what is presented here.