The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology

by Pascal Denault

Subtitled A Comparison Between Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist and Paedobaptist Federalism, among other things, this book compares the doctrine of the covenant of grace as formulated in the Westminster Confession of Faith with the Second London Confession of Faith. The thesis is that these two views are the fundamental distinction between the Reformed paedobaptists and the Particular Baptists from which other differences (church and sacraments) emerge.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Christianity, Nonfiction, History, Religion, Church History

168 pages, Paperback

First published January 8, 2013

Reviews

[Parker · Rating 2 out of 5]

Having been attending a Presbyterian seminary for four years, reading mostly Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed authors, and interning at a Presbyterian church, I recognized that I should give the Baptist side (my own personal heritage) a fair shake. I picked up this book because I heard so many speak highly of it, and saw that it was endorsed by such prominent Baptists as Michael A. G. Haykin, Thomas Nettles, and Fred Malone. Having now finished the book, I have no idea why everyone seems so impressed.

The Good

1. Denault clearly put in a valiant effort in his research. His primary source list includes William Ames, John Ball, Thomas Blake, John Calvin, Samuel Petto, Francis Turretin, Herman Witsius, and others on the paedobaptist side. That may not be the most extensive bibliography possible (there are some notable names missing), but it's a solid one, and the list is just as solid for Baptist primary sources.

2. In the forward to the second edition, Denault demonstrates he is willing to be corrected and to adjust both his arguments and his tone. That's a good quality in any theological writer.

The Bad

Man, just, everything else is bad here.

1. Denault does not present both sides fairly at all. Something I noticed repeatedly is that when he articulates the Baptist view, he consistently deals with the exegetical arguments put forward by the authors. When outlining the opposite perspective, however, there is almost no discussion of the biblical text. This gives the impression that the Presbyterians began with a theological presupposition (paedobaptism) and then tried to reason out a justification for it. He just about says as much on page 87: "What is more, the paedobaptists defined the old and the new covenants on the basis of predefined theological notions [...] rather than on the basis of biblical exegesis."

This unfair presentation is especially evident in connection with the concept of the covenant community as a mixed congregation (the Reformed view). Nowhere does he discuss the Reformed use of Matthew 13:36-43 or 13:47–52 to support this point. He regularly uses the word "import" to describe its application by paedobaptists to the New Covenant. He makes brief mention of one theologian's appeal to one text (pp59-60), and that's it.

2. The historiography here is also just not great. One example of an invalid historical connection he draws is on page 49, where he says that it was "in response to the Socinian dichotomy" between the Old and New Testaments that "the Reformed put a predominant emphasis on the unity and continuity of the covenant of grace from the proto-gospel to its full accomplishment in the death and resurrection of Christ." The problem with this assertion is that, in reality, Reformed theologians emphasized the unity and continuity between the covenants before Socinus ever penned a word. And Denault even admits as much when he lists Zwingli, Calvin, and Bullinger as proponents of the view he's criticizing (pp37-9)!

3. Denault is also simply not a fair reader of these primary sources. One egregious example is when he quotes Thomas Blake's criticism that Baptists, when they limit New Covenant membership to the regenerate, confuse the covenant itself with the condition required in the covenant (i.e., faith). Commenting on this criticism in a footnote on page 61, he remarks that Blake demonstrates the "natural tendency" of Presbyterianism toward "covenantal nomism." Based on comments like this one, it's hard to believe that Denault read his sources carefully.

4. Closely related to the point 3, it seems at times like Denault genuinely doesn't understand his opponents particularly well. Again, he writes on page 100 that "the tendencies compromising the gratuitousness of the covenant of grace such as Neonomism, the New Perspective on Paul, the Federal Vision, etc., are naturally derived from the Presbyterian federalism which carries within it the germ of a conditional covenant of grace." This completely misses the fact that Reformed writers are consistently careful to qualify their use of terms like "conditions" in their discussions of the Covenant of Grace. Most writers will insist that "condition" is really an unhelpful term, and will typically opt for other terms such as "requirement." Moreover, they all make very clear that the only condition is faith rather than any sort of law-keeping. To then equate this "condition" of the Covenant of Grace with Neonomism's insistence on law-keeping as a condition of the covenant is plainly incorrect.

5. Denault's picture of paedobaptistic covenant theology is fractured. No one can seem to completely agree. So he cites Samuel Petto and modern Republicationists as though they represent more than a significant minority. One might come away from this book with the impression that there is no majority view on the Presbyterian side, which is just false. In the opposite direction, he tends to undersell the differences of opinion among Baptists (though he does acknowledge that some disagreements exist). Differences of opinion among paedobaptists are theologians' attempts to cope with an incongruent system; differences of opinion among Baptists aren't worth emphasizing.

6. The book is full of bare assertions with no citations or argumentation to support them. For example, he repeats throughout the book, following John Spilsbury, that "every promise is not a covenant" (e.g., p72). This statement is never defended in any way, but is everywhere assumed. He makes comments in other places about the Presbyterian struggle with Scripture passages such as 2 Cor 3:6-9, which he claims had Presbyterians "a bit perplexed." But who was perplexed? Why were they perplexed? How did they attempt to resolve the question? No further comment.

7. The arguments for Baptist federalism outlined in the book, frankly, aren't very compelling. What's the deal with the Abrahamic Covenant? Well, it's literally just one covenant, but there's two in principle because there's two lines of descent from Abraham (spiritual and natural). Well, there's literally only one line of descent, because no one is just one or the other, but we know it's two because the much-debated passage in Galatians 4 is definitive proof (pp118-129).

What about the statement in Hebrews that one who tramples the Son of God profanes the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified? Doesn't that indicate some level of covenant membership, sanctified to Christ after some fashion? Well, no, because the object of the verb is actually the genitive modifier on the object of the previous verb -- trust me, that's a totally normal way to say something in Greek (p148). I could go on.

Conclusion

Denault does a fine job of describing the traditional Baptist view. That's about the only thing this book is good for. Otherwise, it's characterized by poor scholarship, sloppy writing, unfair criticisms, and bad arguments.

[Brian Collins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Denault proposes that the root of the difference between Particular Baptists and Paedobaptists of the Seventeenth Century was their different covenant theologies. Both held to similar views of the Covenant of Works, but they differed regarding the Covenant of Grace. Paedobaptists argued that the Covenant of Grace had a single substance but different administrations. The New Covenant was simply a different administration of the Covenant of Grace. The Baptists, on the other hand, held that the New Covenant was indeed something new and distinct from the Old Covenant. Regarding the Mosaic Covenant, Paedobaptists disagreed about whether it was part of the Covenant of Grace and unconditional in nature or whether it was akin to the Covenant of Works and distinct from the Covenant of Grace. The Baptists held that all the Old Testament Covenants were part of Old Covenant. This is why circumcision, a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant, is so closely connected with the Law. In this view Abraham was given the promises of the Covenant of Grace, but the Covenant of Grace, though progressively revealed in the Old Testament, was not enacted until Christ. The New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace. Thus Abraham stands at the head of two seeds, a physical and a spiritual. Once Christ comes the purposes of the physical seed and its covenant are finished. Unlike the Old Covenant, which was mixed, the New Covenant is unconditional, entirely effective, and made up entirely of those who know Christ.

Denault does a good job of introducing the reader to significant seventeenth century figures from both sides of the debate. Nehemiah Coxe is introduced as the Baptist who most clearly developed this version of Covenant Theology, though other Baptists, such as Benjamin Keach are also drawn on. Interestingly, though not a Baptist, John Owen is also claimed to have held the Baptist Covenant position. This is especially clear from his Hebrews commentaries.

Overall Denault seems to have presented the historical information clearly and accurately. This is not merely a historical monograph, however. Denault wishes to recover Baptist Covenant Theology for the present day. I found this position most convincing when critiquing the Paedobaptist one-covenant-under-many-administrations approach. I think the case for a disjunction between the New Covenant and Old is clear. And I am in full agreement that the New Covenant is a unconditional, effective, and unmixed covenant. The equation of the Covenant of Grace with the New Covenant is more convincing than the Paedobaptist construct of a Covenant of Grace made up of many different biblical covenants. However, this Baptist Covenant Theology has its own construct: the Old Covenant. In Scripture it seems clear that the Old Covenant and First Covenant are the Mosaic Covenant. Despite providing an explanation for the connection of circumcision and the Law, I'm not convinced exegetically that the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic Covenants can all be subsumed under one Old Covenant.

[Brandon Adams · Rating 5 out of 5]

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)

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!

[Alex · Rating 5 out of 5]

I don't think I can undersell how helpful this book was to me. With laser focus, Pascal Denault clearly articulates the difference between the Presbyterian and Baptist understandings of Covenant Theology. He uses the 17th-century originators of both theologies and dives into their differences and disagreements to clearly explain what each side believes and how Baptists came to their distinct understanding of the Covenant. He's put to words all the things I have been thinking, but struggling to know how to say.

Ths is a book that Reformed Baptists need to pick up; It will give you a better understanding of where your theology came from and the words to use when discussing baptism and covenant theology with your Presbyterian friends. For Presbyterians, this is a must read if you want to understand why Baptists disagree with you and how they can call themselves Reformed and Covenantal without butchering either term.

In short, this is a well written, easy-to-understand breakdown of Baptist Covenant Theology that has greatly helped me clarify where I sit on so many issues and given me a great jumping off point for further study and discussion.

5/5

[Derek Woodall · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent. Pull on the theological thread of baptism and so comes covenant theology vs. dispensationalism, the question, “Is the church a mixed community?”, one’s interpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant, circumcision, and more.
Denault rightfully highlights covenant theology as the linchpin in the question of paedo vs credo baptism and traces a masterful historical theology of the development of Particular Baptist Federalism/Covenant Theology in distinction from Paedobaptist Federalism/Covenant Theology. This work cleared up a lot of questions for me and provided great clarification in the baptism debate.
“If Westminster federalism can be summarized as ‘one covenant under two administrations,’ that of the 1689 would be ‘one covenant revealed progressively and formally concluded under the New Covenant…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.” (Pg. 70)
Denault clearly articulates the Particular Baptists’ understanding of the covenants of works and grace in contrast to Paedobaptist federalism. I agree with the Particular Baptist perspective on these distinctions, though I continue to question the overall usefulness of the terminology itself.

[Andrew Welch · Rating 5 out of 5]

Unbelievably helpful.

[Josiah C · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the best handling of the differences between Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology and Presbyterian Covenant Theology I’ve read. Denault concludes that Westminsterian Covenantalism is a system that one comes to only as a result of presupposing paedobaptism. He closes the book calling Baptists back to their Reformed roots to which I say, amen!

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

By far the most impactful book I read this year. A must-read for anyone who wants to really grasp Reformed Baptist theology and what sets it apart from Presbyterian Reformed theology.

[Nathan White · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perhaps the best book I've read on the Baptism/Paedobaptism discussion. The book isn't simply a polemic against Paedobaptism; rather, Denault pinpoints -with meticulous precision- the differences between the Particular Baptists (1689 London Baptist Confessional) and the Paedobaptists of the 17th century. And he does this within the covenantal framework of Reformed Theology. Easy to read, clear, and really a must-read for anyone -Baptist or Paedobaptist- seeking clarity on what separates the Covenantal Baptists from our Paedobaptist brothers in Christ.

[Ethan Williams · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book helped immerse me (pun not intended) more in my Baptist tradition. I read the book in one sitting on a Saturday and found it so illuminating. Denault did an amazing comparative study on the differences between 17 century Presbyterian and Baptist covenant theology. He gave important dialectical context for the positions and lucidly elucidated the different concepts and models. He also well-articulated the different exegesis between the two traditions. Extremely formative and helpful for me!

[Kyle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really helpful

This book was very helpful in distinguishing the differences in the two views of covenant theology. While it isn't an overly long book it is a very rich book that I had to read I'm smaller chunks. Looking forward to seeing the differences in the newly released revised version.

[Ben Chapman · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a must read for anyone seeking to understand the differences between the origins and out-workings of Baptist and paedobaptist thought, and the implications of each. If I could rate this book any higher, I would. I give it my highest recommendation.

[Joseph Knowles · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent. This book was a great refresher on things I had already learned about Baptist covenant theology, but also went deeper, pointed me to primary sources, and made a number of arguments I had not heard before. It’s an absolute must-read for confessional/reformed Baptists.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great. This book was my first foray into the extensive literature of the paedobaptism vs credobaptism debate, but I think it gave me a solid foundation for further studies in this arena. The author pierced straight to the heart of the issue between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians by focusing on the different ways that each group looked at the Old and New covenants and especially the different ways that they viewed the connection between the two. Denault provided a balanced view of Presbyterian and Baptist covenant theologies, ably drawing out the logic and implications of both. Even for those who disagree with some of the conclusions that Denault then puts forward (he is a Baptist), I would highly recommend this book as a historical resource. The author provides copious amounts of lengthy but helpful quotations from various paedobaptist and credobaptist theologians (mostly from the 17th century) that frame the debate well.

As for the arguments the author presented, there were several that I thought were quite strong. I will highlight two in particular. First, the author effectively pointed out the logical tension for the Presbyterian who argues for inclusion into the New Covenant of a believer's immediate children (but not the believer's remote descendants) on the basis of the Old Covenant, which itself included not just the immediate children of an Israelite, but also his remote descendants. Second, Denault emphasized the value that comes from the Baptist hermeneutic which balances the significant Biblical continuity from Old Covenant to New Covenant with the major differences between the two covenants implied by the explicit Biblical contrast between "Old" and "New". Overall, this was a profitable and relatively short (although not easy) read.

[Justin Dillehay · Rating 5 out of 5]

I realize that the percentage of people who even know what 'covenant theology' is constitutes a pretty thin slice of the human pie, and that the percentage of that narrow slice who is willing to read a book on the subject is tinier still. But for all those who are, this book is a must-read! I had my thinking confirmed in many ways and sharpened in others. If I had three thumbs, they would all be up.

[Todd Miles · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is very good at what it aims to do. Dealing with primary sources throughout, Denault outlines the significant differences between Reformed Baptist Covenant theology and Presbyterian Covenant theology. It is definitely a "niche" book. But I won't penalize a book for doing only what it aims to do.

[CJay Engel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Without reservation, Denault has written the “book of the year.”

The subtitle of this book offers us a great starting point: “A comparison between seventeenth-century particular baptist and paedobaptist federalism.” The seventeenth century was of monumental importance for the development of historical Reformed theology. Many confessions were written during this time in a grand attempt to define the system of Christianity after a heavy blow to the Roman Church that took place thanks to the efforts of Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin in the sixteenth century. Among these confessions were the Westminster Confession (1646) and the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689). Anyone with a basic understanding of Church history will know that the Westminster Confession advocated the baptism of children and the Baptist Confession did not. And yet, this is only one result of a very holistic distinction regarding how the covenants of the Bible ought to be put together. In other words, we must realize that the doctrine of baptism pours forth from our understanding of Covenant Theology. Denault’s goal then, is to dissect the very core of the differences between the two groups so that the modern reader has a better understanding of the basic premises of each position. Because this is such a masterful summary of the “distinctiveness” of the Baptist position in a world where the Baptist understanding of the Covenants is often misunderstood, it is my goal to not give away too much of the content and inspire the reader to purchase a copy of the book himself.

The book itself is succinctly written and wastes no space. There is heavy citation of original sources, but the reader will find none of it arduous or difficult to understand. Denault has found the right balance between quotation and commentary, intervening where necessary to provide more background and context which puts the original statements in a clear and purposeful light. From the outset, Denault is intriguing and even takes the time to discuss the theologians whom he will cite and reference in pursuit of his thesis. Among the Baptists are: John Spilsbury, John Bunyan, Nehemiah Coxe, and Benjamin Keach. And the representatives of the paedobaptists include: William Ames, Herman Witsius, and Thomas Blake. These original sources, among others not mentioned, are used to explain not only the doctrinal differences, which of course is the primary subject of the book, but also and just as importantly, the history and scenario of the Baptist’s conviction to deviate from the Westminster standards on the doctrine of the covenants. Without this key historical information, one might be left with a variety of dangerous conclusions about the Baptists, many of which are assumed today. These will be mentioned again momentarily.

Perhaps one of the most fascinating pieces of this book is Denault’s use of John Owen, one of the most well known and influential Puritans of this entire era. Owen, a paedobaptist, is actually cited in defense of the credobaptist position throughout. Citations and applications of Owen’s writings might be, in my estimation, the most impactful part of this work and the entire thing is worth buying, if only for the analysis and discussions of John Owen. Under the provocative title John Owen the Baptist, Denault writes that “Owen rejected the model of a covenant of grace under two administrations.” This model, as will be shown, is the very core of Presbyterian federalist theology. But not only did Owen reject the “one covenant, two administration” model, he also “considered that the Old Covenant was different from the New Covenant both in circumstance and in substance.” Denault cites two Baptists, Edward Hutchinson and Nehemiah Coxe, to demonstrate that the Baptists had made strides to endorse the federalism of John Owen. Historically, this is very important as it shows that among the Baptist’s goals was the desire to show that they were well within the realm of Reformed Orthodoxy, in spite of their differences on Covenant Theology. Owen made it possible for the Reformed Baptists to demonstrate, or at least attempt to, that they were not to be seen as an offshoot of the Anabaptists. By endorsing Owen’s federalism, they have proven to be in line with Reformed thought contrary to what many Presbyterians would have wanted to believe at that time (and sadly, even today).

The historical fact that the Reformed Baptists came from the Reformed tradition is presented quite nicely in this book, a refreshing perspective compared to the misleading but popular analysis that the Baptists were really Anabaptists with a Calvinist soteriology. This is important and Denault does a fine job at showing the efforts made by the Reformed Baptists to write their confession as close to the Westminster content as possible. Denault even goes so far to show that “Nehamiah Coxe… hesitated a long time before publishing his treatise in order to avoid controversy with the paedobaptists whom he recognized as brothers loving the Lord Jesus.” The Baptists were historically Reformed through and through and the fact that they deviated from the Westminster on the Covenants, and therefore Baptism, should not take away from that. While some might see these Baptist as trying to enter the Reformed camp, it is more accurate to say that these Baptists were Reformed, but came to a different conclusion than the Presbyterians on one (albeit important!) issue.

So as not to take away from the necessity of reading this book for yourself, some important points are as follows:

*The Covenant of Works*

Denault describes the Covenant of Works between God and Adam in this way: “if Adam had obeyed, he and his posterity after him would have retained life and would have been sealed in justice; but his disobedience marked the entrance of death into the world.” Denault shows that both the Presbyterians and the Baptists endorsed the view that there was a Covenant of Works. However the difference comes when each group describes the commonality that this Covenant has with the Old Covenant. The Covenant of Works is not where the two camps disagree, but they do disagree when we begin to discuss how this covenant relates to the others.

*The Covenant of Grace*

The Covenant of Grace is the main area of contention between the two groups and thus, the chapter which breaks it down in the book is the largest. Denault says it like this: “The Covenant of Grace was the basis of federalism; this same basis became the breaking point between Presbyterian and Baptist theology.” For the Presbyterians, the Covenant of Grace can best be summed up with the phrase that is often repeated by Denault: “One Covenant under two administrations.” That is, the Covenant of Grace should be seen in two respects: “its substance and its circumstance or administration” and for the Presbyterian, the substance of the Covenant of Grace is the same in the Old and New Covenants but the administration of that Covenant is what distinguishes the two. It was important for the Presbyterians to stress the unity of the Covenant of Grace over all of redemptive history and they therefore emphasized that he Old Covenant and the New Covenant were of the same substance even though they were administered differently.

For the Baptists though, their understanding of the unity of the Covenant of Grace was different. They rejected the Paedobaptist position and held that the Old and New Covenants were of different administration AND substance. In other words, whereas the Presbyterians held that both the Old and New Covenants were administrations of one Covenant of Grace, the Baptists held that the New Covenant was a Covenant of Grace but the Old Covenant was not. For the Baptists, the Covenant of Grace could be seen as one covenant under one administration, that is, the administration of the Lord Jesus Christ. The New Covenant was thus the only Covenant of Grace and the Old Covenant was a shadow that pointed toward the New. The Covenant with Abraham, the Covenant at Sinai, and the Davidic Covenant then were not administrations of the Covenant of Grace, however, to use Denault’s words, “the Covenant of Grace was revealed under these various covenants.”

For both camps then, the Covenant of Grace was one and it was united, but for the Presbyterians the Old Covenant was part of that oneness and for the Baptists it was not. For the Presbyterians, the Covenant of Grace was established in the Old Testament but for the Baptists it was promised in the Old Testament and established in the New. The Baptists readily adopted the "type/antitype" framework of the New Covenant.

Since the New Covenant, that is, the establishment of the Covenant of Grace, was new in substance for the Baptists, the obvious question is: what makes it new? Denault is clear when he writes: “The promises of the Old Covenant were preceded by an “if” that made them conditional on man’s obedience, while the promises of the New Covenant were marked by a divine monergism.” He later explains that the substance of the New Covenant “can be summarized in three blessings: the Law written in the heart (regeneration), the personal and saving knowledge of God and the forgiveness of sins….” And it is important to note that for the Baptist, these three blessings are applied to every single member of the New Covenant. This is contrary to the Presbyterian view which was that not all members of the New Covenant will be saved. After all, the substance of the New Covenant is the same as the Old for the Presbyterian position.

The implications for Baptism are clear. If all who are in the New Covenant should be baptized, then the Presbyterians have no problem Baptizing the children. For the New Covenant, like the Old, is mixed, that is, it includes both elect individuals and non-elect individuals. Or more specific in relation to infant baptism, it includes both the elect and their children. The children of the elect should be baptized as a sign that they are in the covenant. The Baptist however, realizing that the New Covenant is not mixed as was the Old, asserts that only the believer should be baptized. Rightful baptism is administered to the saved and thus the children must first “repent and believe” if they are to be baptized.

*Concluding Thoughts*

The above takeaways do not do justice to the book. It needs to be read in its entirety. There are many Baptists today who subscribe to a Calvinist soteriology but they have little understanding of the Baptist tradition of Covenant theology. Calvinist Baptists would to well to discover their roots and Denault offers a starting point that is as good as any, if not better. Each section is complete and meticulous. Denault has proven to be a skilled theologian. By understanding the backdrop of the confessions and engaging with the primary authors and theologians that contributed to those confessions, it becomes quite obvious where the Baptists left the Presbyterian view. The confessions are used often today to find the distinctions, but these confessions are often read without looking at the historical development and context. Denault avoids this mistake by proving that he is well read in the works of both the paedobaptists and the credobaptists. Not only does he compare and contrast the teachings of the confessions directly, but he also takes the time and effort to explain, based on the original sources, why the confessions included the specific language that they did.

Lastly, while it is a rather short book (about 150 pages), it is packed tightly with important information and no space is wasted. A good understanding of this book will either take more than one reading, or at least one deep and slow study.

I do want to quote a very direct set of statements from Denault’s conclusion that I found to be a worthy challenge toward our Presbyterian brothers and sisters (who should also not hesitate to read this book):

"At the end of this work, we are faced with a marked impression, to be specific, that Presbyterian federalism was an artificial construction developed to justify an end: paedobaptism. We do not think that this laborious theology was the result of a rigorous and disinterested application of hermeneutical principles. We rather believe that it was the consequence of an age-old practive, which became the ultimate instrucment of social uniformity in Christendom and which was inherited by the Reformed Church, namely, paedobaptism. Paedobaptism was the arrival point of Presbyterian federalism because it was the starting point. We do not purport that paedobaptists were dishonest, but, at the very least, that they were profoundly influenced by their tradition."

[Austin Cox · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book serves as a great clarification of the issues. Denault fairly and thoroughly presents Presbyterian federalism before he critiques it. From what I can tell, the book was void of misrepresentations and straw men.

I appreciated Denault’s insistence that the issue of paedobaptism needs to be decided on the basis of a broader covenant theology rather than the more common arguments—usually given by Southern Baptists—about baptism symbolizing spiritual union. Presbyterians rightly recognize that circumcision also symbolized spiritual union and yet was given to infants.

The most insightful of Denault’s critiques concerns the mediation of Christ and the Covenant of Grace. Denault points out that Presbyterian federalism leads to a quasi-Arminian understanding of the atonement, holding that Christ mediates for—and in some sense died for—the unregenerate. While Arminianism must (to be consistent) say that Christ’s death and intercession extend to all unregenerate men, Presbyterians (to be consistent) must hold that Christ’s death and intercession extend *in some sense* to the unregenerate members of the Covenant of Grace. There goes the theology of the book of Hebrews!

I am not completely convinced of 1689 Federalism yet, but this book served as a great step in that direction.

[Jordan Sibley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Highly recommend to anyone wanting to understand covenant theology and its different versions, and anyone wanting to *actually* understand the debate of believer’s baptism vs. infant baptism. This book presents an historic, clear, and fair understanding of covenant theology from both perspectives, which leads to the differing views on baptism and church membership. Written from a Baptist perspective but charitably presents the Presbyterian side.

[Daniel Bouchoc · Rating 3 out of 5]

Decent. Seemed repetitive.

2 take aways: (1) this book will help you read old theologians well, (2) the book demonstrates that John Owen's theology is basically the same as the credoBaptists theology.

[Kyle Grindberg · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this for my Biblical Theology course, it was helpful in understanding Baptist covenant theology. A lot of ways it clarified my own Presbyterian covenant theology because the author did a good job drawing clear contrasts between the two views.

[Rory · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a fantastic piece of historical theology. I'm sad I didn't read all of it earlier (had started and read bits and pieces). It shows that reformed baptists, though they agreed with the reformed perspective of other puritans, have always had a distinct (and more biblical) view of the theological and biblical covenants.

[Nadia Fis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bien que n'ayant plus exactement la même position aujourd'hui, je recommande ce livre pour se familiariser avec la théologie des alliances. Clarté au rendez-vous !

[Nathanaël · Rating 3 out of 5]

C'est à travers cet excellent livre que j'ai été introduit à l'étude des alliances. N'y connaissant pour ainsi dire rien à l'époque, il m'a permis d'en comprendre les grandes lignes en me fournissant une base solide et claire sur laquelle j'ai approfondie par la suite.
Évidemment c'est la compréhension baptiste de l'alliance de grâce qui y est défendue face à l'interprétation presbytérienne. Cela est fait de manière charitable et équitable, même si on peut reprocher quelques sélections de textes et d'auteurs manquant légèrement d'objectivité, notamment avec John Owen.
Je n'entrerai pas dans plus de détails sur le contenu du livre, l'ayant lu il y a maintenant plusieurs années. Toutefois je crois qu'une relecture aujourd'hui me serait peut être plus profitable encore qu'à l'époque, mais pour d'autres raisons, car je le lirais alors avec un regard différent et plus aguerri sur le sujet.
Quoi qu'il en soit, et même si aujourd'hui mes conclusions sur l'alliance de grâce différent de celles que Mr. Denault présente dans son livre, j'en recommande vivement la lecture. C'est une très saine et bonne approche du sujet, abordable mais non simpliste. Nous avons besoin de plus d'ouvrages comme celui-ci en français, présentant les diverses positions sur ce thème essentiel à une bonne théologie biblique et systématique. Mr. Denault a eu la bonne idée et le courage de s'attaquer brillamment au sujet et d'offrir un ouvrage de référence à la francophonie, qui n'empêche pas que ses lecteurs puissent aboutir au final à la position qu'il réfute, comme cela à été mon cas. À lire !

[Dave · Rating 3 out of 5]

Denault gives his "initial objective [as being] to bring out the differences between paedobaptist covenant theology in the seventeenth century and that of their Baptist contemporaries". That aim he suceeds in doing and in this regard this work is a useful piece of historical work.

The book does, however, have a secondary aim as a polemical work to support the position that is now called 1689 Federalism and discredit the WCF position. There are a few issues here:

1) The secondary aim distracts from the primary aim of the work.
2) The secondary aim is more asserted than it is proved. While the historical work is well evidenced - the reader is left with a clear concept of 17th Century Particular Baptist thought on the covenants - the polemic work is much less so, and it shows.

An example of this is the assertion that paedobaptists shaped their theology around their prior conclusion that paedobaptism is correct. This is asserted several times and the work concludes with "we are faced with a marked impression...that Presbyterian federalism was an artifical construction developed to justify an end: paedobaptism".

If that impression is there it would be because of the repetition of the assertion, even though the assertion is not sufficiently demonstrated.

3) Paedobaptists are permitted to give their explanations on certain issues, but to a limited degree. Most of the points rest on nuance so affording the paedobaptists a paragraph of response is insufficient.

[Eva · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you read this honestly you'll see that 1689 theology is really just proto-New Covenant theology. Denault talks about the Baptists just wanting to remain unified with Presbyterians and therefore using a lot of their material. In reality, I realized that they just didn't want to admit to the logical outcome of their theology- abrogation of all Old Testament law. 1689 Federalists claim to hate New Covenant Theology, but Denault stated blatantly that the 1689 held to "one covenant revealed progressively and concluded formally under the new covenant." This is blatant NCT. In the New Covenant all Old Covenant law must be done away with- follow that logically and yes, you no longer have to baptize infants, but you also must do away with the Ten Commandments as Old Testament law. The logic is simple. The best thing this book did for me was convince me that I was wrong for ever thinking anything other than being Presbyterian could be possible.

So what is New Covenant theology? It's really a half-way house between Presbyterian theology and Dispensationalism. But at least, unlike 1689 Federalism, NCT is internally insistent with itself.

[Andrew Meredith · Rating 4 out of 5]

If one wishes to understand Reformed Baptist distinctives, especially why they rejected and continue to reject infant baptism, look no further. It's a relatively small book, but a great one. Fully recommended.

Edit: Although I have come to reject credobaptism in favor of paedobaptism, I will still strongly endorse this book. The author does a better job explaining to Baptists the ramifications Reformed covenant theology has for ecclesiology and particularly the sacrament of baptism than just about any Presbyterian I've read (Presbyterians have a hard time starting from zero when explaining their covenant position, which is where the vast majority of Baptists are in understanding it). It was through this book that I began to fully understand the paedo arguments, which then led me to slowly realize that the Presbyterians, not Denault, were correct.

The one star off comes from Denault giving in to the ever-present Baptist temptation to accuse Presbyterians of compromising with Catholicism (paedobaptism being some kind of Catholic hangover) even though he should clearly know better (in some of his footnotes, not the main text).

[Colin Gardner · Rating 3 out of 5]

An excellent analysis of 1689 Federalism as compared to Westminster Federalism in the 17th Century. The analysis is on the covenant systems with an eye toward the issue of baptism. I have obtained a fuller understanding of covenant theology and the viability of 1689 Federalism against the giant that is the Westminster Standards. Denault clearly represents the positions while simultaneously preserving the complexity of the issue, and demonstrating the insufficiency of Westminster Federalism for explaining the whole of scripture. One nitpick is that the book claims to present a history, but is often written as a persuasive argument, merely drawing on history (theologians from the time). Oftentimes the history is muddied and the groups are treated as monolithic, when in fact, the issues are much more complicated. Either way Denault is in favor of 1689 Federalism. However, one wonders what the 'history' of the issue would look like if written from the Westminster Federalist perspective. It is a persuasive read on its own, and I would suggest any Westminster Federalist to carefully consider the presentation.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

An amazing work on the structure of the bible and how to interpret the narrative of salvation properly. It deals thoroughly with proving the covenantalism structure we see in the word, leaving dispensationalism or paedobaptismal theology demonstrably lacking in terms of biblical support.

It's definitely a scholarly work. This is not a light read, but it will demonstrate how to properly structure a discussion and an argument, present faithful proof, and show conclusive results.

The work in this book I expect to return to for years to come when looking at hermeneutical principles.

[Andres Valencia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Si crees que eres credobautista pero aun no has entendido tu posicion y la diferencia con nuestros hermanos presbiterianos,te invito a leer este libro, su autor ha tratado los puntos criticos, ha explicado la posicion presbiteriana y su posicion(credobautismo). la teologia pactual deberia estar en la "dieta" de todos los cristianos.