A Reformed Baptist Manifesto

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I just recieved the book, "A Reformed Baptist Manifesto" by Sam Waldren with Richard Barcellos, and read it in the last hour. It runs 102 pages. Costs $6.95 at cvbbs.com

Its not too long, not very exegetical, not very helpful overall. VERY baptist. It selectively quotes passges, deals nothing with many of the major "Reformed" covenatnal themes of historical orthodoxy, and passes itself off as a "covenantal" approach of consituting the New Testmaent church through shotty exegesis (really a poor exegesis) of Jeremaih 31, and very selective quotations.

I made about 80 notes in the book, disagree with many of their "historical" and "theological" ideas (or reimplementations of traditional baptist ideas) (which are STILL dispensational even in light of the book in which they devote a chapter AGAINST dispensationalism) and really did not think it was well done in thier purpose.

I will admit they had a few good things to say against Scofieldism, and NCT. They shoudl be praised for that.

They even devote some time to Presumptive Regeneration, which, I MUST add, they don't understand. Really - they just do not get it and it shines in the "arguments". It is the epitomal straw men. They really blew it on that section.

I am thinking about writing a critique of it, but not sure it is really worth the time right now to do so.

Has anyone else read this? What do you think of it?

[Edited on 12-8-2004 by webmaster]

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I've read it. Can't you tell. I haven't read anything about this topic for years and found this to be a pretty good read. It agreed with my thoughts on the subjects it talked about. I've started to read 'In Defense of the Decalogue' which is a bit more involved with critiquing NCT. The book you are speaking about was meant to be very concise. It wasn't meant to be an indepth discussion of the topics. I would be interested in what you have to say Matt. What historical facts did you find lacking? Why do you think Sam Waldron and Richard Barcellow are dispensational in thought? That is what I took away from your post. Am I correct? Looking forward to your insight. Give us the critique.

Thanks. For Christ's Crown and Covenant, Randy

 

[daveb]

From what I've heard (from the baptist side) this book is quite good at explaining the Reformed Baptist position. I haven't had a chance to read it myself but I would be extremely interested in hearing your thoughts on it. Also, if any baptists wished to offer their thoughts on the book that would be helpful as well.

Give us the critique.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Scott is going to read it and then write a critique on it.

Right Scott?

 

[fredtgreco]

You probably knew this already, but I would rather you spent your time critiquing the more problematic and dangerous books of NT Wright, Peter Leithart, the Federal Vision and the Reformed Catholics. It is they that will spell the death knell of Reformed Old School Presbyterianism, not Waldron.

 

[AdamM]

You probably knew this already, but I would rather you spent your time critiquing the more problematic and dangerous books of NT Wright, Peter Leithart, the Federal Vision and the Reformed Catholics. It is they that will spell the death knell of Reformed Old School Presbyterianism, not Waldron.

Amen!

As elders and serious lay persons, the battle against covenantal Nomism in its various forms is the struggle of our time and I hope we prioritize our efforts accordingly. In other words, when N.T. Wright is being given rock star like status in some Reformed circles today, we got bigger fish to fry then the Fred Malone's.

 

[Bladestunner316]

Isnt it man who plans his day but God who guides his steps so then It would be God would be the end all death knell of old school presbyterianism.

Oh the simple life.

blade

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Oh Come On. I want to hear what you have to say because this is where I am at in my learning. Why have a post called Covenant Theology and not discuss it. Maybe it is not Presbyterian Covenant Theology but it isn't dispensationalism, nor is it the New Covenant Theology of modern day understanding. It appears to be that of the 1689 and much of what Owen said, minus his paedobaptist views. Am I wrong?

Randy

 

[Philip A]

Webmaster et al,

Let me suggest that you re-read the preface:

This book's title may at first glance seem to promise more than it delivers. It is not intended as a manifesto of all the distinctives of confessional Reformed Baptists.

...

It is hoped that this humble effort will assist confessional Reformed Baptists in articulating their distinctives and help others understand why we believe what we do concerning the New Covenant.

RBM was never intended to be a theological treatise. It is an edited trascription of a series of sermons to the man in the pew who knows very little if anything about the RB distinctives. To interact with it as if you in particular were the intended audience will always lead you to conclude that it was "not to long, not very exegetical, not very helpful overall". Of course it wasn't, because it wasn't intended to be, according to your standards. If you want to evaluate the book objectively, put yourself in the place of a baptist who has just recently come to know the doctrines of grace, and knows very little about the other topics interacted with.

Also, for an example of how to carry on a book review with charity towards brethren with whom you disagree, see any of Barcellos' reviews from the RBTR, or Appendix 2 from this book. Otherwise you will come across as having a chip on your shoulder, and it will be rather hard to take you seriously.

If you want to interact with a theological treatise with more depth on the subject, wait until Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ is released (http://www.rbap.net/projects.php), or try Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes. They are both longer, more exegetical, and more helpful overall. They also contain arguments that I have yet to see any paedobaptist interact with.



Randy,

I would suggest in your studies that, after you have mastered the material from Reformed Baptist Manifesto that you read Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes. It is available on sale and with free shipping at Trinity Book Service (here!), which is closing it's virtual doors on December 15th. Most importantly, keep an eye on Reformed Baptist Academic Press, and get Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ when it becomes available.

-Philip
*returning to lurk mode*

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
You probably knew this already, but I would rather you spent your time critiquing the more problematic and dangerous books of NT Wright, Peter Leithart, the Federal Vision and the Reformed Catholics. It is they that will spell the death knell of Reformed Old School Presbyterianism, not Waldron.

That's why Scott is going to do it. (HINT HINT)

I am in the midst of writing 2 papers for the Whitefield Journal on the active/passive obedience (a very straight forward Christian teaching on it), and the early church's veiw of jsutification (paper 2). Then, as time permits, I am trying to get another paper out for them on the Auburn theology - so my vacation time over the holidays will be spent writing ferociously.

 

[fredtgreco]

I know that feeling. I will be writing a paper on Owen's view regeneration.

I can't wait to be done with academic exercises such as that. It will be far more enjoyable work to produce weekly sermons starting in January.

 

[DTK]

I am in the midst of writing 2 papers for the Whitefield Journal on the active/passive obedience (a very straight forward Christian teaching on it), and the early church's veiw of jsutification (paper 2). Then, as time permits, I am trying to get another paper out for them on the Auburn theology - so my vacation time over the holidays will be spent writing ferociously.

Sounds interesting, especially to see your understanding of the early church's view of justification.

DTK

 

[JohnV]

Fred and Matt:

Do we get dibs of first copies? Sounds like we're in for a real treat.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

John,

Not sure how that works with the journal. Will have to let you know.

Fred,

Are you going to be Finished - as in completed done and graduated? I've lost track of where you are at....

I look forward to hearing about the Owen article.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by webmaster
John,

Not sure how that works with the journal. Will have to let you know.

Fred,

Are you going to be Finished - as in completed done and graduated? I've lost track of where you are at....

I look forward to hearing about the Owen article.

No, although I wish I was. I still have 3 semesters left. Sigh...

 

[pastorway]

Did you guys read Philip A's wonderful post above????

This book was compiled from a series of sermons and is a really good work defining a few things about RB's. It is not definitive, nor so deep theologically that it devastates full blown Covenant Theology, but it is a useful book.

Here is a review I wrote of it for a group of Reformed Baptist pastors:

It is a good book to give to those new to Reformed Baptist churches or who are working through a proper view of who the members of the New Covenant (and hence the Church) are. It is not a deep theological treatise that will cause our Paedobaptist brothers to throw up their hands in surrender. However, there is a great exposition of Jeremiah 31:31-34.

In the first section he deals with dispensationalism and shows how the Church is spiritual Israel and therefore heirs to the promises and covenants of the OT, all fulfilled in Christ.

In the second section he deals with antinomianism - which he defines in two camps - first as "practical antinomianism" (grace as a license for sin, lawlessness) and second as "moderate doctrinal antinomianism" (New Covenant Theology). He does state that NCT abhores practical antinomianism but at the same time denies the Third Use of the Law.

The third section is the case that the New Covenant makes against Arminianism. A very good concise definition and defence of Calvinism is found in this chapter. He also in this chapter makes a very convincing case for the unbreakable nature of the New Covenant!

The best chapter is last, the one written against Paedobaptism. He shows how the New Covenant is NEW, distinct, and better than the Old. He does say that it is an administration of the Covenant of Grace, but demonstrates quite well the fact that the New Covenant is a different Covenant with different qualities that the Old.

I want to quote from this chapter as he spends a few paragraphs specifically arguing against the view that we are to baptize our children based upon the presumption that they are or will be regenerate!

If Jeremiah 31 teaches anything, it teaches that circumcision was not given to children in the Old Covenant on the ground that they were regenerate, but on the ground that they were the physical seed of Abraham.

Another way in which Paedobaptists may respond is by saying that God promises in His Word to bless the means of godly parenting unto the salvation of the children of believers. "Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it." It is true that God does promise to bless and save the seed of godly parents. But this does not solve the problem for several reasons. First, he does not promise to save every child of godly parents without exception. Second, Paedobaptists bestow baptism not on the children of godly parents, but on the children of all believers on their promise that they will be godly parents. Third, even if God promised to save all the children of all believers, this would not mean that they would be as infants. Baptism is not to be bestowed because someone will in the future be saved, but because someone in the present displays credible evidence that they already know the Lord.

There is more but that is a summary of his argumentation against presumptive regeneration.

He goes on to show that everyone in the NC knows Christ. He spends some time with the phrase "all shall know Me." He concludes this chapter with a great defense of who should be admitted as members into the church.

Throughout this work he does stress the things that most all Baptists have in common and he concludes by talking about the nature of the Church - how each congregation should understand that its Constitution, its mandate from on High, its charter, is the New Covenant as contained in the pages of the New Testament.

The first appendix is a response to Richard Pratt's "Infant Baptism and the New Covenant."

The second appendix is Rich Barcellos' review of New Covenant Theology by Wells and Zaspel.

Overall this was a quick read - just an hour or so. The whole book start to finish is only 102 pages and since these chapters were first delivered as sermons they are an easy read. I would recommend it. I hope it will do some good for RB churches to help us understand the role and place of the New Covenant.

Phillip

[Edited on 12-9-04 by pastorway]

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Thanks. That is how I understand things. I gave it a small review on the Reformed Reader. I must admit though that Scott has me thinking about this unconverted and converted (internal/externa)l thing based upon his comparison of John 15:2 and Romans 11.

I was told Fred Malone responds to that argument in his book on Baptism. I don't have it yet.

 

[Bladestunner316]

Fred you will have to post your sermons on the board

 

[luvroftheWord]

Matt,

What was written in response to Richard Pratt's article in the book? I'd be interested in hearing that.

 

[RamistThomist]

Same here, Pratt was the first to influence me to paedobaptism.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Craig,

Basically Waldron says of Pratt that he doesn't do good exegesis ont he passage, and that his conclusions were erroneous. In reading the book it seemed to me like Waldron really didn't even deal some of the Jeremiah 31 verses that dealt with the eternal aspects of the heavenly consummation. He cites Pratt's inconclusive evidence, but really does not offer anything substantial, and in my reading, seemed to skip over some of the important poitns he should have delat with.