C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
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]
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]