The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nomad

Puritan Board Freshman
I just finished reading this excellent work by Pascal Denault. Following the link are a couple of brief overviews by Dr. Richard Barcellos and Dr. James Renihan.

http://www.amazon.com/Distinctiveness-Baptist-Covenant-Theology-Seventeenth-Century-ebook/dp/B00QZNH38S/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1422139124&sr=1-1&keywords=the+distinctiveness+of+baptist+covenant+theology&pebp=1422139126668&peasin=B00QZNH38S

This book by Pascal Denault is a welcome addition to the literature on an issue that has vexed many for too long. It is clear that the seventeenth-century Particular Baptists' formulation of covenant theology in the Second London Confession of Faith - 1677/89 (cf. 2nd LCF 7.3, for example) was a modified version of the one contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith. But why the different formulation? Denault's work goes ad fontes (to the sources) to find the answer. And that's exactly why I am so thankful for his work. The primary, Particular Baptist sources are where we should start in seeking to understand the theology of our forebears. Denault shows from those sources not only that the Baptist formulation of covenant theology differed but why. It is too easy to note that it differed and then to impose our thought categories upon the Confession to answer the question of why. That is poor scholarship and bad historical-theological method. Denault's method is sound and a much-needed tonic in our day of rediscovering our roots. His findings are illuminating and will challenge many. He argues that the main difference had nothing to do with the covenant of works. The Particular Baptists were of one voice with their paedobaptist brethren on this issue. Neither did the main difference focus on the subjects of baptism, though it was a related issue. The main difference, according to Denault (and I think he is right), had to do with their view of covenant theology, concentrating on the definition of the covenant of grace and the differences between the old and new covenants in light of that definition.
Denault calls Nehemiah Coxe "the most significant Baptist theologian [of the seventeenth century] when it comes to Covenant Theology." He is surely right. Coxe wrote a treatise on the covenants from Adam through Abraham and was, most likely, a co-editor of the 2nd LCF. So any attempt to understand our Confession must start with Coxe and the context in which he wrote. This is what Denault does for us.
It is of interest to note that Coxe did not write on the differences between the old and new covenants due to the publication of John Owen's exposition of Hebrews 8:6-13. The old Baptists agreed with much of Owen's work (and the work of other paedobaptists on this issue). However, they differed with Owen and others on other points. Denault's work reveals to us what those other points were and how they argued from covenant theology to credobaptism.
I heartily commend this work to all Reformed Baptist pastors (and all others interested in covenant theology). Brothers, this is a must-read. As a Reformed Baptist pastor myself, I remember the first time I read seventeenth-century covenant theology from a Baptist perspective. It was both challenging and refreshing. It challenged me to rethink how covenant theology ought to be formulated and it refreshed me on two levels. First, it gave me a sound system of doctrine that reflected the teachings of Scripture from creation to consummation. Second, it helped me understand our Confession better. May this work do the same for many others!

Richard C. Barcellos, Ph.D.
Grace Reformed Baptist Church
Palmdale, CA

Pascal Denault deserves many thanks for his labor in researching and describing the nuances of English covenant theology in the Seventeenth Century. He has uncovered significant factors contributing to the differences between Presbyterian and Particular Baptist thought and practice, describing theological categories in easily accessible terms. He shows that in the formulations of covenant theology, the two groups had both similarities and significant divergences. For example, he shows that the facile popular notion that the Baptists scrupled over the concept of a Covenant of Works in their Confession is utterly false; in fact, they agreed in every way with their paedobaptist counterparts on this issue. But they differed on the nature of the revelation and administration of the Covenant of Grace. This drove their ecclesiology and their practice of credobaptism. This is an important work and deserves wide circulation.

James Renihan, Ph.D.
The Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies
at Westminster Seminary, California
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top