Home > books, covenants, recommended > The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology

The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology

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) … Consequently, none of them endorsed the theology of one Covenant of Grace under two administrations (58). [Note: apparently 1 or 2 Calvinist Baptists did endorse the two administration theology]

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!

About these ads
Categories: books, covenants, recommended
  1. February 22, 2013 at 8:39 am | #1

    NOW we’re talkin’! Thanks, Brandon, for bringing this to our attention.

    • February 22, 2013 at 8:42 am | #2

      Jim Renihan on Amazon: 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.

    • February 22, 2013 at 8:43 am | #3

      And, Richard Barcellos: 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!

  2. February 22, 2013 at 9:13 am | #4

    Good review, Brandon. I’m well into KtC and it looks *nothing* like the 17th century Baptists. It is about as historically detached from a Baptist heritage as one could imagine. One might conclude that Baptists had never even had a clue about federal theology until KtC, all of which makes Denault’s book refreshing.

  3. February 22, 2013 at 9:18 am | #5

    Thanks for this very nice review. Really you made me want to read my book again ;-) I didn’t realised, while I was working on it, that it would present an understanding quite different from what most modern reformed Baptists believe.

    Here are two quotes that were sent to me yesterday, the 1st by Richard Barcellos and the 2nd by Samuel Renihan (James Renihan’s son). It is concerning the view of the Old Covenant as being an absolute convenant of works only for Christ:

    “Therefore, did he, all the days of his flesh, serve God in a covenant of works; and was therein accepted with him, having done nothing that should disannul the virtue of that covenant as to him” (Owen, Works, II:65).

    “As the first Covenant was built upon the righteousness of the first Adam; So the second is built upon the righteousness of the second Adam: and it will plainly appear in this Covenant of grace, that there is no condition on our part to entitle us to the blessing of it; it is true, to our head Christ this Covenant was conditionall, though to us it is free; to him it was a Covenant of works, hence Christ is called the Mediator, Witness and Surety of this new Covenant.” (Robert Purnell, A Little Cabinet Richly Stored… (London, 1657), 30.)

    • February 22, 2013 at 9:32 am | #6

      Hi Pascal, thanks for these, and for your book. I started down this road a number of years ago also not realizing I would end up somewhere different from most reformed Baptists. The Coxe/Owen volume was very helpful in sorting things out.

      Not that he is in agreement with Owen or Coxe’s federalism, but Robert Reymond has a line in his systematic theology that says “The New Covenant was a Covenant of Works for Christ” (paraphrasing). I can’t locate it at the moment though.

      • February 22, 2013 at 9:44 am | #7

        Brandon,
        What is the title of the Coxe/Owen volume to which you allude?
        Is this the same of which Pascal writes?
        Thanks.

  4. February 22, 2013 at 9:40 am | #9

    “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).”

    You know, that’s how I interpreted Coxe as well, but you had me doubting myself, haha! Glad to see this new book has clarified things a bit.

  5. February 22, 2013 at 9:42 am | #11

    What of Blackburn’s Covenant Theology: A Baptist Distinctive from last year?
    Anyone reviewed it?

    • February 22, 2013 at 9:53 am | #12

      I have it, but haven’t read it yet. It is a compilation of essays from Blackburn, Chantry, and others (it’s not a systematic treatment). And, btw, you can get a better price on these books through Solid-ground-books.com

  6. February 22, 2013 at 10:04 am | #13

    Thanks on Coxe/Owen & thanks on Blackburn & Co.
    Look forward to your Balckburn review.
    (Just found your Amazon review of Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ.)

  7. February 22, 2013 at 10:11 am | #14

    A friend just sent me this:

    ” This is an excellent book! If you’re still not sure you want read, here is another review:
    http://trinitybaptistreformed.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-distinctiveness-of-covenant.html?showComment=1361385191360

    Quote therefrom: Denault summarizes the problem with the paedobaptist position in his conclusion. “Presbyterian federalism was an artificial construction developed to justify an end: paedobaptism. . . We do not purport that paedobaptists were dishonest, but, at the very least, that they were profoundly influenced by their tradition.”

    He concludes: “In no way did the Baptists reject reformed theology; however, they reformed its foundations in order to give the edifice a more solid base and much greater harmony with the doctrines of the grace of God” (page 156).” (Dale Crawford, Trinity Baptist Church, Baton Rouge, LA)

  8. Jim Butler
    February 22, 2013 at 2:37 pm | #15

    Good review of an excellent book. Thanks Brandon.

  9. February 22, 2013 at 5:44 pm | #16

    “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).”

    This is and interesting distinction, but it suffers from a fatal flaw–It cannot be sustained by an exegetical treatment of Scripture. The reality is, the blessings or curses of the Old Covenant were precisely based on perfect obedience or disobedience. It is true God passed over the many offenses of believers under that covenant, but the passing by of sins had nothing to do with the Levitical priesthood and its sacrifices apart from the fact that they foreshadowed the work of Christ. The multitude of those sacrifices failed to take away a single sin. They merely maintained a formal ceremonial relationship between God and the Israelites. Since they could not satisfy for sins, they could maintain nothing in terms of spiritual reality. Like believers under the New Covenant, believers under the Old Covenant were justified by the work of Christ through faith in God’s promises. Romans 3 makes it clear God was justified in passing over those sins not because of Levitical sacrifices, but based on the propitiatory work of Christ. At best, the Levitical sacrifices were a faint shadow of that propitiation.

    Neither the Old nor New Testament Scriptures say anything about the covenant being broken only if Israel habitually sinned and were marked nationally as a rebellious people who disregarded God’s Word. What both Testaments declare is that every one who does not continue in all the things that are written in the book of the Law would be cursed. It took but one transgression of that covenant to violate the covenant. That the Israelites persisted in their recalcitrant rebellion against their covenant God, only aggravated their condemnation. Even the believers among them were covenant-breakers. The covenant could only be kept by the Jesus, consummate Israelite, and the blessings of that covenant can only be enjoyed by being united to him by faith.

    • February 22, 2013 at 7:04 pm | #17

      Hi Randy. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I would encourage you to have a more sympathetic approach to your rhetoric. Your comment about lack of exegetical support contributes much heat without much light to the conversation. I would greatly appreciate a genuine critique to any perspective that I hold, and the rhetoric is just unnecessary to that end (I have been often guilty myself).

      I should emphasize that this is a very brief review and my words should not be considered an adequate summary of the book. Have you read the book yet? If not, might I ask that you refrain from critique until doing so?

      • February 22, 2013 at 7:17 pm | #18

        Provide the exegetical support, and it won’t be an issue. My comment was not “rhetoric.” It was merely a statement of fact. The statement cited is simply contrary to the teaching of Scripture. If you can find a statement in the Bible that supports the idea stated, I would be more than happy to consider it. Until then, I won’t bother you again with comments.

        • February 22, 2013 at 7:22 pm | #19

          Great, thanks Randy. Again, this is a review, not the book itself

  10. February 22, 2013 at 7:25 pm | #20

    I would start by asking why did the Old Covenant had a sacrificial system if it required perfect obedience from every Israelite… This priesthood was the foundation of the Old Covenant Heb. 7:11. A covenant of works does not offer a substitute to pay for your sins.

  11. February 23, 2013 at 11:20 am | #21

    Pascal – Sorry, but missing all three of your points here:

    [1] …why did the Old Covenant had a sacrificial system if it required perfect obedience from every Israelite?

    [2] This priesthood was the foundation of the Old Covenant Heb. 7:11.

    [3] A covenant of works does not offer a substitute to pay for your sins.

    Per: Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? {Heb. 7:11, NKJV}

    Short of reading your tome, I appreciate any clarification you* can here provide.

    Thanks,
    Hugh

    (* Or Brandon or Patrick or . . .)

    • February 26, 2013 at 5:10 am | #22

      It might clarify to compare the Old Covenant (Covenant of Circumcision/Sinaitic Covenant) with the original Covenant of Works with Adam. The latter was an absolute covenant of works. One transgression and it was broken beyond repair, thus requiring a second Adam. The former explicitly re-published the law of the original in greater detail, but it functioned differently as a covenant. A ceremonial sacrificial system and priesthood served to counteract the people’s sins, so that even if/when there was sin, it could be covered so as to keep the covenant intact and ongoing, with the blessings of remaining in the land, etc.

  12. February 25, 2013 at 3:01 pm | #23

    Brother Hug.
    It was actually just one point. The idea I was trying to bring was that the Old Covenant did not required an absolute obedience like the Covenant of Works. I base this assertion on the fact that the Old Covenant was expecting sins to be committed by the covenant people and gave a priesthood to re-mediate that problem (this is something that an absolute Covenant of Works doesn’t do). Heb 7:11 is a proof text concerning the Old Covenant being enacted through the Levitical priesthood “for under it the people received the law”, a better translation is: “for on the basis of it the law was given to the people”. So the Old Covenant was established on a redemptive system.

    Does it make sense?

    • Hughuenot
      February 25, 2013 at 3:17 pm | #24

      Thanks, Bro. Pas.,

      No, it doesn’t really. But thank you for answering me. I’ll give it some thought.

      Hugh

  13. February 25, 2013 at 3:03 pm | #25

    With Samuel Petto, John Owen and some Baptist theologians, I believe that the Old Covenant was an absolute Covenant of Works for Christ. But it was a special kind of covenant of works since it allowed him to be a substitute for his people’s sin

  14. Lucas Enge
    February 26, 2013 at 3:29 pm | #26

    Thanks for the great review Brandon. I look forward to reading Denault’s work along with Nichols and Blackburn in the not too distant future. Plus that class on Covenant Theology at Trinity should be a blast!

  15. Dennis
    March 17, 2013 at 5:01 pm | #27

    What would you guys say is the next step forward in Reformed Baptist scholarship to help clear this up? It seems we are a little more muddled in our definitive understanding of covenant theology than perhaps our Presbyterian brethren. What would you say is the single point of contention that would help settle the score for Reformed Baptists and move us in a united direction? I ask because I’m in the process of looking into PhD programs in systematic/historical theology and would like to do work that is substantial and helpful. Pascal, perhaps you have some ideas on where study can be focused – I’d love to hear from you. Blessings!

    • March 17, 2013 at 6:22 pm | #28

      Well, I’d say first of all that Paedobaptist CT is not as monolithic as they’d have us believe. There’s an essay in The Law Is Not of Faith which highlights many differences among Paedo theologians with regard to the Mosaic Covenant alone.

      I’m no expert in the field, but I’d say a good step forward is to make the works of 17th century Particular Baptists more available, as well as writing new material in light of modern language, developments in scholarship, theological advancements in other areas, responding to more recent works (dispensationalism and new covenant theology, for instance), etc. With the stuff we’ve been seeing lately, I’d say the future is looking bright!

    • March 17, 2013 at 7:32 pm | #29

      To echo Patrick, Presbyterians are very “muddled” or “of varied opinion” on covenant theology. There are camps very much at battle with each other, each seeing the other as unconfessional. See here for example: https://sites.google.com/site/mosaiccovenant/home

      In terms of uniting Reformed Baptists? I think we need to give them all time to read the recently published (and soon to be published) works first ;) Many are simply unaware of these differences of opinion

      As far as recommending a course of study, I’ll leave it to those much more qualified to answer.

Comment pages
1 2 1454
  1. March 3, 2013 at 8:36 am | #1
  2. March 28, 2013 at 10:05 am | #2

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 65 other followers

%d bloggers like this: