6 thoughts on “New book coming soon: The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, Pascal Denault

  1. “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.”

    Contra Nichols, who does not attempt an explanation as to the slight change of wording, but maintains a distinction of views.


  2. Dennis

    Any chance that the supposed ambiguity in chapter 7 means that modern-day Reformed Baptists are free to solidify and confess what WE think it means? Or, would you say that it is of the utmost necessity that we get a consensus on what they believe IN ORDER TO know what we ought to believe? I’m just thinking about what it might mean to practice reformata semper reformanda here …


    1. Well, the thing is, the language of Savoy and LBCF was intentionally broadened out from WCF to include more views. WCF is very narrow. LBCF is different in that it would include the WCF view as well as Owen and Coxe and Petto’s view as well. So it’s not that WCF’s narrow view was swapped for LBCF’s narrow view. LBCF was expanded to include views that WCF rejected. (at least as I understand the issue – I haven’t read this book yet)

      So I think a variety of views would be acceptable and compatible with the LBCF. However, I think there is tremendous value in at least making sure we understand what the signatories of the confession believed. Not because it requires us to hold the same if we subscribe to LBCF, but because we can learn from them. They thought through these issues under very intense circumstances. For the most part, modern reformed baptists have not sought to understand these men, but paedobaptists of the time instead.

      So by all means, practice reformata semper reformanda… but let’s make sure we actually know what it is we’re trying to reform or improve upon. Until now this has not been done.

      Does that make sense?


  3. Dennis

    Yes it does make sense. Thanks!
    Brandon, in your opinion, what would be the consequences of Reformed Baptists affirming that that the Mosaic is fully an administration of the covenant of grace? Do you believe it’s a) it’s possible to believe this? and b) Good to believe it?


    1. a) I think it’s possible. Walt Chantry, Sam Waldron (Reformed Baptist Manifesto), Fred Malone (Baptism of Disciples Alone), and several others do. If I remember correctly, James Dolezal gives a brief defense of this view from a credo perspective in this interview: http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc96/
      b) I don’t believe the bible teaches that the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace, so ultimately I don’t think it’s good to believe it. Though I think a strong case can be made for it, I’m convinced by places like Hebrews 8 that there is a radical discontinuity between the old and new covenants.


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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s