What is Reddit's opinion of The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

I recommend The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology by Pascal Denault. It was very helpful for me because I knew I was covenantal, but wasn’t convinced of paedobaptism. He offers the 1689 view of covenant theology which is more nuanced and yet doesn’t fall into New Covenant Theology.

Do you have any recommended reading for your theological position? I would recommend The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, but for free, I would recommend the 1689federalism.com website

Going to make a plug for this book again. It puts both views side by side and discusses the pros and cons of both. Extremely balanced and understandable. The single most helpful resource I have come across.

I have read it and I would say it had some problems, but I don't know what they are, if that makes sense. I am currently working through several Presbyterian essays on infant baptism, as well as this book. Looking forward to the conversation afterwards!

As my flair indicates, please check out Denault's The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology before emptying the baptismal.

>or Reformed Baptists, do you guys think that Abrahamic Covenant separates into the canal (seed of Abraham) and spiritual aspect, and only the spiritual aspect (save by faith) has New Covenant typological significance? Or is it that you think the New Covenant is operating in such a different way that we should not draw this kind of typological relationship between the NT and the OT?

This is THE pertinent question and the one that seems to cause all the confusion about whether Reformed (read: Particular) Baptists can be called reformed. I am newly converted to Particular Baptist theology and the 2LBCF (and yes, I do call myself a reformed baptist) so I will attempt to explain, but I'm sure others can do it better and I welcome their additions or corrections.

First, a few references. The best place to go to gain an understanding of why the Particular Baptists insisted they were in the Reformed tradition is Pascal Denault's book "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology." After that, Samuel Renihan's "The Mystery of Christ" is also excellent.

For ease, I'm going to use Reformed Baptist here but what I mean specifically is creedal-confessional-covenantal Baptists who specifically hold to the 2LBCF and choose to identify themselves in the reformed tradition.

So, the Reformed Baptist is fully unified with the truly reformed in their creedalism and in their high view of the church, scripture, liturgy, the regulative principal, Calvinstic soteriology, the Five Solas and in their descent from reformation ideas of Calvin.

Where they disagree is, primarily, in one place: the New Covenant. They see the New Covenant (as foretold by Jeremiah) as synonymous with the Covenant of Grace. They They agree on the Covenant of Works with Adam but they do NOT agree with the two administrations of the Covenant of Grace. They see the Covenant of Grace as as progressively, typologically revealed through the OT covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic). This is the "mystery" of Christ", which is indeed a slowly being revealed bit-by-bit until the Covenant of Grace is fully revealed and enacted by Christ - it ceasing to be a mystery at that point. So, they would, yes, see two facets in the Abrahamic Covenant: a temporal covenant based on his physical seed (fully satisfied in the conquest of Canaan by Joshua and the Hebrews) and a spiritual covenant satisfied in Christ and Abraham's spiritual seed, granted to him by faith.

Because they don't accept the two administrations, they see much more discontinuity between the old covenants and the new. They, using the hermeneutic established by the Apostles, trust that the New Testament always interprets the old and therefore, baptism is defined in the NT as the sign of those who profess faith and are the spiritual seed of Abraham.

It's very hard to understand from the outside (especially because there are so many non-reformed Baptists who have bad theological justifications for credobaptistm) but Reformed Baptists do not hold to credobaptism for the same reasons most SBCers do. Their understanding of covenantal theology that is at the core of their beliefs and that only natural conclusion from that understanding is credobaptism. So, Reformed Baptists aren't baptist because they prefer credobaptism or are uncomfortable with paedobaptism. It's actually because they disagree with the two administrations of the Covenant of Grace.

I'm sure I have many holes here that others can fill in. Please do. And I'm happy to attempt to explain further if I've been confusing.

In conclusion, I would agree very much with the the definition of being reformed in the OP's link. Reformed Baptists can indeed agree to everything there...except for about 1.5 chapters in the WCF. But they can fully subscribe to the 2LBCF.

> Do you mind providing some Scriptural support for that statement?

The most important thing to see is that Mosaic Law is an outgrowth of the Abrahamic covenant made in Genesis 17, rather than something opposite or disconnected. When you separate the two, the land promises made to Abraham go unfulfilled and circumcision takes on a connotation of both grace and law, which contradicts Romans 2:25. The Mosaic Law grows out of the promise God makes in Genesis 17. That is the covenant God remembered when He carried the Jews out of Egypt and gave them Canaan.

Passages such as Exodus 6:1-10, Joshua 5, Genesis 15:18, Exodus 23:31, Joshua 1:3, Exodus 32:13, Psalm 105:8-10, Leviticus 26, and Galatians 3.

A great comparison of the three views (Mosaic and Abrahamic are both law; Abrahamic is grace and Mosaic is law; Mosaic and Abrhamic are both grace) can be found in Pascal Denault's Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology. It's obviously in favor of the baptist view, but is a resource that has helped me greatly.

> what do people specifically have in mind when they use words like "administration" and "republication"? Are they synonymous?

To the best of my understanding, yes, they are roughly the same thing. "Substance", in Presbyterian covenant theology is roughly the purpose of the covenant and "administration" is the how the covenant is administered. Republication is the "re-administration" of a previous covenant. Republication is usually restricted to addressing the covenant of works, because the covenant of works is seen as failing with Adam, so it's "re-administered" later on, in a temporal sense with a different outcome. The covenant of grace is not republished because it never failed and will never fail. It is continuous and has no end.

> Would you mind detailing the reasons for traditional Presbyterians to believe in the Mosaic Covenant to be an administration of the Covenant of Grace?

The majority of the arguments for the Mosaic covenant being a covenant of grace is the stipulations for the forgiveness of sins built into the law. I am familiar with the argument, but I have never found this argument compelling, especially in light of passages such as Hebrews 10:4, 2 Corinthians 3:7-8, and Romans 4:15.

Additionally, the second argument is that the law is gracious in that it pushes people into the arms of Christ, but this can be accomplished from a covenant of works and does not necessitate the substance of the law be grace.

A third and final argument I have heard for the law being a covenant of grace is that God made a covenant when He didn't have to, but isn't that true with even the Adamic covenant of works? It's probably the weakest of the three.

Besides Presbyterians who really dive into covenant theology, seeing the law as a covenant of grace proves difficult to defend, at least in my experience. There is a growing movement within both the PCA and the OPC where the Mosaic Law is seen as a unique covenant of works (republication). The continental reformed churches even allow for the adherence to republication.

In my experience, trying to reconcile Paul's teachings of the law and the teaching that the law is actually inherently grace is what pushed me to the 1689 LBCF.

> Thank you so much, again! I think I'm slowly (but surely) starting to piece covenantal theology together.

No problem at all! As always, feel free to ask any more questions you may have.

No problem. I would recommend this book to get the best idea of my particular (haha) flavor