Historical Theology
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 57, No. 2 – Spring 2015
Managing Editor: Terry L. Wilder
By Pascal Denault. Vestavia Hills, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2013. 188 pages. Paperback, $29.99.
While Reformed Puritanism was initially sustained by unified views on God’s election, a break arose within the movement concerning baptism. Pascal Denault seizes on this difference and clarifies it in relation to covenantal language in hopes of providing a historical foundation for modern, Reformed Baptists. Utilizing two seventeenth-century Baptist confessions and various writings of Paedobaptist and Baptist theologians, Denault affirms that while many similarities existed between the two parties, ultimately their distinct views on the covenant of grace proved too substantial for reconciliation.
In chapter 1, Denault notes that the Paedobaptist understanding of the covenant of grace, one covenant under two unique administrations spanning the Old and New Testaments, forced them to affirm that the testaments were not antithetical (31). Thus, the “curse of the law” terminology, understood by Paedobaptists as a reference to the covenant of works, was recognized by Baptists as a reference to the covenant of works and the old covenant (32). Due to the New Testament distinction between law and grace, the Paedobaptist affirmation of one covenant of grace seemed unsound to Baptists. Paedobaptists not only drew a distinction between the substance and administration of the covenant of grace, but also drew a distinction within the administration of the covenant into an external administration and an internal substance, accounting for their insistence on the “mixed nature of the church” (51). Consequently, Paedobaptists made circumcision and baptism analogous, allowing for the retention of a “natural posterity” (46-47).
To support this mixed nature, Paedobaptists were forced to separate salvation from the covenant (88). Denault criticizes the contradictory Paedobaptist viewpoint by noting “the Paedobaptists did not purport to be in the Covenant of Grace as the natural descendants of Abraham, but as his spiritual descendants; however they practiced a spiritual ordinance on the basis of natural generation” (87). Denault rightly affirms that this led Paedobaptists to transfer salvific benefits to the non-elect (96-97).
Contrary to this, Baptists argued that both the administration and the substance of the covenant of grace changed with the declaration of the new covenant. However, since the Baptist covenantal position retained a presence of the covenant of grace in the Old Testament, they were inclined to use the term progressive to denote both the possibility of old covenant salvation and the necessity of Christ’s sacrifice (61). The language of waiting for the “full discovery” in the Second London Confession of 1689 affirms this view (61).
Next, Denault denotes the problems inherent within the Paedobaptist view of the Sinaitic covenant as a covenant of works. By denying the Sinaitic covenant as a covenant of works, Paedobaptists opposed the biblical references that affirmed a conditional covenant. Thus, Paedobaptists attributed unconditionality to the Abrahamic covenant and conditionality to the Sinaitic covenant (111). While both parties recognized a dualism within the promises in the Abrahamic covenant, Paedobaptists understood these promises as existent under the covenant of grace. On the other hand, Baptists understood the dualism as existent under two covenants, leading some to affirm the issuance of two divine covenants, Genesis 12 and Genesis 17 for Abraham’s spiritual and natural posterity, respectively (121). Denault critiques the Paedobaptist solution to the relationship between the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants by noting their tendency to “amalgamate” the spiritual blessings with the physical covenant issued for Abraham’s natural posterity through circumcision (125).
In chapter 4, Denault focuses on the Paedobaptist insistence of the new covenant as new, despite their covenantal views. By accepting the certainty of new covenant blessings for believers, specifically its eternality, Denault notes that under Paedobaptist covenantal theology, this covenant suddenly becomes temporary.
Considering the surge of New Calvinism within evangelicalism and the appeal of Presbyterian ecclesiology and polity among Reformed Baptists, Denault’s work on the historicity of Particular Baptists and Paedobaptists is timely for two reasons.
First, while Denault’s selection of seven Paedobaptist and nine Particular Baptist theologians might elicit criticism, his intent to highlight theologians who authored works arguing for either view on covenant theology is clear. Thus, one should not question Denault’s inclusion of John Owen into a Baptistic framework, despite his life-long affection for Paedobaptism.
Second, Denault’s reliance on primary sources guarantees an accurate representation of the historical debate. Ultimately, Denault’s insistence on historical context generally protects him from offering a Whiggish interpretation, a common historical critique.
However, Denault’s work possesses weaknesses that should have been addressed. First, Denault makes an unfortunate reference to Dispensationalism, a nineteenth-century theological system. Since Denault elsewhere remains loyal to the seventeenth century, his reference to a movement that lacked any importance to the seventeenth century is unnecessary, leading one to interpret Denault’s remark as a personal conflict against Dispensationalism.
Second, when discussing the relationship between God and the old covenant, Denault notes, “to be the people of God, under the Old Covenant, was conditional on the obedience of the people” (108). This assertion, coupled with Denault’s later affirmation regarding old covenant members lacking spiritual blessings leads one to question Denault’s theology concerning the spiritual condition of old covenant members. While Denault’s theology allows the blessings of the new covenant to be reinstituted into the old covenant, his terminology disregards the importance of faith.
Third, a contradiction arises when comparing Denault’s introduction with his conclusion. Initially, Denault stresses the uniqueness between Paedobaptist and Baptist covenantal theology by affirming their baptismal distinction as a “stem” from their covenantal difference (5). Yet, in Denault’s conclusion, he credits Paedobaptists with creating “an artificial construction developed to justify an end: Paedobaptism” (155). Thus, if baptism was established and Paedobaptist covenantal theology developed afterwards, then Denault contradicted his earlier statement, “baptism is not, therefore, the point of origin of differences” (5). Overall, Denault’s work is scholarly and is a valuable starting point for seventeenth-century covenantal theology.
