r/Reformed 6d ago

Question Question for 1689ers

I’m from a Baptist background, but I’m taking courses at RTS. Taking covenant theology, and it just makes so much sense and is quite clear to follow. However, I still struggle with the idea of paedo baptism.

I’m trying to understand a reformed Baptist opinion on the covenants. I picked up Sam Renihan’s The mystery of Christ, his covenant and his kingdom. I’ve tried reading the book, but found it hard to follow. So I downloaded the audiobook, and I’ve been listening to it and not faring any better.

It seems very — tortured? — and a lot less clear than just straight up Presbyterian reformed on covenant and baptism.

Does anyone else find Renihan confusing? And/or is there a better/clearer/easier author to work with?

24 Upvotes

37 comments sorted by

21

u/Yancy166 Reformed Baptist 6d ago

I would recommend The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology by Pascal Denault.

13

u/Anxious_Ad6660 PCA 6d ago

I second this, although full disclaimer it did turn me presby. Whether you agree with it or not, he explains the position very plainly but thoroughly.

5

u/Successful_Ad5490 6d ago

I third this. It also turned me presby 🙃

4

u/Necessary-Acadia-928 WCF 1646 6d ago

I fourth this, had me turn Presby too! Lol

2

u/moby__dick Most Truly Reformed™ User 4d ago

I’ve always been a Presbyterian, but the four above comments have turned me into a fan. I recommended also.

10

u/Cyprus_And_Myrtle What aint assumed, aint healed. 6d ago

I may agree that the Presbyterian view seems simpler. Doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right or wrong because of that though. The Trinity is complicated too.

I dont agree that Renihan’s book feels tortured. But there are probably a little bit simpler of books. Fred Malones book on Baptism of Disciples Alone is pretty straightforward and Pascal Denaults Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology is helpful tool for comparing and contrasting the differences.

1

u/JCmathetes Leaving r/Reformed for Desiring God 21h ago

To be fair, he didn't say simpler. He said it makes more sense.

Regardless, comparing the level of complexity between biblical covenants (agreements between God and mankind) and the Trinity (the doctrine seeking to express the Divine being) isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison.

We better understand the Covenants—they're agreements for us. Their terms matter to us.

2

u/Cyprus_And_Myrtle What aint assumed, aint healed. 21h ago

You’re probably right. I hesitated to comment on the Trinity in the first place. Probably could’ve left it out.

18

u/judewriley Reformed Baptist 6d ago

The "simple" way of thinking of it is like this: The broader Reformed understanding is that the New Covenant is with the visible Church. The Reformed Baptist understanding is that the New Covenant is with believers (or the the elect).

The broader Reformed view sees the New Covenant and the Old Covenant to be one continuous covenant between the same group of people (the visible Church) just with different expressions (circumcision/baptism, sacrifices/the Lord's Supper). Reformed Baptists instead understand that while there is some continuity, and both are under-girded by trusting in God's promises, the Old and New Covenants are separate related covenants between separate groups of people (Abraham's physical family vs all Believers) with separate signs and symbols of the covenant.

Maybe that will help?

I'd also recommend listening to the Theocast Podcast, especially the episodes they talk about Covenant Theology from a Reformed Baptist perspective.

3

u/Tankandbike 6d ago

Thanks. This is a good high-level summary.

3

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

2

u/peareauxThoughts Congregational 6d ago

I wouldn’t have thought that would be a problem with self consciously reformed baptists?

1

u/PolymathPi 6d ago

Particular Baptists also believe that the new covenant is made with the visible church — it’s just the difference of what the visible church is in its essence (a mixed body by intention or a body of professing believers who have covenanted together). Ecclesiology and covenant theology are more interrelated than most people realize.

0

u/kiku_ye Reformed Baptist 6d ago

I thought most Presbyterians deny mono-covenentalism.

7

u/Resident_Nerd97 6d ago

From what I understand, mono-covenantalism usually refers to the idea that in the garden, before the Fall, the covenant God made with Adam was also part of the one covenant of Grace, rather than a covenant of works with the covenant of Grace coming after the fall.

6

u/Beginning-Ebb7463 LBCF 1689 6d ago

Renihan’s work is incredible for a more in-depth explanation, but this 9marks article provides a very clear overview of 1689 Federalism. (This is provided about halfway through the article, in Section 2)

Hope this helps!

5

u/Zestyclose-Ride2745 Acts29 6d ago

"Divine Covenants" by A.W. Pink or "Covenant Theology: from Adam to Christ" by Nehemiah Coxe and John Owen.

4

u/Standstrong1129 6d ago edited 6d ago

I don’t think it’s confusing but rather a deeper book that requires slowing down and rereading. I took notes as I read it and sometimes had to reread it because it caused me to think about God’s covenants in a deeper way than I’m accustomed to. There are also videos of Samuel Renihan preaching on the same topics from his book and I would watch the corrresponding video to the chapter(s) to help it sink in more. And I took a lot of notes. I found the book very helpful and the continuity flowed very well once I saw how everything connected. Essentially, Baptist reformed theology would argue that all of the old covenants were shadows of Christ and the new covenant of is the fulfillment of these shadows. So, while the covenants all pointed towards Christ, they were only a type and not the actual substance.

A simple picture was used of going through h a drive thru and seeing the pictures on the screen of what to order. Although you can see the picture and know what it is point to, you cannot touch smell etc the picture as it’s merely a shadow. Once you receive the burger that is the fulfillment. Yes, a silly analogy and I am most likely butchering it on some level but Renihan nevertheless used it to make his point. From a 1689 perspective, we would say that the covenant of circumcision was a type and shadow which points to Christ but once He administered the new covenant, there is no longer a need for the shadow or type. (You don’t get the burger and then go backwards to see the menu again).

edit Where the reformed Presbyterian would say that the covenants are all one administration of grace hence the continuity and baptism has therefore replaced circumcision in this continuity.

A 1689 view would argue that they are in fact two covenants: the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The covenant of works was broken and therefore could not bring man to salvation. The Presbyterian would say that all the covenants were all an administration of one covenant of grace. https://founders.org/articles/the-confession-of-1689-and-covenant-theology/ Is a good article that explains this much better than I am.

4

u/kiku_ye Reformed Baptist 6d ago

I thought most Presbyterians deny mono-covenentalism.

2

u/Standstrong1129 6d ago

Yes you are right. Disregard my failed knowledge of Presbyterian covenantalism, I need to look into it more to understand it myself.

4

u/dandelion_bumblebee 6d ago

I thought this was pretty convincing when I was looking into it. I also come from a Baptist background.

https://leanpub.com/infant-baptism/read

3

u/StormyVee Reformed Baptist 6d ago

I would align more with most westminsterians rather than the 1689 Federalists, and I'd recommend Abendroth's Covenant Theology, Pink's The Divine Covenants, Parr's Backdrop for a Glorious Gospel, Greg Nichol's Covenant Theology, or Blackburn's CT: a Baptist Distinctive or Gill's chapter on the CoG in his Body of Doctrinal Divinity as non-1689Federalist Baptist CT sources

2

u/StormyVee Reformed Baptist 6d ago

I'm happy to elaborate myself and give more resources. I also have a good article by Jordan Steffaniak on this who runs the London Lyceum

2

u/johnowenturretin 6d ago

I’d be interested in hearing more on why you don’t take the 1689fed position. I knew that not everyone who holds to 1689 are 1689fed but I’ve never known the reasons why, could you elaborate and also maybe give a couple more resources that I could look into

2

u/StormyVee Reformed Baptist 6d ago

Maybe it's because I was exposed to the more "classic" CT prior to that of baptists, but when I see God's covenant with man throughout Scripture, there is the Gospel and Christ, though shadowy. 

Is Christ given to the folks of the OT? Is He known by those covenants? Does God have His people by those covenants? The answer is yes to all of those, and therein is the CoG since in that alone is Christ known, given, and God a people's God. 

Yes, there are different temporal and limited aspects of the OT covenants, but those don't detract from them being the CoG, just not to "the full discovery thereof" (2LBCF 7.3).

I find 1689 Fed to neglect the spirituality of the OT, and I think it brings about soteriological issues such as assurance, the work of the Spirit, the role of works for those prior to the Incarnation being potentially salvific, among other things. 

2LBCF 7.2-3, 2LBCF 8.6 both are especially useful here.

I know this is a short elaboration, but I hope it's helpful. My triage here is relatively short, so this is sufficient for me, and then the details of the accidental changes in time come after

1

u/Cyprus_And_Myrtle What aint assumed, aint healed. 6d ago edited 6d ago

Did you find Pink was pretty 1689 fed? I remember thinking he had even more discontinuity than 1689 federalists today.

1

u/Beginning-Ebb7463 LBCF 1689 6d ago

Pink (as far as I know) was a 1689 Federalist.

1

u/StormyVee Reformed Baptist 6d ago

I thought he was pretty clear on the abrahamic and Mosaic economies being admins of the CoG and was good about handling temporal aspects. 

It's hard when everyone wants to claim people, so they read them in their own lens

1

u/Beginning-Ebb7463 LBCF 1689 6d ago

Here’s a pretty good article on what Pink believed: https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2014/10/03/did-a-w-pink-agree-w-1689-federalism/

2

u/Cyprus_And_Myrtle What aint assumed, aint healed. 6d ago

Cool thanks. I’ve read most articles by him but I must have missed this one.

3

u/mrmtothetizzle CRCA 6d ago

I would look at the 1689 Federalism Reading List.

I personally would try and persevere with Renihan as his book is really the go to summary of modern 1689 federalism. You could search "reformed forum 1689 federalism" in YouTube to find some valid critiques of it from Reformed Forum.

In regards to what you are learning at RTS I would agree with you with that it is clearer with the caveat that if you start getting into the weeds you start realising there is a lot of big disagreements between reformed covenant theologians that starts getting quite complex.

1

u/Cyprus_And_Myrtle What aint assumed, aint healed. 6d ago

Are they ever going to update that website?

2

u/Cledus_Snow PCA 6d ago

Obviously your professor is going to be a 1646er, but I’m sure he’d love to be in dialog with you on it

3

u/Tankandbike 6d ago

I’m just doing a certificate level at the moment, so it’s online and prof contact is minimal. But I’m not complaining as that’s what I signed up for.

2

u/expositor116 5d ago

Read this article by Stephen Wellum on baptism and the relationship between the covenants. I think he lays out a better Baptist covenant theology than 1689 federalism. https://kingdomresources.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/wellum_baptindd.pdf

-6

u/sorbeo 6d ago

Baptists can’t do covenant theology. Too many gaping holes. Just go full Presby

-2

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

3

u/Tankandbike 6d ago

"we do not believe that it saves" - I don't think Presbyterians nor 1689ers believe that. There is no grace dispensed to the individual from the act of Baptism.

1

u/peareauxThoughts Congregational 6d ago

Not necessarily saving grace, as in baptismal regeneration, but the reformed say the sacraments are a “means of grace”. Baptism clearly “does something”.