Strange Bedfellows: Covenant and Baptistic Theology

Reformed and Baptistic theology are a somewhat unnatural mix. If “Reformed Baptist” is a true theology (and it might be) ^[1] it is a truth arrived at by a circuitous route. Because history shows that covenant theology (now virtually synonymous with "reformed") with its signature feature of an over-arching Covenant of Grace, was devised ^[2] for a single purpose: to defend the practice of paedobaptism. The reknowned reformed theologian John Murray wrote: ^[3]

“The most distinctive feature of covenant theology in connection with the sacraments is the inference drawn from the nature of the covenant in support of paedobaptism.”

Murray also describes the two dispensations (what I would call the old and new covenants) as “generically one” (i.e., the overarching covenant of grace) and that the basic premise of paedobaptism is to preserve the unity implied by the single covenant of grace. Infant circumcision doesn't go away, it simply morphs into infant baptism. 

This is echoed by other reformed theologians, e.g. Bavinck: ^[4]

“The covenant was the sure scriptural objective ground upon which all the Reformed, together and without distinction, based the right to infant baptism. They had no other deeper or more solid ground."

As an aside, Bavinck’s use of the universal “all the reformed” would imply that he would not even consider reformed Baptists to be reformed, which is a common view among those of a more Presbyterian slant. But who knows, and what does it matter beyond  #whocaresifyouthinkimreformed twitter fodder? 

Except it is relevant—in the sense that in giving up paedobaptism, and even giving up the over-arching covenant of grace in favor of a two main covenants view, reformed Baptists are jettisoning the very distinctive of at least the original if not the definitive form of covenant theology, and hence of what it meant to be reformed. They are left with an anemic definition of covenant theology, the virtually undisputed claim that redemptive history can be viewed through the lens of progressive covenants. ^[5] Their unity from the old to the new is also much weaker than classic covenant theology and is achieved almost exclusively through the assertion that the decalogue is the once-for-all eternally binding best revelation of God’s moral law. But this claim everyone knows, whether they agree or not, is not a distinctive of covenant theology. For example, most dispensationalists (although they modify it, temporarily, in the unforeseen church age) and fundamentalists would agree.  

My perspective is the the reformed baptists tend to fill the void left by disavowing the raison d'être of reformed theology with other doctrines, many of which they share with Presbyterian covenant theologians, ^[6] such as (for one example of many) the Regulative Principle. They beef-up their theology (not necessarily in a bad way), but not in any manner that makes it more reformed. It just makes it more. And it leads to the formation of parachurch organizations, way-too-many specialized seminaries, expensive conferences, and celebrity pastors (what is Mark Dever's income?) which in a zero-sum game all come at the expense of the widows and the poor.

---

^[1] I claim that the best it can possibly be is a better approximation than any other current theology. I state that with the unprovable assertion that no human theology is going to get it all right. 

^[2] Primarily by Zwingli, and more or less against a single foe, the believer’s baptizing Annabaptists. 

^[3] John Murray, Covenant Theology. 

^[4] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics. 

^[5] For that matter, it can also be viewed through the lens of progressive dispensations, or progressive prophecies, or even progressive miracles. 

^[6] But are not distinctives of covenant theology.