Baptist Covenant Theology (BCT) and Covenant Theology (CT) are NOT the same! While I commend some Reformed Baptists for looking and embracing more and more of CT, there are still some further steps to be taken to call them fully covenantal and not dispensational in their hermeneutic. If BCT is not fully CT then what do they embrace that is different—more discontinuity in the OC/NC (a dispensational hermeneutic) as been shown here in posts on Jer 31, etc. As revealed in previous posts Malone has allowed some dispensational hermeneutic principles to influence his previously held covenantal views (Malone is an ex-Presby and graduate of RTS where CT is taught).

Moreover, just because someone is incorrect in one of his views should we throw out the truth with the error. Calvin was incorrect about inherited depravity in interpreting Romans 5:12-21 embracing the RCC view—do we throw “everything” he said out? Are Calvin's words stripped of all of their historical and theological meaning?

Just because John MacArthur use to support the Independent Fundamental Churches of America "eternal Sonship" doctrinal statement or that he believes in an “age of accountability” (inadvertently believes it is age 20, read, Safe in the Arms of God, p. 45) does this mean we throw “everything” he has ever said away?

While I have disagreed with McMahon in his extreme brand of Covenantalism (and have done so vigorously in posts at the Highway, i.e. Antipaedobaptist Fred Malone-A Critique), his point that Malone “demonstrates his Dispensationalism” is valid … (though I wish he would have used a more irenic tone to do so ...)

Reformed and Always Reforming,