Speaking of being both Reformed and Baptist...I have been slowing working through an excellent book, Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, edited by Thomas Schreiner and Shawn Wright. The contributors work through the Biblical evidence of baptism, and show quite convincingly (so far, I am only part of the way through the book) that the clearest teachings of Scripture regarding baptism consistently point to baptism, like the other ordinance of the church, the Lord's Supper, as being exclusively reserved for believers and not for the infant children of believers.
Despite what I may disagree with John McArthur about concerning the end times, he has an excellent article on the scriptural refutation of paedobaptism . I especially liked this paragraph….
One other line, one that likely would rile up most Calvinists…Among the Calvinists—among the Reformed people—there is a very important principle which many of them like to use. It’s called the "regulative principle" and it says this, "If Scripture doesn’t command it, it is forbidden." Now, if they would just stick with that, they would be all right. If Scripture doesn’t command it, it cannot be introduced into the church as normative. The theme of the Reformation, of course, "sola fide," "sola gratia," "sola Christus"—that is faith alone, grace alone, Christ alone—also, "sola scriptura," Scripture alone. The theme, the great byword of the Reformation was "Scripture only, Scripture only, Scripture, Scripture, Scripture." And yet, if you go to Scripture, you cannot find one single solitary word about infant baptism—it’s not in the Bible.
Time has come, after all these years since the Reformation, to strip off these remnants of Catholicism that never got dealt with during the Reformation and have been perpetuated, and return to the simple New Testament design.
Quite right! With all due respect to my paedobaptist brethren, infant baptism strikes me as being sentimental eisegesis, something done out of tradition. Unlike virtually every other doctrine among Reformed folks, baptism is the one area where tradition (i.e. all of the early Reformers were paedobaptists!) trumps Scripture.
5 comments:
I understand what you mean (MacArthur's quote) and I used to agree with it, but the regulative principle and infant baptism are products of one's hermeneutic... and not the other way around (for the honest Reformed folk)
I do not think that this broad sweeping statement is what actually happens... One part of Sola Scriptura that MacArthur leaves outs is the hermeneutic that unless abrogated in the NT, it remains... This is distinctly Reformed, Covenantal, whatever you want to call it...
If a person says that in order for something to be applicable to the New Covenant members it must be repeated, then he has stepped into dispensational theology or its cousin New Covenant theology. Obviously, MacArthur can and does do this... He cannot understand the argument for infant baptism because he does not believe in the unity of the covenants... He does not hold to the Solas of the Reformation nor can he as a dispensationalist.
It therefore not connected to worship as a hermeneutic because we look to what is described as the practice of the church in a similar way... we no longer have to have feasts because it has been fulfilled in Christ... the ceremonial laws have been fulfilled (i.e. no longer needed nor will return)
Both infant baptism and the regulative principle are products of a hermeneutic...
For the Reformed person whether Baptist or not, I do not think it feasible to have arguments from someone who does not believe in Covenant theology...
The argument is no longer about hermeneutic in that sense of the covenants, but about how much is carried over by implication of the NT authors...
Just because it is not directly stated in the NT that infants are to be baptized does not mean it is not implied from the OT... To say we should not baptize because of this is like saying women should not receive the Lord's Supper... It is not directly commanded anywhere in the NT...
Now, I have not completely landed in what I hold to, but I do not think that this argument is feasible...
Reading from other Reformed Baptists like Samuel Waldron and Barcellos I think that everything stands or falls on how much continuity is between the covenant signs and seals, and if there is continuity of the sign/seal application to the children of believers as seen in every covenant in the OT...
Let me respond in more detail to that in a little bit, but to my thinking it is not quite analogous. If the NT were silent on the issue of the proper recipients of baptism, I would expect we would turn to clues from the OT, but the NT in my mind IS quite explicit, both in command and in example, about who the proper recipients of baptism are, that is to say those who have come to saving faith in Christ.
I look in the OT to Jeremiah 31 to see the picture of the covenant in Christ, that all will know Him.
Jer 31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
Jer 31:32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.
Jer 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
The keys here in this passage is that a) it is NOT like the old covenant (v.32) and that all who are in it will know Him (v. 34). That passage is the crux of Waldron and Barcellos argument against paedobaptism in A Reformed Baptist Manifesto.
BTW, I guess I hold that people can be right about some stuff and flat out wrong on others. I have both Sproul and MacArthur's Study Bibles and use them both, even though I think MacArthur is wrong on dispensationalism and that Sproul is wrong on baptism. I still find their works useful in other respects, as long as I know that there are areas I disagree with them on.
You are right in quoting Jeremiah 31:31 to show those who are in the New Covenant will know Him, but this does not necessarily mean that the signs and seals have been abrogated from the descendants of those who believe... If you could prove that this does, then I would agree, but I do not see that as of yet...
Where do you see the explicit NT examples and commands when it comes to applying the signs and seals?? You are correct in saying it is not like the Old Covenant in respect to who could obey it or not (salvifically)...
How are you sure that baptism is only for believers when you cannot tell if someone is a believer? Baptism does not in any way affirm that a person is saved... All are required to have faith in order to receive Covenant blessings... This is how it differs from the Old... While in the Old Covenant faith was still necessary, one could receive physical blessings for being apart of the people of Israel, whether or not they believed. The Covenant was physical and spiritual. Now, we are not promised physical wealth when we obey God, but spiritual blessings. They are still both responsible to be faithful to the grace that the sign and seal represent.
Second post,
It may be right to say that someone is correct if they can come to the same conclusion, but I find it hard to say so when they come from polar opposites in relation to their biblical theology and other important things...
Obviously soteriology is the most important and all should flow from it, but I find it hard to align myself with people who do not think that Christ fulfilled or is mediating any of the Covenants... This profoundly affects what redemption actually is and how man can come to God or worship Him...
Thanks for your thoughts...
I am working on a post regarding the New Covenant that may address some of this. The book I referenced has been quite valuable to me, I am about a third of the way through it. What has struck me is how overwhelming the evidence by example is in the New Testament to faith and repentance preceding baptism.
Post a Comment