Reconsidering My
Preliminary Considerations
A refutation of my own second article on Baptism and Hermeneutics. (Read
the Addendum)
Refutation
of My Previous Articles
Refuting
Article 2 - The Importance of
Baptism a Necessary Study,
and
Some Preliminary Considerations
Reconsidering
My Preliminary Considerations
by
Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
To
illustrate this idea, I turn to a Particular Baptist writer named Samuel
Waldron. Waldron has
written a short book called “Baptist Roots in America” where he
attempts to define what “Reformed” Baptists are and where they came
from. When defining the
term “Reformed Baptist” he says, “What do I mean by "Reformed
Baptists?" Any attempt to define such terms may be subjective.
This term, however, is in itself extraordinarily clear. By "Reformed Baptists" I intend those churches and
individuals who hold a Baptist view of the church and baptism and who
also hold to the central truths associated with the stream of Reformed
Protestantism flowing out of the Reformation of the 16th Century. These
truths include the doctrines of grace (the five points of Calvinism),
but also encompass the many other vital truths which are entailed in an
understanding of the comprehensive sovereignty
of God in His grace and His law.”
This is all well and good if Waldron is redefining what it means
to be Reformed in the classic sense.
He is right that his subjective interpretation of this idea is
just that – a subjective interpretation.
Reformed theology holds as a central aspect of its theological
system the Covenant ideas surrounding the inclusion of infants and
family in the covenant of grace. If
Waldron is redefining this to suit Baptistic ideas, then he has removed
himself from the realm of classic Reformed Theology, though he may
believe in the sovereignty of God.
He then goes on to say, “The unique doctrinal and practical
outlook of Reformed Baptists was summarized historically in the London
Confession of Faith published in
1689.” This is not true;
at least in the manner he is asserting it.
It should read, “The unique doctrinal and practical outlook of
Particular Baptists was summarized historically in the London Confession
of Faith published in 1689.” I
would have no problem with this statement if he had written it this way.
In 1644, when the first London Confession emerged, and then in
its subsequent revisions in 1646 and 1689, the Baptist factions at that
time were known as the Particular Baptists, not Reformed Baptists.
The term “Reformed Baptists” is rather novel to our day and
age (possibly beginning around 1850) and as a result of Baptists coming
closer to understanding Covenant theology and the themes surrounding
that theological system; though they still reject part of the main
emphasis on that theological system – the inclusion of the family and
generations in the covenant of grace.
(It is also interesting to note to me that when Waldron traces
the roots of Baptists into the American Colonies, he begins his first
chapter by calling them “Particular Baptists” and not “Reformed
Baptists.” At least at
that point, after the preface, he becomes more precise historically
speaking.)
My
statements were much the same as Waldron’s ideas concerning the
Reformed Baptist when I wrote my second article on preliminary
considerations. That is why
I said the church is divided over the issue of baptism.
This is really a caricature statement of the facts.
Historical Christianity has predominately been Paedo-Baptistic,
and it was not until the rise of “later” Puritanism that the Baptist
emerged on the scene from within the Puritan party.
As Waldron notes, in 1660 there were but 4 Particular Baptistic
Churches in all of England. Puritanism had “officially” begun 90 years earlier
without Particular Baptists.
After
making that caricatured statement about the church being divided on the
issue on Infant Baptism, I then pressed the reader to believe, at face
value, the idea of the Christ-Hermeneutic.
As you recall from article 1, this is nonsense.
But, in desiring to keep that in focus to hold up a barrier
between the Old Testament and New Testament I was sure to refresh the
readers mind on the subject.
Then
I moved onto a heavy hitter – the Regulative Principle.
I reminded the reader that the Regulative Principle states the
following, “The regulatory principle argues that God Himself is the
author of worship, and all positive sanctions in worship stem from Him
and His Word.” Okay, this
may be true enough, to an extent, but does not capture the whole idea
behind the principle. For
example, both Credo and Paedo-Baptism rely on deductive arguments for
their positions. In other
words, there are no Scriptures that state “Baptize a man; baptize a
woman; or baptize an infant.” Neither
are there Scriptures that assert, “Do not baptize a man; do not
baptize a woman, or do not baptize an infant.”
The arguments drawn for both Credo or Paedo baptism are drawn
from Scriptural examples or inferences from the text that the reader
distinguishes within their presupposed theological formulations.
But what I did was make the reader believe that the Regulatory
Principle stands in direct opposition to Paedo-Baptism, and this is a
fallacy. The Regulative Principle says much more than what I stated,
including the idea that we are never to take away from what God has
instituted unless he specifically deems this necessary.
That would mean infant inclusion in the covenant of grace all
through the Old Testament would necessarily continue unless God has
specifically taught otherwise in the New Testament.
There is obviously a contention between Particular Baptists and
Reformed Theology on this point which will be taken up more
conscientiously later in an article devoted to that topic.
Suffice it to say at this point that the presupposition I was
trying to propagate through the Regulative Principle was diced according
to my liking and served to the unsuspecting without noting everything
there was to say about the issue. I
noted the Regulative Principle in a biased format.
I
then said, “Before a thorough study of the doctrine of Baptism and of
Infant Baptism, great pains should be taken to read through the New
Testament noting these most import passages; as well as noting those
passages which teach infant Baptism, if any.”
I should have said, “Before a thorough study of the doctrine of
Baptism and of Infant Baptism can take place, great pains should be
taken to read through the Old Testament in order to understand the
themes surrounding covenantal blessings, generations, godly parenting,
familial solidarity, olive trees and the like.”
Rather, I encouraged baptistic friends to run around the New
Testament with their concordances to find every instance of baptism and
attempt to prove, by that kind of study, that Infant Baptism is nowhere
to be found. This is bad
hermeneutics at the outset.
I
then made a plea to the magnitude of the issue.
I do agree with myself on this point, that the issue is a huge
one since it will determine our theological structure before God in our
worship, and will also determine where we go to church.
It has a profound affect on the worship we give Him and the
manner of treating our children before Him.
This is no light matter. Then
I said, “Whatsoever we attain in New Testament worship must be
thoroughly and completely driven by the Word of God.”
This is true to an extent, but not completely delivering the
bigger picture. We do not
begin our theology in the book of Matthew, and then move forward.
Nor do we rest solely on the New Testament for our principles of
worship. Many theologically
sound doctrines that arise out of the Old Testament work their way into
the New Testament to their fulfillment.
Some of these include tithing, the Lord’s Supper (Passover) and
Baptism. But we do not
begin in the New Testament to understand these doctrines.
We begin in the Old Testament first.
When I say that “whatsoever we attain in New Testament
worship” is really not a good phrase at all.
I should have said, “Whatsoever we attain in the church today
for our worship…” That
would have made more sense, both practically and theologically.
The New Testament church is already set in the book of Acts.
We cannot change that at all.
But we can glean from both the Old Testament and New Testament
the principles of worship for our church in our day and age.
I suppose some would like to think of their church as a New
Testament church, but again, I think they are missing the point with
that kind of terminology.
Then
I said, “If [the Paedo-Baptists] doctrines are taken elsewhere, even
through the slippery hermeneutical slope of “reasonable and necessary
inference,” if he is unable to prove its truth from the Word of God,
then it should be extricated.” I
agree. This includes ideas
surrounding Credo Baptism as well as Infant Baptism.
Finally,
I quoted William Shirreff, “Never mistake supposition or mere
assertions for proofs. Never act on a proof proposed, but not
understood. Never confound the creature of imagination with the
conclusions of reason. Never mistake one subject for another, but
distinguish things that differ.” These are words filled with wise and
good exegetical advice. As
a matter of fact, I would have done well to listen to him while I was a
Baptist.
Addendum:
Some
Particular Baptists have emailed me on this article because they think
it is unfair. They believe
they can consistently be Reformed and be Baptist at the same time,
though history and their theology proves otherwise. I
thought I would include this short addendum because I thought that this
argument was most important in the scheme of things. The reasoning against my article is the following idea stated
in a direct quote from a message board post and email I received.
Here is what this fellow said:
“This
second article he tries to argue that Baptists aren't or cannot be
Reformed. In this he holds a contrary position to many of the Puritans
who (such as John Owen and Oliver Cromwell himself) who clearly saw the
Baptists as a faction of the Puritan/Separatist movement. Indeed - the
1689 closely follows all the major points of the WCF (including covenant
theology) - infant baptism, authoritative synods and state churches
excepted. To argue that a strong covenantal understanding only developed
later among Baptists (who then grabbed the 'Reformed' label)
is absurd! Nehemiah Coxe - an editor of the 1689 wrote a treatise
on Covenant Theology and heartily endorsed Owen's CT in it! - hardly a
fringe view then!! The label "Particular" was to distinguish
them from the Arminian 'General' Baptists. None but the most prejudiced
Presbyterians doubted that the Particular Baptists were 'Reformed' or
part of the Reformation heritage. This would be like arguing that
Congregationalists or Puritans or Separatists aren't
"Reformed" because they were not originally called
"Reformed" and rejected the "authoritative synods"
that all the other "Reformed" held to!! To state this is to
show the absurdity of this argument. It cannot be shown that
Particular/Reformed Baptists of the Covenant were beyond the bounds of
Puritan orthodoxy - the only difference is that Particular/Reformed
Baptists were consist in saying that the covenant of grace is made
only with the elect - "in Christ as His seed" (as the
Westminster Larger Catechism states - Q31). Historically - the
Particular/Reformed Baptists originate from a recognised 'Reformed'
Puritan/Separatist tradition. Theologically they held consistently to
the tenants of Reformed theology (Sovereignty of God, TULIP, Covenant of
Grace progressively revealed). Indeed - it is their Reformed &
Biblical consistency that drove them to become despised Baptists.”
First,
Owen and Cromwell, as well as the Puritans, did think the Anabaptist, or
Baptist, were factions of the Puritan movement.
They certainly did not lump them into the “Church of England”
at the time, but on a same note, they also did not condone their
theological stance. If they
did, they would agree with them, which they do not.
Let’s not create a revisionist history here.
Second,
what I think this fellow is missing is that when a Baptist reads Owen,
or any good covenantal theologian, they remain Baptist.
They do not ascribe to the WCF, but hold to the 1689 Baptist
Confession which mimics the WCF on certain points and denies other
points which Owen and Cromwell would have held to.
It follows Covenantal Theology to an extent, but also denies it
in later areas (which will be proven out in a more thorough paper on the
subject later.)
He
is right in stating that Particular Baptists were being distinguished
from General Baptists. There
is no argument there. However,
they were not being included in Reformed Theology and Covenantal
Theology. It is nice that
that the Particular Baptists at the time considered themselves as
“Reformed”, without using the word, but that is the point I was
making!! The mention of
Nehemiah Coxe liking the Covenant Theology of John Owen is an incredible
non-sequitir. Just
because the Baptist says of himself that he is Reformed does not mean
that John Owen would have agreed that the Baptist theology is right –
otherwise, Owen would have been a Baptist!
I would imagine that this fellow would be hard pressed to find
John Owen commending the Covenant Theology of a Baptist.
If Nehemiah Coxe thinks he is a covenant theologian, it simply
proves the point I am trying to make.
Though the Baptist thinks he is not dispensational, and though he
may read through Owen (or any good Covenant Theologian) and agree in
part with his theology, that does not make him a “Reformed” Baptist
– it makes him an inconsistent Covenant Theologian, and a Particular
Baptist theologically. The
two ideas are still mutually exclusive.
All it means is that the Baptist, like Coxe, is still confused
about covenant theology, otherwise he would ascribe to the theology of
men like Owen and Cromwell.
Does
this mean Baptists are not part of the Reformed heritage?
No, not at all. Though
they may be confused about covenant theology and classical Reformed
doctrine, that does not mean they did not arise from its midst.
No one denies this in accordance with Particular Baptists.
Thirdly,
this fellow then mentioned the argument about ascribing to reformed
synods, councils and the like as an argument for being called
“Reformed.” Whether the
Reformed were in the Netherlands, England, Germany or Switzerland, they
remained Reformed. Varied
expressions of their faith emerged such as the Synod of Dordt, The
Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Westminster Confession,
or any of the Genevan documents. Though
they all expressed Reformed theology in their own way they were still
all Reformed and held to Reformed Theology.
To say they did not hold to the basics of Reformed Theology is absurd
in and of itself. This
fellow seems to think that if all Reformed Theologians did not have a
part in writing all the reformed Confession or did not have apart in
sitting at each of the councils then they were not all in agreement.
I would suggest reading a harmony of the Reformed Confessions to
find that they did agree wholeheartedly in every major Reformed Point,
including infant baptism.
As
for the Puritans and Reformers actually being called “Reformed“,
well, they certainly were called that numerous times. Even the most lucid writers of the Puritan Era across Europe
distinguished the difference between what is Reformed and what is not.
For a "short" treatment of this, I would suggest
reading through Turretin’s third volume.
Finally,
as for this fellow’s final appeal to Covenant Theology, I think he is
mentioning aspects of Covenant Theology, but certainly not all of
it, which is the point. It
is great that he believes TULIP, the Sovereignty of God, and certain
aspects of the Covenant of Grace, but he cannot hold to the relationship
between the Covenant of Redemption, the Law Covenant, and the Covenant
of Grace respectively, otherwise he would no longer be a Baptist.
And his statement that Baptists were “despised” at that time
should clue the reader in right away that the Baptist was in fact
deviant in their theological stance, for if they were not, and Covenant
Theologians did agree with them and their theology, they would have
never been despised in the first place.
|
|
Back to the
Covenant Theology
|
