Lots of Fog
A refutation of my third Baptism Article Previously Posted.
Refutation
of My Previous Articles
Refuting
Article 3 – Paedo-Baptist
Thinking
Lots
of Fog
by
Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
Jason
and the Argonauts is a Greek myth about a young prince who is in search
for the Golden Fleece in order to save his mother’s life from a
ruthless tyrant.During his
voyage, Jason encounters all sorts of obstacles.Some of the obstacles are simply part of the voyage and story,
and Zeus, a jealous “god” places some difficult pitfalls in his way,
creating havoc for him.Zeus,
in this one particular instance, blows a wind of fog around the Argo,
Jason’s ship, and they are caught in its dense thickness.Consequently, they hit some rocks and run aground onto an
island in the middle of the ocean.They would have never battered the rocks if Zeus had not blown
the fog in their direction.But
alas, in the story, the fog temporarily blinds them and more adventurous
mishaps pursue.
I
make reference to Jason’s “fog problem” since, in reality, the
problem was not the fog, it was a lack of sight.The fog merely blinded Jason to the real issues at hand – the
rocks ahead.Theology can
sometimes be hidden in a fog, or in philosophical terms; wandering fogs
appear as red herrings to distract us.Red herrings are those fallacious interruptions that seem
as though they are valid arguments, when all along they cloud the issue
(no pun intended.)In my
third article I utilized 3 arguments that I placed at the doorstep of
the Paedo-Baptist’s theological threshold in order to discredit
preliminary thoughts about the manner in which he thinks about Infant
Baptism.I was determined
to prove that the Paedo-Baptist, the thinking Paedo-Baptist, had 3
presuppositions that consistently surrounded his theological view.And by showing these 3 presuppositions to be false, I would
discredit the manner in which the Paedo-Baptist thinks about baptism.Slick eh?We will
look at those in a moment to see if they really are slick, or if I just
thought so at the time.
First,
in my third article against Infant Baptism, I acquiesced to the fact
that not all of Covenant Theology is wrong.That was very polite of me.But I made it a point to stress that, “Paedo-Baptistic Covenant
Theology derives its ideas of infant baptism from this principle of the
“necessary and good inference,” and bases its conclusions on these
inferences.”This is
erroneous.Covenant
Theologians do not simply base their ideas on “good and necessary
inference.”They do base
their conclusions on necessary and good inference from exegetical work,
but not just theological ideas about the text.It was unfair of me to say that Paedo-Baptist Covenant Theology
derives its ideas from good and necessary inference in they way I did
because it seems like they do this by inference and inference alone.The thinking reader should have dismissed this blunder at the
outset.And it is equally
absurd to think that most of the history of the church (those who held
to Infant Baptism) would immediately be discredited as able-bodied
exegetes from my sudden statement.
I
then used a horrible example of how Paedo-Baptists derive all their
theology from good and necessary inference by my “car” illustration.I said that because we drive cars today, then I could deduce that
King David drove a car, though I could not prove it from the bible.I then took the idea and applied it to Infant Baptism.Since Paedo-Baptists baptize infants today, they think that the
early church did so as well.This is a dim-witted example and a foolish statement to have
made.It is certainly an ignoratioelenchi (irrelevant conclusion) par excellance.After this, I showed how good and necessary inference works to
our advantage in the Regulative Principle.We should believe the Regulative Principle though it is not
stated in the Bible in a concise manner, and we draw good and necessary
inference from ideas through the Bible to come to a conclusion about
that principle.In other
words, I said the Paedo-Baptist was wrong for doing his theology in this
manner in reference to baptism (at least in my own thinking about the
way he did theology) and then turned right around and applauded certain
uses I liked about that kind of theology stated in the Regulative
Principle.Talk about
inequitable!
Now
we move onto the presuppositions I mentioned earlier.I had three of them that I thought were “watershed” ideas
about Paedo-Baptist theology: “1) though the peripheral and outward
ordinance is different (circumcision of the flesh in the Old Testament
and water baptism in the New Testament) the meaning is the same. Though
the sign changes, the intention of God behind the sign does not. 2) If
the children of believers were included in the poorer, more beggarly
dispensation of the covenant, i.e. the Old Testament, how could they
then be excluded from the richer, more extravagant new covenant in the
New Testament under the abundant grace of Jesus Christ? 3)
Paedo-Baptists believe that the infants baptized are under the grace of
Christ, and are saved, and should be treated as such.”It is important to note at the outset that as a Paedo-Baptist I
do not hold these three ideas as evidences of good and necessary
inference, nor do I think they are the three things that every
Paedo-Baptist is thinking about in relation to Infant Baptism.As a Baptist, how did I come to this inside information
concerning the minds of all Paedo-Baptists?A former Paedo-Baptist who switched to Credo-Baptism thought this
way and believed, sincerely, that all Paedo-Baptists thought that way.This is not true and not accurate even from a causal glance at
varied Paedo-Baptistic systematic theology books.Shame on me for asserting such ideas based on misinformation.
Let’s
look at each one individually.“Though
the peripheral and outward ordinance is different (circumcision of the
flesh in the Old Testament and water baptism in the New Testament) the
meaning is the same. Though the sign changes, the intention of God
behind the sign does not.”The
first presupposition has some truth to it, but is certainly
wrenched from its context.There
is much more to study surrounding the context of this assertion before
giving a glib answer to the reality of it.However, it should be said that this statement is not a
fundamental thought in Covenant Theology until later on when
foundational issues about what circumcision signifies is dealt
with adequately.For now,
it is important to note that on the issue of Infant Baptism, this is not
the first design I am going to pull out of my Paedo-Baptist pocket in
order to help Baptists understand my position.(More will be said on the context of this statement and it
significance in later articles.)
The
second presupposition is nonsense.To use semantic word games is not helpful in theology.We have enough of that going around evangelicalism today and
should stop burdening people with such mish-mash as quickly as possible.Unfortunately, good theologians, like the late John Gerstner,
used this in his argumentation for Infant Baptism.This is a not the manner in which Reformed theology should argue
the point at all.As a
matter of fact, I personally like to stay as far as I can from non
sequitirs like this when arguing.Rather, emotionally based arguments like this one, which appeal
to the parents of infants and not back to exegetical work, are not
supportive.However, it
should be said that this line of thought is not the foremost mindset of
Paedo-Baptists in general.When
I reflect about the foundational truths surrounding the baptism of
infants, I am not thinking about this argumentation at all.
Thirdly,
the final presupposition that I said “all” Paedo-Baptists hold to is
that they “believe that the infants baptized are under the grace of
Christ, and are saved, and should be treated as such.”This is also an extreme form of Baptistic nonsense.No Reformed Paedo-Baptist who is worth their weight believes that
the moment infants are baptized that they are saved.This is often confusing to Baptists because the Paedo-Baptist
will say that the child is in the covenant of grace, though not saved.Although this requires explanation, my intent at this point
is to simply rid us all of the idea that children, when baptized, are
saved.Paedo-Baptists do
not believe in Baptismal Regeneration.However, the reader must be made aware that there are factions
out there, many of which are Hypercalvinist in their approach to the
Bible, that do believe infants are saved when they are baptized.This is not the norm, and should not be thought of as the norm.Orthodox Paedo-Baptists believe that the baptized infants of
believing parents (or one believing parent) are baptized into the
covenant, but not saved.Paedo-Baptists
do not believe that the covenant of grace is coextensive with salvation
– another point to be taken upon later that is often confusing for
Baptists to hear.Yet,
Baptists should take the time to understand why Paedo-Baptists do
not believe that salvation is coextensive with the covenant of grace
seen in both the Old Testament and New Testament.This hurdle is a milestone to climb and conquer, but is well
worth the time to understand.Then,
and only then, will the Baptist understand why the Paedo-Baptist
believes that important point.
After
making mention of these three presuppositions that I said were watershed
ideas for the Paedo-Baptist (though they are not) I next demonstrated on
how the New Testament was more spiritual than the Old Testament.I quote Jeremiah 31 as my ultimate proof text, again reiterated
in the New Testament in Hebrews 8, to ensure my readers that the New
Covenant is just that, “new.”After
reading through that paragraph I confused myself.First I said Old Testament believers are saved in the same manner
(by faith in the Messiah) as New Testament believers, but then I said
that the Old Testament was external in its spirituality unlike the New
Testament that is internal.This
makes little sense to the thinking reader.I then made this statement as a summary, “Thus, the meaning
behind circumcision (inclusion in the camp) and regeneration (inclusion
in the invisible church) are totally different.”This is another one of those “hogwash” statements.(That’s a fancy theological term for things that are Biblically
erroneous.)This demonstrates that I did not understand the meaning
behind circumcision or baptism.Both
circumcision and baptism are signs and seals of the reality of
regeneration, though those circumcised or baptized are not necessarily
regenerated.(This will be
taken up later on its own in a more complete article.)As it stands now, I simply want to draw your attention to the
fact that I really did not understand the Paedo-Baptist position as I
had previously thought.My
statements prove this out easily.
I
concluded my third article by asserting the following summary point,
“Baptism is the outward sign of the inward change. Circumcision is the
outward acceptance of a nation-state obeying the commandments of God to
be included in the external covenant of God’s redemptive plan. These
are not the same things at all.”What do I mean, “circumcision is the outward acceptance of a
nation-state?”This is
certainly not what Abraham believed it to mean.And when Isaac took the knife and had Esau circumcised, there
was no nation state to speak of – but unregenerate, reprobate Esau was
circumcised nonetheless.This
is a very misconstrued sentence to use as a summary statement, in my
opinion.It certainly makes
no sense to me now, and seems as though affluent oratory took the place
of exegesis.However, I
did, at the very end of the article mention that I had not “yet”
done any exegetical work in particular, and such explanations
exegetically would come at a later time.I created a safe house with those words so that critics (like
myself now) would not tear my article to shreds.I was simply attempting to shock the Paedo-Baptist into thinking
about his position more clearly, though I was befuddling him with my
misconstrued ideas about what I thought he believed.Really what I did was to fog up the issues quite nicely.These presuppositions are not the foundation of the
Paedo-Baptists’ ideas concerning Infant Baptism.They are misunderstood formulations of Baptistic interpretations
about Paedo-Baptistic theology.
Lastly,
I stated, “We will later discuss some other key concepts of the
Paedo-Baptists which flow out of their deductions.”I believed everything the Paedo-Baptist thought concerning Infant
Baptism was formulated around deductions.As we all know, there is no text in the New Testament that
states, “Baptize infants of believing parents.”But what I failed to recognize is that there is no statement that
says, “Baptized professing believers after they have believed and
repented.”Both Credo and
Infant Baptism both, to varied extents, rest on deductive logic from
each camp’s exegetical work.I
seemed to have placed “good and necessary inference” at the
Paedo-Baptists’ door without realizing that it is just as much at the
foot of the Baptistic threshold as I though it was for them.
