The Rejection of the Baptism of Disciples
Alone
The newest book by Baptists on
Credobaptism. It is a wishy washy, non-convincing book even by Reformed
Baptist standards.
The Baptism of
Disciples alone
by Fred Malone
Founders Press, Cape Coral, FL , 2003..
284 Pages, Hardback
The
Rejection of the Baptism of Disciples Alone
By C.
Matthew McMahon
This paper is not an exegetical attempt at Paedo-Baptism.
It is a huge question mark on the new book put out by Fred Malone
on believer’s baptism. Some
important questions are raised and some exegesis must be offered.
But it is more an inquiry into the “why” of the book, rather
than a through exegetical attack against it.
Fred
Malone, “once” a Presbyterian, but now a Baptist, has written a
polemical work on baptizing disciples alone.
In doing this he attempts to approach it from a covenantal
framework, and in a manner that expresses Baptistic concepts and
formulations concerning covenant inclusion, covenant structure, and the
sacraments that go along with these formulations. Malone has written a work that reshapes and redefines the
“covenant structure” of the Bible.
In this he, and those who endorse the book, continue to produce
works that misrepresent Covenant Theology, as well as misuse
Paedo-Baptist sources while doing so.
Yes, Malone has succeeded in setting forth a different
theology than historical orthodoxy that surrounds baptizing disciples
alone. He does this, so
he thinks, with the Reformation’s approval in discarding traditional
exegesis, and offering a brand new paradigm (though it is not “new”)
of covenantal theology (this is not to be confused with Covenant
Theology that vehemently disagrees with Malone’s thesis.)
This
writer awaited eagerly the book, “The Baptism of Disciples Alone” by
Fred Malone, to read the best defense of Credo-baptism to date.
Founders Press, the faction of the Southern Baptist movement that
desires to return to its roots believing the doctrines of grace, has a
stalwart champion writing against Paedo-Baptism.
Malone had already written “A String of Pearls Unstrung” and
this book is a development of those ideas.
This writer wishes he had never done such a thing, for the same
errors in his booklet are expanded and purported in the name of
“covenantal” theology in this new book as well.
Upon receiving this work, I immediately went to the bibliography
(not the table of contents) to check Malone’s sources.
Bibliographies tell us the mind of the author quite quickly.
I found the bibliography lacking.
This is going to be a “covenantal” book helping the Christian
church understand the covenant sign of baptism.
I would figure his “extensive” bibliography would include the
best covenantal works to date.
I was sorely disappointed. He
did not have any of Owen’s works except from volume 6 of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, which is a tragedy.
Owen takes great care in explaining Covenant Theology in his Works.
He does not include “The Economy of the Covenants Between God
and Man” by Herman Witsius, which is simply the best book on Covenant
Theology ever written. He
does, though, mention Witsius in passing (page 177) but it is simply
“in passing.” He
alludes to another writer who depends on Witsius, but does not interact
with Witsius on any point of covenantal theology at all.
This is suspect, but there are reasons for his avoidance of
Witsius and other covenantal theologians to this point, as we will see.
Calvin is mentioned for his commentary on Acts and his Institutes,
but is quoted infrequently (and does not helpfully cite his Institutes
for baptism), and the other reformers, Luther, Zwingli, Oecolampadius
etc. are not mentioned at all. Ursinus
is mentioned, but Malone simply passes him over in the same statement
with Witsius. Turretin is not mentioned at all. Hodge, Edwards, the English Puritans (except for Owen) and
the Dutch Theologians are not listed either.
Jeremias is mentioned, but his rebuttal to Aland’s work that
was a rebuttal to his own, is not mentioned.
Jeremias tears apart Aland’s “critique” of his earlier work
in “The Origins of Infant Baptism: A Further Study in Reply to Kurt
Aland,” but it seems some of the questions that Jeremias “leaves”
Malone with in this book are answered in his rebuttal against Aland.
Malone missed this? This
is also suspect. He does
not mention many of the helpful theological papers that have been
written in and around this subject in journals like the Westminster
Journal, or Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, or from
professors with position papers based on key texts, like Richard
Pratt’s position paper on Jeremiah 31 (which is helpful).
He also talks quite a bit about the Regulative Principle, but
quotes almost no works, except the Confessions, that deal with
it. With so much weight
riding on that argument as a main principle, one would think there would
be more cited and more explained historically.
However, if he had done that, the arguments against his ideas
surround the Regulative Principle would be overthrown.
Instead, Malone seems to have carefully chosen the authors
and works he will interact with.
This argues that this work is not a scholarly work, though I am
unsure if Malone’s intention was to make it a scholarly work.
Let us assume that he did not intend this, and he will have
succeeded.
After
the bibliography, one also notices, second, the dust jacket.
The dust jacket says quite a bit before one even enters the
debate arena with Malone. On
the back Dr. Albert Mohler says, “Fred Malone has written one of the
most important books on baptism to appear in at least two hundred
years…” After reading the book, it is apparent to me that Dr. Mohler
is not reading many good books on baptism if Malone’s book is the best
he has read – the best in two hundred years.
Even Jewett’s book, “Infant Baptism” is a far better
argument than this present work by Malone (and Jewett’s work
categorically misses the entire arguments surrounding Covenantal
Theology as they were historically formulated.)
At least Malone makes an effort to address some of those issues.
In any case, Malone himself pleads with his readers, more than
once, that he is relying on information that helps his “position”
written by T.E. Watson and David Kingdon.
Dr. Timothy George and Walter Chantry both hail Malone as well
having presented “the best case I have seen for believer’s baptism
from a covenantal perspective” and making Malone “a new champion of
the cause of truth.” I
think Mohler, George and Chantry are simply being respectfully cordial
because if they truly think that Malone’s work is the “best in two
hundred years” then their own “covenantal” theology becomes
dubious at best.
Before
I comment on the title, I need to move through the Foreword written by
Ernest Reisinger. I really
have only two comments to make about the “Foreword.”
Reisinger is on Malone’s side as a Baptist.
This would be expected. But
his conceptions of Covenant Theology and that which constitutes a
“Reformed” Theologian, are lacking.
He says, “Fred, like many other young men, thought that in
order to be a consistent Reformed minister, he had to be a
Paedo-Baptist.”
This is true, though Reisinger believes it to be false.
I will demonstrate this later.
Reisinger also says, “At this point I hear some Paedo-Baptists
saying, “What about the covenant,” a Baptist must surrender or run;
this book will prove otherwise.”
This book did not prove otherwise.
Instead, it reformulated and redefined “covenantal concepts”
with meager exegetical work and a host of hermeneutical fallacies.
This though, will be shown later as well.
The book is entitled “The
Baptism of Disciples Alone: A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism
versus Paedo-Baptism.” In
the “Preface” there are a number of problematic statements and
assumptions. First, Malone
says they should “evangelize their children.”
That is good Baptistic language.
For him to pray with his children, or teach his children to pray,
would be a violation of this language because he would be adopting Old
Testament covenant concepts about raising up his children in a certain
light. It is good that
Malone is consistent at least for now.
Second, Malone asks this question, “Is “repent and be
baptized” a command that parents should obey for their children, or is
it a command for their children to obey for themselves (Acts 2:38-41.”
This is a straw man. Malone
will continue to ask questions like this of the text that no
Paedo-Baptist asserts in order to crush them as he goes along.
We will deal with the meaning behind this later when Malone
treats it. Third, he says,
“Must they [parents] rely on “expert” theologians to explain their
biblical duty toward their children for what they cannot see in
Scripture for themselves?”
Maybe another question should be “What are there pastors and
theologians in the body of Christ?” “Why do they preach?”
“Why do they teach?” “Why
do they exist?” Certainly
it is to help people understand the whole counsel of God.
If parents were as studious as theologians, then they would not
need them. Pleading this
point at all is nonsense. The
members of Baptistic churches I have attended have simply “gone with
the flow” – they do not know why they believe what they do.
Usually they say, “I believe what the pastor tells me to
believe.” This is wrong,
no doubt, and this is in every denomination.
But Malone is setting up another straw man here.
Then he says he sees two basic
reasons why Infant Baptism is wrong: “1) the regulative principle and
2) biblical hermeneutics.”
Malone asks if Infant Baptism is clear in Scripture.
The question he should be asking first is whether there is a
direct command to baptize disciples alone, something the New Testament
does not mention once. There is no command that says, “Baptize a man or woman
after a profession of faith, and immerse them.”
This is just nowhere in the Bible.
But that is not all Malone asks.
His whole question goes like this, “is infant Baptism as clear
in Scripture as other issues, like repentance before baptism (John
4:1-2; Acts 2:38-41), or self-examination before the Lord’s Supper
(Acts 2:41-42; 1 Corinthians 11:27-29), or a woman’s participation in
the Lord’s Supper (Exodus 12:1-4, 16; 1 Corinthians 11:18-22), or men
only as elders (1 Timothy 2:12; 3:1-7), etc?”
This may be one of the biggest exegetical blunders in his whole
book. With repentance
supposedly before baptism, he cites John 4:1-2.
This is clearly John’s baptism, and Malone is assuming, and
will later, in a futile attempt, prove that John’s baptism is the same
as Christian baptism. This
is a denial of the history of Israel’s use of baptism. He also cites Acts 2:38-41.
Clearly, his exegetical work on this passage is horrid.
It will be demonstrated later how poor his work is on this
scripture and how this applies. His note on self-examination of the Lord’s Supper is not
contested by anyone and is clear. However,
a “woman’s participation” of the Lord’s Supper is not clear at
all. As a matter of fact,
Baptists have no positive command anywhere in the Bible for them to
partake. He cites Exodus
12:1-4, 16. Exodus?
For the Lord’s Supper? The
passage refers explicitly to “every man” and nowhere to “woman,”
or “women.” This idea
of the women can be extrapolated to mean “human being” or “every
person,” but Malone cited this as a clear text for the Lord’s
Supper. This is the Passover, not the Lord’s Supper.
This is the kind of exegetical work he uses throughout the book.
This is his New Testament, regulative principle for
women partaking?
The second text is 1
Corinthians 11:18-22, which also says nothing of women at all.
Again, in verse 28 it says, “But
let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread,
and drink of that cup.” Where
does it say women? Where is
the clear, positive sanction? Remember,
Malone is trying to convince us that these are clear texts.
Do we need theologians to help us understand this clearly?
Finally, Malone says that we can see the clear teaching of 1
Timothy 2:12 and 3:1-7 for men as elders.
This is true. But Malone has not been helpful so far in his “clarity.”
Next,
Malone says that the Regulative Principle undermines Infant Baptism.
He says, “The Regulative Principle teaches that the elements of
New Testament worship and church order should be regulated by Scripture
and clearly instituted for New Covenant worship.”
This is not what the Regulative Principle teaches, but what
Malone wants the Regulative Principle to teach.
To infer that all positive injunctions in the New Testament are
the only source of authority to regulate worship is absurd.
Jeremiah Burroughs, in 14 sermons on Leviticus 10:3, demonstrates
quite adequately that the Old Testament is deeply rooted in how the
Regulative Principle is used and applied.
Malone, in order to hold to his belief structure, must
reinterpret the Regulative Principle to cater simply to New Testament
worship and by New Testament instruction to hold his views.
Malone
then asks this question, “Because Infant Baptism is considered a
biblical sacrament, one of the official elements of worship, shouldn’t
it, too, be “instituted” by Christ according to the same principle
as the Lord’ Supper? Yet, it is not so prescribed.”
Unfortunately Malone is cutting off his own foot here.
Where is Credobaptism prescribed in the New Testament?
Where does Jesus or the apostles say, “Baptism is to be
administered in this way…” and then follow certain instructions for
this? Malone misses this
crucial point? Does he
simply not understand that Credobaptism is an argument in induction from
silence? Does he miss the
importance of the reality that it is nowhere prescribed by formal
declaration, and that his entire book revolves around an inductive
argument based on a compilation of Scriptures to support a given idea?
I do not think he does! If
he had, he would have never written the book, and would not be so
displeased with historical Covenant Theology.
Malone
also does not like to “resort”
to the Old Testament for prescriptions in worship. That is due to his Dispensationalism. He divides, quite dramatically, “Christian worship” from
Old Testament worship. This
is based on his preconceived ideas concerning “covenant” and its
great diversity seen through various ages.
So, without being hindered by external forms of Old Testament
worship, Malone says, “The only instituted baptism in the New
Testament by Christ and his apostles is Credobaptism: the baptism of
disciples alone.”
Again, Malone cites no verse say, exactly, where Christ, or His
Apostles, positively and explicitly states this.
His argumentation, then, at the start, is faulty concerning the
Regulative Principle.
Not
only does Malone misrepresent the Regulative Principle according to his
own likening, as we will further see, but he also harps on the
Presbyterian’s poor exegetical work and failure to hermeneutically
deal with a passage fairly. He
says, “Baptists and Presbyterians agree with a basic
Augustinian principle of biblical interpretation that "the New is
in the Old concealed; and the Old is in the New revealed."”
At this point, he is correct that Presbyterians agree with this,
but Baptists do not. Listen to what he says next.
“This places an emphasis upon the New Testament revelation as
the final determiner of instituted and regulated Christian worship
versus Old Testament worship and forms continued by inference alone
(Ephesians 2:20; 3:5). This principle, consistently applied, also argues
against any notion of infant baptism grounded upon a supposed and
possibly erroneous "good and necessary inference," which may
be neither "good" nor "necessary.”
This is not Augustine talking, this is the Baptist Fred Malone
playing smoke and mirrors. He
does not believe what Augustine said. Instead he redefines how hermeneutics should work based on
his theology. Augustine
would vehemently disagree with him.
Wait – Augustine did vehemently disagree with him.
Augustine taught Infant Baptism.
Did Malone forget this? Malone
does not cite Augustine on this any further.
How can he? The
citation given by Malone is correct – but Malone does not believe it.
Malone then tackles John Murray
and the ideas surrounding good and necessary inference.
Malone’s presuppositions will not allow him to use “good and
necessary inference” in a consistent manner, but only when it suits
him (like women partaking of the Lord’s supper, but not Infant
Baptism). He questions
whether it is a safe hermeneutic at all.
The New Testament regulates New Testament worship for Malone.
He quotes the Westminster Confession of Faith in this way
trying to prove his point – “The elements of Christian worship must
be clearly, “instituted by God himself,…limited by his own revealed
will, and…prescribed in holy Scripture” (WCF 21:5; 21:1; 1:6).”
This is not what Malone believes.
He is thinking about it this way, “The elements of Christian
worship, i.e. New Testament worship, must be clearly, “instituted by
God himself, [in the New Testament]…limited by his own revealed will,
[in the New Testament] and…prescribed in Holy Scripture in the New
Testament.” This is
Malone’s point. Otherwise,
he knows he has given up his case the moment we are able to resort to
the Old Testament concerning New Testament worship.
This, again, demonstrates his Dispensationalism.
Why
did Malone title the book, “The Baptism of Disciples alone?”
This is what he says – “I
have chosen the designation "the baptism of disciples alone"
to describe the only instituted and regulated baptism "expressly
get down in Scripture." It is no more an unbiblical description of
baptism in the Bible than are other principles of reformation theology:
Scripture alone, grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone, and God's glory
alone. That which is "expressly set down in Scripture"
concerning an instituted, regulated sacrament is sufficient to earn the
designation "alone."”
This is humorous. I say that tongue in cheek.
First, Malone claims that Credobaptism is
“expressly…instituted” in the New Testament.
Where? Why does he
make this assertion when he knows that baptistic theology is grounded on
gathering data from historical examples in the New Testament?
We already covered the fallacy of that.
He will harp on Matthew 28 as the Great Commission, but
exegetical work on that area will discredit the only “inductive”
aspect of his argument that he thinks is one of the strongest.
Second, Malone must be completely ignorant of history here.
Does he really think that the Reformers would have agreed with
him in adding “disciples alone” to the solas?
He must have forgotten what they said on the subject, and, of
course, he conveniently left their opinion out of his work altogether on
this issue. Historically
Malone would be seen as a rebellious dissenter in Geneva who would have
been imprisoned or exiled unless he recanted of his position.
To add in the Anabaptist controversy into the Reformation and
assign it the same status as the concrete Solas is ludicrous, and
historically inaccurate at best. Who
is he trying to convince here? Baptists
continually attempt to align themselves with the systematic theology of
the Reformation, when, in fact, they are the dissenters of the
Reformation and church splitters of that time.
Why was the 1689 Baptist Confession written?
Was it because they agreed with the Westminster Confession of
Faith or because they dissented from it?
Why were the Anabaptists rebelling against Calvin, Farel and Courault?
They did not like their ecclesiology and they did not like their
Sacramentology. The 1689
Baptist Confession was written as a defense against the
heretical notions of Anabaptism and against the Covenant Theology
of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Baptist still believe that they can be Covenant Theologians while
remaining Baptistic, which is impossible.
Baptist will of course deny this, but history is no fool.
Malone believes Baptists can be Reformed.
History does not say so, and neither do the Reformers.
Even the theologians of the day write against such ideas.
But Malone wonders “where Reformed Baptists” of conscience
will worship in later days. “Reformed
Baptist?” This is a
contradiction in theology, and something the Reformers themselves would
never have agreed upon. For
an overview on this topic read my article,
What
does it mean to be Reformed – Really?
Malone continue to use the phrase “Reformed Baptist” but the
points above, and the link to the article should dissuade anyone from
using the term unless they are really Reformed.
The Introduction
We
move from the Preface to the Introduction.
In a footnote on page xxv, Malone says, “I am not accusing any
of blindly following. However,
even a sincere conscience in deciding for infant baptism may be strongly
affected by the overwhelming testimony of such good men.”
This is important. He
mentioned RC Sproul and the number of people who have traveled from
being Baptist to being Paedo-Baptist.
This disturbs him because he believes he is right and the
Baptistic community continues to move into the Paedo-Baptist community,
even if they are unaware of what they believe because “good men” are
in that camp. I agree with
Malone that no one should ever go to any church unless they understand
what they believe and why the believe it.
They should be following the dictates of Scripture based on
private interpretation, but also based on the consensus of the orthodox
church. That is why the
argument of “good men” is so compelling.
Most of the orthodox church through the history of the church
have been Paedo-Baptist. This
should cause Baptists, at that point alone, to be alarmed.
Most of history demonstrates that theologians, pastors and
teachers have been Paedo-Baptist. It
would be fruitless to deny this (as some “Reformed” Baptists
attempt) and far too much work to name every one of these men through
history who have believed it. “Who
believed that infants were included in the covenant?”
This is the real question. Shall
we begin with Adam and Eve and work our way through the Bible, into the
New Testament and then to the early fathers, the Reformers, the Puritans
, the Princeton Theologians, etc?
Of course this is an overwhelming argument!
Of course people are going to follow the great minds – the
gifts of Christ – to his church.
Are we really to suppose, as Malone would like us to believe,
that until the late 1600’s the church had wrongly abused and misused
the Sacrament, and then until the Baptists came along the church had
been providentially in the dark? Would
he have us believe that today, even now, though the majority believes in
including infants in the covenant, that the Baptistic change is
warranted? Have the
greatest minds in the history of the church been wrong for so long? Is God that providentially lazy?
One Baptist friend of mine answers that question this way: they
were just too smart for themselves and missed it.
Now
this argument around the church and checking our doctrine is not a weak
one (but quite the opposite) since interpretation issues revolve around
both private interpretation, and the church.
I am not purporting “papal decrees” ex cathedra, but I
am saying that private interpretation is affirmed by the church –
otherwise no one, at any time, in any historical setting, would know he
is right. Even Luther said
to the Diet, “If you can convince me by Scripture…”
Luther did not bow to Theological Traditionalism as supreme, but
he did believe the church’s authority in matters of doctrine is
important. The
perspicuity of the Word is plain in matters of salvation, and everyone
who reads them, as the Holy Spirit enlightens them, may understand them
clearly. No one that I know disputes this.
But to be sure they have correctly interpreted the passage is due
to ecclesiastical consensus based on Scripture. To
deny this is to be unsure of your doctrine in every way.
There is an important sense in which private interpretation is
commanded, and another in which it is dangerous. Ultimately we have the
promise of Sola Scriptura to lean on (1 John 5:13) and we have
the brethren to guide us (Heb. 13:3, 7-9).
The question is akin to the chicken and the egg in much the same
way. Yet here, we begin with the clarity of the Bible and move into the
guidance and confidence of our brethren.
Deviation, then, ultimately from historical orthodoxy on any
point, is a VERY dangerous place to be. It claims the church has
subsequently been without this "bit" of information for a long
time until it was "discovered" by someone who thought it fit
well into a new theological scheme, or became a new theological scheme
in and of itself (like the Anabaptists of the day in the Reformation who
denied the Trinity and the deity of the Son but embraced believer’s
baptism).
Malone also has a problem with the PCA’s Book of church Order when it
says, “By virtue of being born of believing parents, children
are, because of God's covenant ordinance, made members of the Church,
but this is not sufficient to make them continue members of the Church.
When they have reached the age of discretion, they become subject
to obligations of the covenant: faith, repentance, and obedience. They
then must make public confession of their faith in Christ, or become
covenant breakers, and subject to the discipline of the Church
[emphasis his].”
He asks when this age should be.
He “wonders” when this judgment should be made.
Six? Ten? Sixteen? Well,
that is point – ministers should be discretionary (not the children)
about when those children come to the point when they understand the
Gospel. That could be any
age. This is hopefully what
any Baptist father or mother would do with their own children.
What is Malone griping about here?
He contends that Presbyterian members probably do not know the
BCO. Yes, this is as true
as the Baptist church that does not know the 1689 Baptist Confession
of Faith.
He
then says, “The proper administration of the sacraments was at the
heart of the Reformation and is one of the marks of a true church.”
Malone is absolutely right, and by his admission, this
disqualifies every Baptist church as a “true church.”
Baptist “individualistic” ideas rose up against the
Reformation, and started new churches based on both Ecclesiology and
Sacramentology. Malone,
again, is cutting off his nose to spite his face.
This is a historical argument against the Baptist
dissention, not for it. Will
Malone stand up and say, candidly, that the church, since the time of
the apostles (according to him) has never been a true church because
they all have included infants in the covenant?
Malone then, in a footnote, says this, “This is not to say that
there cannot be a true church where a sincere error in baptism exists,
but we all must agree that this is not a minor issue.”
This is a contradiction to his statements previously, though I
think he is padding his answer because he just will not say that the
Paedo-Baptist church is not a true church.
But, in a short three-page chapter devoted to encouraging people
about their Baptist beliefs, he tells them to pull up their bootstraps
and build Baptist churches.
What
do we do with people who struggle over the issue and see proof on both
sides? Malone cites the summation of “at least ten” people who
have said this to him: “When I read the Baptist side of the argument,
it sounds convincing. When I read the Paedo-baptist side, it also sounds
convincing. I could go either way. Great minds have wrestled for
centuries over this issue. Who am I to settle it? Can such great
Paedo-baptist minds be so right on so much and so wrong on this? Because
of such great men, I lean toward the Paedo-baptist side. And since I
consider it a minor issue, compared to the major doctrinal problems
in Baptist churches today, I will practice it until I am convinced otherwise.”
However, when the issues are clearly studied, then the response
that RC Sproul had to a question poses to him while debating Alister
Begg on Baptism at a Ligonier Conference will be the same.
Sproul and Begg were both asked, “What arguments from the
Baptist side or Paedo-Baptist side about baptism sound convincing.”
Begg answered with the “systematic ideas surrounding Covenant
Theology and infant inclusion,” but RC said “Nothing.”
Malone
then lists 15 points on the “Baptistic” ideas surrounding a
“covenantal” Baptist position.
I think his wording is good.
He does not say, “Here is what Baptists who are Covenant
Theologians believe…” Rather,
I think he is keenly aware that Baptists are not Covenant Theologians,
and do not believe in Covenant Theology. He does not make this assertion anywhere in his book that I
was aware of. He does,
though, press that Baptists are “covenantal” and think they are
“Reformed.” In points
1-3 he seems to follow a good path of reasoning and ideas covenantally.
1) He mentions the Covenant of Redemption.
That is a good start. 2)
The Covenant of Grace is the outworking of the Covenant of Redemption in
time. Good so far. There are two distinct covenants.
3) He mentions Adam and the Covenant of Works in the Garden and
quotes (unreasonably according to his own exegetical demands later on)
Ecclesiastes 7:29 and Hosea 6:7 (Malone will push for each covenant in
its own context describing itself.
Even the Antinomian New Covenant Theologians should take him to
task on this issue since he is not allowing Genesis 2 to speak for
itself but needs other Scriptures to help him here.
This will break his hermeneutical rules later on.)
It is when he hits number four that things go haywire.
He says this in point four: “That God did reveal historically
the "promise of grace" in Genesis 3:15, commonly called the
Covenant of Grace, successively revealing its future fulfillment in
Jesus Christ's New Covenant through the historical "covenants of
promise" (Ephesians 2:12). Thus, salvation by grace through faith
in the coming "seed of the woman" as covenant Head was
revealed and offered from the fall of man throughout the Old Testament
"covenants of promise."
Here is where Malone departs from Reformed Theology and Covenant
Theology. The continuity of
the Covenant of Grace is one covenant from the beginning to the end of
its appointment – from Genesis 3:15 to the consummation of the ages
upon Christ’s return. But
Malone also has “other” covenants of “promise” running through
time as well. He does not
equate the Abrahamic Covenant with the Covenant of Grace and says, and
will say, they are not the same. The
New Covenant is just that – New.
He then says in point five, “That the New Covenant of Jesus
Christ is the prophesied fulfillment of what has been called the
historical Covenant of Grace, revealed in the "covenants of
promise" since the fall, and is the fullest and final historical
manifestation of that eternal Covenant of Redemption to save God's elect
(2 Timothy 1:8-10).” Again,
as dispensationalists are prone to do, he divides the “covenants of
promise” as he says” with the New Covenant.
These are not the same. How
do we know? Malone takes us through point six, “That the New Covenant
is an effectual covenant of realized blessings, not like the Sinai
Covenant which it abrogates (Galatians 3:19), with an effectual
Mediator as its covenant Head, writing the law on every member's heart
as individuals (Jeremiah 31:27-34; 32:40), giving them the true
knowledge of God, and forgiving their sins (Hebrews 8:8-12;
10:15-17).” He compares
the New Covenant with the Mosaic Covenant, which is right, but fails to
interpret the New Covenant properly.
Actually, his exegetical work on this passage is nowhere to be
seen. He claims that he has
done work on it for a doctoral dissertation. But such a pivotal point of
departures from Reformed Theology and Covenant Theology ought to press
him to demonstrate, exegetically, why the New Covenant carries the
character it does in the way Malone believes.
Unfortunately, we are not privy to his notations and simply must
“trust him” on this issue. Later,
though, I will briefly show that his ideas are faulty concerning the
nature of the New Covenant.
An interesting problem occurs
theologically for him, that he is not aware of in point seven.
He says, “and the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham
(Galatians 3:14; 6:15-16, Romans 2:28-29, 4:16)” is Jesus Christ.
If this is true, then how is it as “new” as Malone says it is
in point six? Hopefully he will explain later.
Point eight says that only heart-regenerate disciples should be
baptized. Point 9 says that
John 4:1 teaches that disciples are first made then baptized. This for him makes things, “airtight” as to the manner of
making disciples. He
presses the idea that it is only the cognitive adult that is able to do
this, so again, based on inductive reasons (which is always fallacious)
he assumes no children or families were baptized by John.
People came out from all over Judea to be baptized.
In thinking about the role of John the Baptist as the covenant
attorney for God bringing forth a chance for Israel to repent, would
only the parent go, or would the family be baptized by John as the
father, the covenant head, repents of his waywardness in light of the
Messiah’s coming? Are we
to believe that the Jews who came to be baptized had no conception of
this new “Christian baptism” that John was administering?
It seems from the New Testament record that no one was shocked to
find him doing this. As a
matter of fact, the Pharisees wanted to know if he was the Messiah.
Were they expecting a baptizing Messiah who would bring a
cleansing fulfillment to the OT Jewish washing rites?
Is this something really new?
Malone actually spends four pages at the end of the book
“explaining” both the baptism of John and of Jesus and the
disciples. He does not,
however, spend any time exegeting these passages. He simply assumes we believe him.
In point 10 he says that there
is no abrogation of baptizing disciples in the New Testament.
Actually, he has yet to prove there is a positive sanction for it
by direct and clear statement. In
any case, no Paedo-Baptist denies that adults should be baptized based
on the evidence of the New Testament.
They simply believe there is much more to the covenant sign than
Malone believes. In point
eleven, he blunders the Great Commission, taking into account no
exegetical work. The text
says, “Go therefore and make
disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, "teaching them to observe
all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even
to the end of the age." Amen.”
What is the order here? Go
and make disciples. How?
Baptizing them in the name of the Father…teaching them.
This is not difficult to see.
Jesus tells the disciples to make disciples.
They have been baptizing them all along so a clear, definitive
statement on this should not be so confusing.
They are to make disciples.
OK. How?
When a Latin Student is going to learn Latin does he learn Latin
first and then go to school, or go to school to learn Latin first?
Malone’s proof text is quite poor.
But again, no work is offered as to his conclusion on it.
Point twelve he emphasizes that only those who received Peter’s
words were baptized, not infant children.
Well, that is correct. But
is the baptism here a dry or wet baptism?
From Joel 2 it seems to indicate a dry baptism, or change wrought
by the Spirit attending the Word of God.
Malone seems to think this is a wet baptism.
However, Malone is not exegetically savvy here either.
As a matter of fact, his exegesis later will demonstrate he
missed the entire structure of the passage and completely ignored the
Old Testament context of Joel.
In point thirteen he says that
the NT designation for baptism is always by disciples.
However, this “designation” is really a summation of
gathering texts and coming to a conclusion inductively rather than by
specific, positive, institution. Secondly, Paedo-Baptists do not deny that adult disciples
should be baptized. It
seems from the overall tone of the book that somehow Malone thinks
Paedo-Baptists simply do not do this.
He then attempts to make the Acts 11:26 some kind of overall
paradigm that teaches only “disciples” who were called Christians,
should be baptized. However,
he seems to overlook a number of New Testament references to children
being called saints, like in Ephesians 1:1 where he writes to the
“saints” reflecting the tenor of Ephesians 6:1, “children.”
Point 14 demonstrated that
baptism is a sign of the subjects cleansing from sin, where actually, it
is a symbol of cleansing or washing, but a sign of the
covenant in Christ.
Point 15 is interesting to me
since Malone, as a Baptist, calls baptism and the Lord’s Supper sacraments.
As a Baptist this should disturb him.
He also engages in a bit of prestidigitation here where he twists
the Confession to his own liking. Here is how he quotes it,
“That they are included as elements of worship under the regulative
principle of worship positively instituted by God and “limited by his
won revealed will” (WCF 20:1, 5).
The elements of Christian worship governed by the regulative
principle are all “expressly set down in scripture,” not deduced
“by good and necessary inference.””
The WCF does not say this in chapter 20.
Chapter 20 is on Christian Liberty.
In Chapter 21 of the WCF it says this, “But the acceptable way
of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by
his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the
imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any
visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy
Scripture…as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the
sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious
worship of God.”
In neither place does it mention the phrases “expressly set
down in Scripture” nor “by good and necessary inference.”
Yet, in any case, even when we must pick at the mind of God to
understand His word, whether he reveals it to us plainly, or my cryptic
sayings, or by example, or by poetry or wisdom literature, in any case
we are to follow it. To say
that Christ does not institute infant inclusion in the covenant is to
deny that Christ is Lord over the entire Bible.
To say that Christ directly institutes infant inclusion in the
covenant is seen all through the Bible, no matter how hard or easy
exegesis allows us to come to this truth.
What Malone is hoping for, is that everything we need to
accomplish for the New Testament church is found in the New Testament
and must be clearly articulated there.
Infant inclusion in the covenant in the New Testament is clearly
articulated both by Christ, and by the Apostles, as well as Luke.
However, Malone would like to see specific verses that teach it,
just as much as I would like to see specific verse that teach
Credobaptism.
Chapter
1 – Preliminary Principles: Hermeneutics, Authority and baptism.
I do not intend to spend much
time tearing down Malone’s straw man in a few of his main chapters.
The reason is because I think Malone has made poor choices in
which straw men he would like to build up and then attack.
There are some comments I would like to make about his thoughts
on hermeneutics.
He says, “The hermeneutical
principles necessary to settle the question are usually agreed upon by
both Baptists and Paedo-Baptists.”
This is not true. Baptists tend to take their concordance and run around the
New Testament attempting to find “infant Baptism” somewhere.
When they do not, they look back at the Old Testament, while
standing on the New Testament, railing against Paedo-Baptists for
Judaizing the New Testament. This
is a backwards hermeneutics. For
instance, Malone will later talk about both Hebrews 8 and Acts 2 without
looking in depth at Jeremiah 31 and Joel 2.
We see no exegetical work that leads him to conclusions because
his backwards hermeneutics begins with understanding the New Testament
interpretation of Old Testament texts without understanding the Old
Testament texts.
Malone then attacks John Murray.
Personally, I can think of a number of better works to attack
than Murray on baptism. In
my opinion, though Murray is a good theologian, and influential in many
ways in the 20th century, I think his arguments for Infant
Baptism are lacking. I am wondering why Malone did not take to task men like John
Calvin, Martin Luther, Francis Turretin, Herman Witsius, etc.
That would have been too much work.
Any of the following works would have been better to check
through, but interesting enough, not one of them is mentioned in his
book at all: Calvin's
Institutes, by John
Calvin - (4.8.16ff),
Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 3, Pages 356, 383, 414-20,
by Francis Turretin,
The Works of John Owen, Vol. 16, Pages 268ff, by John Owen, Systematic
Theology, Pages 791ff
by R.L. Dabney, William the Baptist, by James Chaney, The
Covenant of Life Opened, by Samuel Rutherford, The Scripturalness
of Infant Baptism, by Ergatees, Anabaptism: The Fountain of
Independency, Antinomy, Brownism, Familism, and the most of the other
errors which for the time do trouble the church of England, Unsealed;
Also, the Questions of Paedobaptism and Dipping Handled from Scripture by
Robert Baillie, Letters on Baptism by Edmund B. Fairfield, Immersion
and Immersionists, by W.A. Mackay, Infant Baptism, Its Nature and
Objects by James Lumsden, The History of Infant Baptism in Two
Parts by William Wall, A Defense of the History of Infant Baptism
Against the Reflections of Mr. Gale and Others by William Wall A
Plea for Infant Baptism in Seven Parts by James Milligan, The
Origins of Infant Baptism, by Joachim Jeremias, and A Practical
Discourse Concerning Vows with a Special Reference to Baptism and the
Lord's Supper by Edmund Calamy.
Malone leans into Murray’s
arguments from “good and necessary inference” and does not believe
that an instituted [sic!] “sacrament” should be made by
“good and necessary” inference.
Rather, Malone wants things positively stated.
Too bad baptism itself is not set that way (but Malone seems to
miss this entirely.) In a
footnote he says, “Baptists believe that the NT antitype to Old
Testament circumcision is heart circumcision, not baptism directly
(Colossians 2:11-12: Philippians 3:3; Romans 2:28-29; Galatians
6:15-16). In the OT,
circumcision is prospective of the need of regeneration; in the NT,
baptism is retrospective of regeneration received.”
This is simply nonsense. I
ask “Why” at the end of his notation.
Its nice to say, “Baptists believe…” whatever, but is it
true based on Scripture? He
misunderstands what Christ accomplished and what Baptism signifies.
Paedo-baptists are not interested in a “replacement”
theology. Briefly stated,
circumcision was the sign of the Covenant of Grace in the Old Testament
given to Abraham. The sign
in the flesh demonstrated the need for heart circumcision (Deut. 10:16
and Jer. 4:4). In Christ
circumcision is fulfilled, but not abrogated.
It continues in heart circumcision, and the covenant sign of the
New Testament is baptism. The
sign symbolizes regeneration as well – the need for cleansing.
Baptism does not replace circumcision respectively since heart
circumcision continues which is what circumcision was about.
The Spirit circumcises the heart (Col. 2:11-12) and fulfillment
of being washed by Christ from sin is seen in the sign of the covenant
– baptism. As Moses and
the Israelites (all of them) were baptized into the wilderness (most
likely a notation on why they were not circumcised having a
“covenant” antitype sign on them in the Old Testament under the
Covenant of Grace) so now we are baptized by the fulfilled work of the
circumcising Spirit of Grace. Malone
believes that the New Testament sign itself signifies “actual”
regeneration, where the New Testament sign itself symbolizes the
fulfilled work of Christ and heart circumcision now applied in the
washing of water. How could
Malone ever, in any case, be sure that he is baptizing someone who is
actually regenerate? Would
it be a misuse of the ordinance, from a Baptist perspective, to baptize
someone not regenerate? This
is the contending factor of the entire polemic.
However, Malone is never, ever, able to bring this to pass in any
church. His formulation of baptism will fail every time he
administers it since he can never be sure he is administering it
successfully. This is a
dubious New Testament ordnance for Baptists indeed!
He says “We are not knowingly to allow the unregenerate into
the church.”
A first problem is the God knowingly and by command had
unregenerates in his church in the Old Testament and commanded Abraham
to continue this for all generations.
That places a big question mark on Malone’s view of God’s
wisdom. Second, the sign
was given and administered to the unregenerate church member of the Old
Testament. Third, Malone is
making a subtle New Testament distinction here through his blatant
Dispensationalism where he divides the New Testament church from the Old
Testament congregation. So
to speak, Malone is saying, “In the New Testament we are not to have
the unregenerate in the church.”
How then does he work the church and Israel into one body, one
faith, and one baptism? He
does not. Instead, he
resorts to a Dispensational Covenantal view of the Bible.
Another note Malone makes in this chapter is what happens in the
Paedo-Baptist mind when a covenant member of the Covenant of Grace
apostatizes. Does he go
back into the Covenant of Works? And
if he is saved does he come back to the Covenant of Grace?
These are not hard questions and Malone should not fictitiously
overlook the answer. If a
covenant member breaks covenant with God the covenant is not lost – it
is broken. It is the same
with marriage. A person
divorces another and breaks covenants in which, if they do this
unlawfully, they then remarry and cause themselves and the other party
to commit adultery according to Jesus in Matthew 19. The covenant does not go away after it is broken.
The covenant curses are laid on the individual (See the entire
book of Deuteronomy.)
In checking the corroboration of Murray’s ideas for baptism,
Malone asks, “the question remains: Then why did Jesus not baptize
these children” in terms of the blessing he gave them and the account
in Matthew 18:1-6; 10:13-14; Luke 18:15-17)?
Actually, that is not the question at all.
First a statement is made – if the New Covenant is completely
different than the “covenants” in the Old Testament, any of them,
then we should not find similar thoughts or actions of Old Testament
ideas seen in the New Testament. The
question becomes, “Why does Jesus take the time to bless these
children is Malone is right and God is only concerning with the
regenerate church? Is this
an act of futility?” For
Malone, and his “covenantal Baptist” theology, the answer is yes –
this is a waste of Jesus’ time, and Jesus, consequently really does
not know what he is doing or even why he came.
For Malone, Jesus came as the Mediator for the New Covenant which
translates into the “regenerate.”
For Jesus, it seems He came to do something more.
If blessing the children is not grounded in the Old Testament
covenantal ideas, then Jesus, in this passage, from a Baptist view, does
not understand his own theology. Misunderstanding
theology is a sin.
When Christ blesses the
children, baptizing them is not the issue.
The issue remains as to why Jesus would do such a thing in light
of Malone’s theology. He
has no answer for this. The
question should be asked, “When the Messiah comes, and the people are
looking for His inauguration, what do they do with their children?”
Accordingly, women were bringing little children – babies –
to Jesus. Why?
Why would mothers want to give their babies to Jesus? (And babies
here can be up to a year old, or so).
They want their children to be part of the covenantal Kingdom
that the Messiah came to inaugurate.
Jesus blesses them and states, emphatically, that the Kingdom
belongs to them. These
babies own the Kingdom. What
will Malone do with this? He
remarks on this later denying they are babies.
Malone asks another question,
“How do we know that baptism is extended to females except from
commands and examples in the New Testament?”
He must not be aware of the Old Testament circumcision of
females. Were females
circumcised in the OT? Of
course – they were virtually circumcised.
Here is how Covenant Theologians think this through: First question: Were Israelite women able to partake of the Passover?
Answer: I do not know of anyone who would disagree. The entire family
was obligated by God to do so.
Problem: Exodus 12:48 describes the proselyte males who shall be
circumcised in order to eat of the Passover. He says, “And when a
stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let
all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it;
and he shall be as a native of the land.” Then the problem arises, God
says – “For no uncircumcised person shall eat it.” Females are not
formally circumcised. God says that no uncircumcised person having a
“foreskin” can eat of the Passover. Women actually have this (but I
am not going to get into the medical aspects of it – you can look it
up on your own.) If females, then, are not circumcised, how does God
allow them to eat of the Passover? Answer: They are circumcised through
Federal Headship – the father of the family, otherwise they would
remain unclean and cutoff (that which symbols the cutting of the flesh
of the foreskin and discarding it).
Second Question: How do we know they are “virtually”
circumcised, or they are seen as circumcised in order to be acceptable
in this regard, and partake of the Passover, for instance? Answer: The
ratification of the covenant is where we find the answer.
The Scriptures give us an example of covenant faithfulness where
God, and everyone bound by the covenant, must be solemnly set forth.
Genesis 15:17 says, “And it came to pass, when the sun went down and
it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning
torch that passed between those pieces. 18 On the same day the LORD made
a covenant with Abram…” We know that to “covenant” means to
“cut.” The ratification of this “cutting” is done through an
ontological adherence to the cut pieces of the covenant. God himself
passes through the pieces of the covenant animals and sacrifice. He
says, without saying it, but through action, “Whatever is done to
these animals, let it be done to me if I do not uphold my side of the
covenant.” In the same manner, any person who “covenants” with God
can be “cut off”. They are cast out of the covenant if they are
found unfaithful. This is likened to the foreskin of the male organ
being “cut off and cast away.” The “sin” is purged from the
camp. Blood must be spilt, as the foreskin cut had spilt blood. Not only
is the covenant sign given in the flesh, but it also acts as the
ratification of the covenant. The seed passes through the covenant
cutting, just as God passes through the covenant cutting. The sign of
this passing was circumcision so that the male, the head of the family,
continually carried around the ratification of the covenant in his
flesh, and hopefully, in his heart as well (Deut. 10:16 and Jeremiah
4:4). Each time the lineage of the faithful (the children of Abraham)
pass through the cutting of the covenant sign in the flesh of the
foreskin, one of two things will happen – 1) God would regenerate them
and they would continue to uphold the physical and spiritual aspects of
the covenant, or 2) God would not regenerate them and they would
ultimately be “cut off” and “cast away.” (Achan, Dathan, Korah,
AND THEIR FAMILIES – women and children included based on federal
headship). If the
female did not symbolically partake of this ratification, of which the
covenant stands or falls in blessing or curse upon them, they would not
be able to be part of the “clean” people of God. They would remain
as covenant breakers who do not believe the promises of God, as the
proselyte was until he was circumcised willingly, and baptized with his
entire family as Maimonedies sets forth concerning Jewish history.
The females would also not be able to partake of the Passover if
they there not considered being clean, or circumcised, by oath.
The seed passing through the cutting of the covenant is the same
as God passing through the cutting of the covenant. In this way they
ratify the oath made. And it also expresses the monergistic aspect of
salvation in that the seed, not being sentient, is bound by the covenant
stipulations. When a male
passes through this same ratification, he not only binds himself to the
covenant, but also is given the role of carrying around that covenant in
his flesh to continue its outward, and visible administration of a
spiritual truth (Genesis 17). Malone
does not think about this at all.
Malone finally denies that the
sacrament is a sacrament by arguing against William Cunningham’s use
of the term “seal” in reference to the baptism of children. Malone asks, “What efficacy?
Where is this even mentioned of baptism in the Scriptures?”
Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12 help us with this, and Malone seems to
overlook this. Baptism,
being the New Testament covenant sign, does not lose the efficacy that
God intends in it, but is strengthen by the fulfillment of it being
secured by Christ. As
circumcision was the Old Testament sign, so baptism is the New Testament
fulfillment of that sign. Instead
of a bloody tearing away, it is now a cleansing washing. The Westminster Confession of Faith in 28:1 states
this clearly, and the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith removes
this completely in 29:1. This
demonstrates the radical discontinuity that the dissenters had against
the orthodox church in both the meaning behind the sacrament and the
sacrament’s administration as well.
Malone then attempts to
dismember Murray’s good and necessary inference by a simple fallacious
argument called “ignoratio elenchi” or irrelevant conclusion, and
even attempts to pit the Westminster Confession against Murray.
This is humorous. Malone
does say that it is valid for exegetes to draw inferences from
Scripture, but he just does not like the inferences that Murray draws
and enters into a subjective battle here.
Is this hermeneutics? Not
really. Malone simply
cannot accept the idea that good and necessary inference is just as
valid in exegeting the Bible and the Mind of God, as if God were to say
“Thou shalt not kill.” It
would be nice if the Bible simply explained everything, but the very
reason why Malone wrote his book demonstrates that God’s mind is hard
to pick at on difficult truths. Malone
believes that Murray’s inference contradicts believer’s baptism.
It is a wonder, then, why most of church history has embraced
Paedo-baptism while still baptizing professing disciples.
Has Malone missed this point?
Paedo-Baptism does not contradict believer’s baptism because of
the nature of the sacrament as a sign and seal.
Malone, though, reinterprets the meaning of the New Testament
sacrament to reflect something that he does not explain God commanded as
an Old Testament sacrament. Abraham
circumcised Isaac, an 8 day old child. The sign he placed on him was the covenant sign of
circumcision, and it symbolized regeneration.
Why would Abraham apply a sign that symbolized regeneration on an
unregenerate? Why does
Malone fight this when God commanded it?
Why does Malone desire to negate the sacrament in the New
Testament of its efficacy? The
reason lies chiefly in the reality that Malone will completely overhaul
and reinterpret the meaning behind what “covenant” means.
He totally abandons Covenant Theology for the last 2000 years
beginning with Irenaeus and Augustine, up through the Reformers, the
English Puritans, the colonial separatists, Edwards, the Princeton
divines, etc. Instead, he
must, of necessity redefine “covenant” in order for his “new
dispensational” system to work.
Malone then quotes Andrew
Sandlin, and the Westminster Confession demonstrating that things
deduced are not as binding as things clearly stated.
This is absolute nonsense. God’s
mind, in whatever degree it is given in the Scriptures is equally
binding as if He were to blatantly tell us something.
To say otherwise is to overthrow the inspiration of revelation.
Chapter
2 – Biblical Principles of Interpretation and Infant Baptism
Malone restates his
“concerns” from his previous pamphlet “A String of Pearls
Unstrung.”
His concern paralleled Passover and Communion.
If Baptism replaces circumcision, then Communion replaces
Passover, and all those of the house in the Old Testament ate of the
Passover. Why then are
Paedo-baptists inconsistent in the New Testament with Communion?
Malone seems to fail in recognizing that first instance of
communion was not in the New Testament, but in Genesis 14 with Abraham
and Melchizedek. Christ’s
High Priesthood was never, at any time, void, which means
Melchizedek’s ministry to Abraham was as valid as a Christ’s
priesthood, lest Christ’s be abolished along with Melchizedek’s. Passover, then becomes scaffolding that is done away with
when the building is complete. Passover
directly related to the escape from Egypt and the Death Angel that came
to destroy the firstborn. Communion
reflects the sacrifice of Christ’s death.
Yet, the New Testament expressly demonstrates, though there is
exegetical contention here between some Paedo-Baptists, that the one
partaking of communion in the New Testament should examine himself.
Children cannot do this. However,
a good case for both Passover and Communion resides in the question of
breast-feeding. When a
mother who has eaten the Passover or Communion breastfeeds her child,
the child, literally “partakes” of it.
In any case, and whichever argument one desires to hold to in
this instance, Malone is trying to discredit the manner in which
Paedo-Baptists deal with hermeneutics.
If they believe baptism replaces circumcision (which we covered
briefly already saying it does not in Malone’s sense), then why do
they neglect to do this with Passover and Communion.
If one holds to the Melchizedekian priesthood correctly, then the
argument for “replacement” continues to shine as nonsense.
Malone, then, would not be “sharp” in applying this argument
at all, rather, it would suggest his dubious exegetical work for
forgetting about the Old Testament practice of the communion elements in
the line of Jesus’ priesthood begun 4000 years ago.
Genesis 14:18 is clear, “And
Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he
was the priest of the most high God.”
Malone then lists a series of
questions
that have, in his mind, important implications. Two that are relevant, or are important for the discussion in
his book, are numbers 2 and numbers 8.
Number 2, “What has changed in the application of the covenant
family concept from the Old covenant administration to the New Covenant
Administration?” This is
vague at best. What old
covenant does he mean? I
assume he means between Moses and Christ (which is what he should be
referring to). If he is
right, and there is a shift, then one should easily run through the New
Testament and find little, if any, covenant language that reflect
families. Nothing about
“promises to children” or “household baptisms” etc.
That language should be done away with if Malone is going to
continue pressing his radical “individualism” in the New Testament.
It is not the Covenant of Grace that is being done away with, but
the scaffolding of the Mosaic covenant that is no longer needful.
Number 8 says, “What exactly are the covenant blessings for the
new Covenant child of believers?”
Simply, they are the same as they were for Old Testament
believers and their children. This
question, in and of itself, screams Dispensational thought.
Malone is so sure that the Old Covenant (which in his mind means
everything before Malachi) and the New Covenant are so radically
different (and that is due to his improper designations of the
covenants) that something different must be happening in the New
Covenant. This is based,
wholly and completely, on poor exegesis of Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31, as
we will see.
Malone then gives us a brief
overview of the grammatico-historical use of hermeneutics.
This is all well and good. He
uses Augustine’s paradigm “the New is in the Old concealed: the Old
is in the New revealed.” Unfortunately,
Malone does not believe this though he says he does.
He says, “The New Testament has a priority to teach how the Old
is fulfilled in it as the inspired commentary on the Old Testament.”
I am shocked that Malone does not see his bad hermeneutic here.
What does he mean that the New Testament has “priority?”
Does this mean that Hebrews 8 dictates what Jeremiah 31 says even
if Jeremiah 31 says something different that Hebrew 8? Will the New Testament ever contradict the plain meaning of
the Old Testament? If we
were to exegete Jeremiah 31 and then exegete Hebrews 8, would we expect
to arrive at the same conclusions?
I hope he thinks so.
Malone
then says, “According to Bernard Ram, typology has been the major area
of disagreement between dispensational and covenantal scholars.”
What Malone should be saying here is that Baptists, who are
Dispensationalists, disagree with Covenant Theologians over the idea of
“covenant.” This is the
tension.
Malone
then lists five hermeneutical principles.
They are as follows: 1) the near context is more determinative of
meaning than the far context. 2) A didactic or systematic discussion of
a subject is more significant than a historical or descriptive
narrative. 3) Related to number is the principle that explicit teaching
is more significant than supposed implications of a text.
5) Later passages reflect a fuller revelation than earlier.
It is interpreting to me that Malone lists these in order to
demonstrate that New Testament texts rule Old Testament texts.
He uses the example of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrew 8 on page 36, three
pages after he gives this list. He
says there, “For instance, the Old Testament’s institution of
circumcision must not take precedence over how the New Testament defines
the meaning and fulfillment of circumcision.”
This is true. If the
Old Testament, though, is at odds with the theologian’s New Testament
explanation, then there is a problem with the exegete rather than the
texts. Then he says, “The
New Covenant itself is a prophecy from the Old Testament (Jeremiah
31:31-34; 32:40), but it must not be interpreted in opposition to the
New Testament explanation (Hebrews 8:8-12; 10:16-17).”
This is also true, but what if the exegete has misunderstood
Hebrews 8 because he did not know what Jeremiah 31-32 said or was really
conveying? Then his
exegesis becomes dubious and violates the very principles Malone sets
down. The question is then
posed – here we have Jeremiah 31-32 and
Hebrews 8 – which do we exegete first?
According to his list of principles, we exegete Jeremiah 31
first. Whenever we find a
text quoted in the New Testament the exegete should immediately stop and
take on the exegesis of that statement first, then come back to the New
Testament to be sure he understands the context and meaning of the
passage. Malone seems to be
pushing for Hebrews 8 to rightly interpret of exegesis of Jeremiah 31,
instead of allowing the two passages to compliment one another (which
they do). Subsequently, we
have no exegetical work to test Malone’s theories on either Hebrews 8
or Jeremiah 31.
Malone
then lists three errors that are hermeneutically made: 1) the
Dispensational error, 2) the normative worship error, and 3) Theonomic
Error. It is strange to me
that since Malone sees the covenants of the Old Testament as different
than the Covenant of Grace, how is it that he escapes Dispensationalism?
By his own admission he has made a hermeneutical error.
In the normative worship error, Malone continues to say that New
Testament worship is dictated by the New Testament not the Old
Testament. We have already
talked about this at length. If
one is dispensational, this “error” in the Dispensational mind will
always be the case. The
Theonomic error is a horse of a different color, and far beyond the
scope of Malone’s book. He
says that there is no evidence for the truth that the case laws of the
Old Testament contained moral principles based on the Ten Commandments.
This is all well and good against Theonomy, but I think it would
help his case if he made a case rather than just saying that it
“can’t be so!”
Matthew
28:18-20 is quoted and Malone emphasizes that “them” is important.
The Apostles are to make “Disciples”.
How do they do this? Malone
says “baptize them” and “teach them.”
He says Matthew is saying the “them” refers to disciples, not
nations. Regardless of
whether they refer to disciples or nations, Malone has stuck his foot in
his mouth here. How does
one make disciples? Baptize
them, and then teach them. This
is true. Disciples are made in this way.
Malone says, throughout the rest of his book, that they are
taught first, then saved, then baptized upon profession of faith.
Why then does Jesus say baptizing them and teaching them makes
disciples? Malone has
befuddled a key text.
Malone
says, “The acceptance of Paedobaptism inevitably opens the door to
these other errors.”
He is taking about the three errors of Dispensationalism,
Normative Worship errors, and Theonomy.
How does this inevitably happen?
We are not told. Malone simply thinks this.
It is interesting that his Dispensationalism has been left out of
the bag here.
Malone
then moves into describing his “right” hermeneutic for baptizing
disciples alone. He first
says that we ought not to throw out the Old Testament.
He says the Old Testament are prophecies of the New to come.
This is a common blunder. The
Old Testament prophecies of the New Testament will fulfill, not simply
describe or replace, the Old Testament.
For instance, the High Priesthood of Melchizedek in Genesis 17
will continue forever in Jesus. It
never stopped, was never voided, and will never lose its significance. Malone attempts to affirm the unity of Scripture, but his
practical outworking of this will be seen by his poor hermeneutics in extreme
diversity. He believes
that the New Testament is limited by its diversity from the Old
Testament.
“Limited” is a poor term.
Fulfilled would be more useful.
Jesus did not come to “limit” the Law and Prophets, but to
“fulfill them.” Malone,
then, uses this sentence to guide his hermeneutics, “The New which was
in the Old concealed finally has been revealed by the New, explaining in
a final authoritative way how it was concealed in the Old.”
This is not necessarily a bad way of stating the idea.
However, Malone’s hermeneutic will reinterpret this sentence to
say, “The New which was in the Old concealed finally has been revealed
by the New, explaining in a final authoritative way how it was concealed
in the Old, and the only final authority for understanding the Old even
over the Old itself.” Why
does Malone need to override the quote he previously gave by Augustine?
(The New is in the Old concealed and in the New the Old revealed.)
The reasons is because this places too much of an equality on
both, where Malone wishes the New Testament alone to rule by positive
institution everything he does in worship. He is hermeneutically interpreting hermeneutics by his own
grid. In order for us to
understand Hebrews, we must understand the Old Testament first.
This is where Malone is going to differ and why he changes the
intent of the quote above.
Malone
ends this chapter with this paragraph, “If we follow these principles
consistently, we must first conclude that supposed “good and necessary
inference” from the Old Testament cannot carry more weight that the
New Testament command and example expressly set down in scripture,
especially for the “sacraments instituted by Christ” himself.”
Why do we have to conclude this?
Malone’s reinterpretation of hermeneutics, and his own
unknowing admission of Dispensational ideas have already pigeonholed him
into a false hermeneutic to start. Why would we need to listen to him any longer?
The Old Testament and the New Testament carry equal weight in
understand the revealed mind of God.
No doubt, the New Testament explains many things hidden in the
Old Testament, but New Testament interpretation resides on the
information in the Old Testament. Without
understanding this progressively first, and in exegetical detail,
exegetes will always begin their hermeneutics backwards starting in the
New. If Matthew 1:1 says,
“The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of David the Son
of Abraham…” The
thinking reader is going to ask, “Who is Abraham?” and “Who is
David?” They are right
questions in order to understand who Jesus is.
Section
II: The String of Pearls: Covenant Theology, the New Covenant, and
Baptism
The
Covenant Theology of the Bible (part I): Paedo-Baptist versus Baptist
Views
Malone starts off in this
chapter and section by missing the point altogether.
He says, “Indeed, voices from both Baptist and Paedo-Baptist
ranks shout that if one accepts Covenant Theology in principle, then one
has to go all the way and accept infant baptism.”
Then in the footnote he says that this simply “reactionary”
and Reformed Baptists do not accept this.
We have already seen that “Reformed Baptist” is an oxymoron.
This demonstrates Malone’s inconsistency in his own
understanding of history and theology.
Secondly, he has his conceptions incorrect.
The sentence should read, “Indeed, voices from both Baptist and
Paedo-Baptist ranks shout that if one accepts Covenant Theology in
principle, then one has to go all the way and accept infant inclusion in
the Covenant of Grace.” Infant baptism comes later.
In a three hour conversation on Covenant Theology infant baptism
comes at the last three minutes.
Baptists
hold to “covenantal” theology but they do not hold to Covenant
Theology. There is a great gulf fixed here between Dispensational
Theology and Covenant Theology. To
diverge and dismiss the underlying theological reasons of “covenant”
and “sacramental theology at the outset, as Malone will done, removes
him from the camp of “Covenant Theology.”
I am glad though that he did not say he was a Covenant
Theologian.”
Malone
says that classic Covenant Theologians are men like Berkhof and O.
Palmer Robertson.
No offense intended, but I would have chosen Augustine, Calvin,
Witsius and Owen. Why does
Malone not deal with all the sources he should be dealing with?
He uses Owen but does not deal with him.
Malone
then makes a theological blunder with describing the Covenant of Grace
and the Covenant of Redemption. He
says that he believes in the Covenant of Redemption and seems to
describe it well.
But then he says, “Some identify the Covenant of Redemption
with another covenant, the so-called Covenant of Grace.
There is little difference between the two positions.”
This is absurd. There
is a huge difference between Covenant Theology that teaches the Covenant
of Redemption being eternal and where all the predestination passages
take place and the Covenant of Grace that is the outworking of that
covenant in time, and the second position that melds the two together to
make salvation and covenant inclusion coextensive.
This is the heart of the matter between Covenant Theology and
Malone’s theology. He
simply does not understand the two positions if he is saying this.
He
then says, “Covenantal Paedo-Baptists and Baptists also both believe
in the historical Covenant of Grace that God made with His elect.”
This is must be qualified because Malone and I do not see eye to
eye on this. God makes his
Covenant of Grace with his elect and the seed of the elect believer.
Malone denies this. This statement then is false and inaccurate
at best. Then, Malone
begins to make a distinction between Genesis 3:15 (The Covenant of
Grace) and the “covenants of promise” seen through the Old
Testament. Here is where
his Dispensationalism comes to fruition.
To divide the two (the Covenant of Grace and the other
“covenants”) is to divide the nature of how God views Israel, the
church, and the manner He saves in both eras.
Rather, the Covenant of Grace is the covenant of promise given to
Abraham, and the law, or the scaffolding around the building of the
Covenant of Grace, will be done away with when Jesus comes.
Covenant Theology and Malone’s theology are radically
different. He then says,
“Covenantal Paedo-Baptists and Baptists both believe that the New
Covenant of Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant
and is the clearest and final fulfillment of the historical Covenant of
Grace. The New Covenant is
therefore the fulfillment of that eternal Covenant of Redemption to save
God’s elect people (2 Tim. 2:1-8).”
The first sentence is true, but Malone is going to show us he
really does not believe this. The second sentence is false.
The New Covenant is the expression of the Covenant of Redemption
in time, and the Covenant of Redemption will be fulfilled in the
eschatological eons of eternity.
Malone
then says, on the next page, that “the tendency of Paedo-Baptists to
make the Abrahamic Covenant with its organic elements almost identical
to the Covenant of Grace and, thus, the New Covenant administration.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but this is a blatant contradiction to
what he just said on the previous page.
He said, “Covenantal Paedo-Baptists and Baptists both believe
that the New Covenant of Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the
Abrahamic covenant and is the clearest and final fulfillment of the
historical Covenant of Grace,” and then says, “the tendency of
Paedo-Baptists to make the Abrahamic Covenant with its organic elements
almost identical to the Covenant of Grace and, thus, the New Covenant
administration.” Did he
proofread this before publication?
He seems to be putting some weight in to the word “organic”
here. If the Abrahamic
Covenant is the same as the New Covenant (which it is), then it cannot
be different. If the New
Covenant fulfills the Abrahamic Covenant then they cannot be different
essentially. Malone insists
they are different. He
believes the seed of Abraham is fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and those
that are of faith in Abraham are the true seeds.
This is no wrong, but his conception of “covenant” is going
to assume that God’s dealing with unregenerate infants, in any
covenant, new or old, is going to be a mystery.
Why would God bother to have children included in the covenant,
if “covenant” does not pertain to them in any way, but only as one
of faith? He will have to,
then, reinterpret the meaning of “covenant” for the entire Bible,
which is exactly what he does, in order to make all this work.
Malone
quotes Robertson to define covenant as a “bond in blood sovereignly
administered by God.” This
is not necessarily wrong, but it is not really a complete definition.
For instance, the Davidic expression of the Covenant of Grace
does not include God talking about blood at all.
However, Malone uses Robertson’s definition as what
“Paedo-Baptists” believe. Next,
he quotes Booth who adds the classic stipulations, blessings and curses
on the covenant. Malone dislikes this and desires that every covenant speak
for itself. This is
interesting since Malone is going to quote Ecclesiastes and Hosea to
explain Genesis 2 and the Covenant of Works.
Why does he play with words in this way?
Why not let Genesis 2 speak for itself.
The reason is that Genesis 2 is not a complete picture, or
rather, not as complete as we would like it in clear statements, to
describe the situation. Other
parts of the Scripture must accompany this.
But Malone, in his exegetical fallacy here, uses other Scriptures
to define Genesis 2. He
should have listened to his own advice and allowed each covenant to
speak for itself. But this
is an impossibility, for all of the Bible, by the Analogy of Scripture,
will help us define the basic meaning of covenant and it uses.
He says that Booth says the New Covenant is breakable by those
who apostatize. Malone says
this cannot be. Covenant
Theology, orthodox theological history, says that is exactly what we
understand the Scriptures to say. But
this must be qualified by understanding what is meant in New Covenant,
church, membership, excommunication, etc. Malone says, “In the New Covenant there is no curse for
covenant breaking.”
Has Malone read the New Testament?
Surely he cannot miss the warning passages?
Actually, he does address them later, but does injustice to them
and their intent, as we will see. Each
covenant, Malone says, should be interpreted in its own context and
allowed to define what covenant means in each context.
The problem with this is that “covenant” throughout the
Bible, has essentially the same meaning.
To define all the contexts in all the Bible of covenant bring
certain ideas in view: Preamble (identifying the suzerain) Historical prologue (recounting the
suzerain’s beneficent dealings with the vassal) Stipulations (stating
the suzerain’s requirements of the vassal) Sanctions (blessings for
obedience, curses for disobedience) Dynastic disposition (providing for
how the relationship is to be perpetuated in the face of changing
circumstances). This is the
basic constitution of “covenant” seen with Adam, Noah, Abraham,
Moses, David and Christ. Malone
then attempts to demonstrate that since the immediate context of the
Abrahamic Covenant does not include a curse (?) then this shows that the
Abrahamic Covenant should be defined on its own terms.
That is as consistent as saying the Adamic Covenant does not say,
“covenant” so it is not one, though Malone believes it is.
“Covenant” elements are stipulated through the bible, and as
“covenant” is used, the significations of “covenant” are
applied. The Bible does not
have to give us everything we would like it to give in every situation.
In essence, after Adam, we should be well aware of what a
“covenant” includes.
Instead, Malone redefines, completely, the
idea of “covenant”. He
says, “For this reason, I believe that the biblical idea of a covenant
has promise, bond, or solemn oath at its very root meaning.”
This is interesting. What
is a solemn oath? What
consists of a solemn oath, promise and pledge? Malone does not say.
He does give us an example that seems to disprove Covenant
Theology in the Noahic Covenant. He
says there is no blood, and no curse on breaking it.
It was simply a unilateral sovereign promise to save Noah
and his family and never destroy the word by water again.
Is Malone serious here? The
Noahic Covenant was a non-redemptive antitype to baptism (See Peter).
It did not secure the salvation of anyone, and was not intended
to do so. It was a covenant
made with Noah and all flesh, (that means believers and
unbelievers were in this covenant, just as they were in covenant with
Adam, Abraham, Moses, David and Christ’s New Covenant – which is the
Abrahamic Covenant renewed). God
was establishing a context in the covenant with Noah to never again
destroy the world. If God
would continually destroy the world by water, then the history of
redemption would progress. Instead,
God forbears with men and works his covenant through time based on a
promise he made to all creatures never to destroy the earth again.
Visually this is the foundation of the building that He will
build the Abrahamic Covenant upon and cap it with the Capstone, Jesus
Christ. If Malone understood that this is was the unfolding of the
Covenant of Grace he would not have so much a problem here.
Here, then, is how Malone defines a “biblical” covenant, “A
biblical and divine covenant is a solemn promise or oath of God to man,
each covenant’s content being determined by revelation concerning that
covenant. Any other
position adds to revelation by erroneous inference.”
Malone does this with the Adamic Covenant, but seems to think it
is unacceptable to do this with others.
Actually, this should become the classic Dispensational
definition of “covenant”. There
is no complete “covenant” concept tying with any one “covenant.”
However, Malone will use Jeremiah 31 to describe the New
Covenant. Why? Why not let
just the New Testament references to the New Covenant describe its
content? He can’t.
The Bible is not written that way.
If we were to logically follow Malone’s advice, we would
violate his own first rule of hermeneutics every time we attempted to
understand a “covenant”. Each
undertaking would restrict us to the immediate context and would hinder
us from the rest of the Bible. But
Malone’s own use of Ecclesiastes and Hosea for the Adamic Covenant,
and the prophecies in the Old Testament for the New Covenant demonstrate
his inconsistency, and the erroneous nature of the “baptistic
definition of covenant.”
Malone then begins to cuddle with John Owen
and Louis Berkhof, as if the Covenant Theologians are going to cuddle
with him. In minimally choosing passages from their works, he attempts
to make a case that “promise” and “covenant” are two different
animals. Hence, the New
Covenant contains “aspects” that are “essentially the same” in
the New Covenant but not exactly the same.
This is typical of a redefining of Covenant Theology.
The reader should refer back to John Owen (see
my
survey on his ideas of the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of
Grace from all his works).
Owen should be fairly treated by assessing all his works and
keeping his theology in context, which will prove fatal to Malone’s
ideas, that “The covenants of promise and the New Covenant have a real
unity. That does not mean,
however, that they are essentially identical.”
Malone attempts to secure this by his definition of the New
Covenant and the character of it as unbreakable.
The unbreakable nature of the New Covenant is seen in his ideas
surrounding Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8.
However, as has been said, he shows no exegesis on why this is
so.
He even misunderstands the Paedo-Baptists by
attempting to say they have believed that the Covenant of Redemption
included unbelievers. This
is nonsense. No Paedo-Baptist has ever believed this.
Malone is confused because salvation and the covenant for him are
coextensive.
This is the overall problem with his theological stance that
cannot stand up to the unity of Scriptural attestation.
Nor does Malone ever give a foundation of the Law, to any great
extent, as underlying every covenant that he sees in scripture.
He cannot. If he
does, then there is a common unity among them that would necessarily
destroy his thesis.
Malone then says, “Although Paedo-Baptists
and Baptists alive agree that the New Covenant of Jesus Christ has a
unity and constitutes the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant,
covenant Baptists further believe that the New Testament describes a
fulfillment that shifts the emphasis from family relations to individual
responsibility and membership.”
This is the crux of the matter between Dispensationalists and
Covenant Theology. Malone
believes God changed the way he deals with men and the vehicle he will
use to bring about the salvation – the family. Instead, Malone believes it will turn into a radical
individualism. Unfortunately,
the New Testament witness does not give credence to his thesis.
Luke talks of households, not individuals. Promises are made to children too, not “any individual who
hears.” Jesus blesses the
babies brought to him. Hebrews
founds the High Priestly work of Christ on the eternal priesthood that
started in Genesis 14 and continues, etc.
The New Testament is filled with the same covenantal ideas that
Malone says “shifts away.” Also,
his sentence “Although Paedo-Baptists and Baptists alive agree that
the New Covenant of Jesus Christ has a unity and constitutes the
fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant” is wrong.
It should read, “Although Paedo-Baptists and Baptists alive
agree that the New Covenant of Jesus Christ has a unity and IS
the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant.”
Malone, then expecting the continuity of
Paedo-Baptists with the Abrahamic Covenant asks if Paedo-Baptists should
reclaim the land of Israel? Malone,
though, misses the point of the promise of the Old Testament to Abraham. God’s promise did not comprise of “simply making him the
father of many nations” but is embodied in “I will be a God to you
and your children after you…” Malone
misses this completely. The
external blessings of Abraham and the land are like saying that the
external blessing of a grand piano in a church worship service is
something Abraham should desire. That
is not the heart of the blessing at all.
Baptists tends, though, to think of the promise made to Abraham
as “land, seed and blessing.” This
is truly shallow Dispensational thinking.
Abraham was looking for the “city made without hands.”
Malone believes that the physical elements of
the Abrahamic Covenant no longer apply.
Would he say, then, that the covenant sign in the New Testament
be administered some other way that outwardly?
Would he say that communion should cease to be taken since
Melchizedek communed with Abraham in this way?
Would he say that children, now, are no longer important in the
scheme of God’s redemptive plan, and that God no longer works through
families or cares about them covenantally?
Yes, that is what Malone seems to be saying.
He has successfully redefined Covenant Theology back into a
Dispensational theology. He
says, “The Baptist position also holds that God has actually revealed
in the New Testament a change in the identity of the children of Abraham
entitled to the New Covenant sign of baptism.”
Here Malone presses “individualism.”
This guides Baptistic Ecclesiology and Sacramentology.
He then quotes a reference to Jeremiah 31:27-34, but he just said
that the New Testament dictates the change.
Why would he hold to an Old Testament idea?
He should simply quote Hebrews 8 and forget, exegetically, about
Jeremiah 31. Then, Malone
insists that such a change is made, and so he sees “ample evidence”
in the New Testament for this change.
But again, if this is the case, he will need to strip away any
reference at all to Covenant Theology.
If such a radical shift occurs, why do we find God still
concerned with using covenant language?
Finally, Malone talks a little about the New Covenant and Jeremiah 31.
He gives the typical baptistic overview of the law being written
on their heart in this New Covenant.
Did Abraham have
these things? If he did, then the New Covenant is not something New as
Baptists would say. The comparison in Jeremiah 31 is not to abolish the
Noahic covenant (that would make God a liar) or the Abrahamic covenant
(we would not be saved at all if that were the case.) In abolishing the
"scaffolding" around the building, the Mosaic laws of ceremony
(scaffolding) and ritual (scaffolding) are done away with when the
building is built and the capstone is placed upon it. In relation to a
building started, it may be deemed as a new work (like with Abraham) but
when the capstone is set and the roof is attached and the building is
ready for full use it seems like a new place altogether in comparison to
simply laying the foundation. This the building analogy Paul uses in the
New Testament. The Mosaic economy is no longer needed because Christ
fulfills all the promises he made to Abraham. And God today is still
upholding the promises he made to Noah (and all flesh) lest we all be
destroyed by another flood.
If this is the case, at what point will they "ALL know me" from
the least to the greatest? Again, the eschatological nature of
Jeremiah's prophecy in context (which many above in this post are trying
to get people to see) is something that happens not now, though we have
a taste of it, but later in heaven. Only in heaven will we have no
physical teachers, and only in heaven will all know God from the least
to the greatest. I know of no Baptist church anywhere (no independent
body of believers under the headship of Christ) that ever claimed they
knew infallibly that all the members of their church were in fact saved.
No Baptist church I have ever been a part of for 20 years has ever made
that claim, or can do so. They say they baptized based on profession of
faith, but they should be baptizing, if they remain consistent in their
interpretation of Jeremiah 31, to baptize only the regenerate. But then
they get confused and say they don't know if they are regenerate and
must take a best guess at it as far as they are able. But that does not
fit the theology of Jeremiah 31. All should know him and only regenerate
members should be part of the church, not to mention they are taking the
Lord's name in vain if they baptize someone who is not regenerate
according to their own theology because they say that only believers
should be baptized. There are so many theological and practical
conundrums in this interpretation of Jeremiah for Baptist theology.
Baptists are consciously allowing, because of sin, unbelievers into
their membership and part of the body.
Malone calls this radical individualism in the New Testament
“heightened individualism.”
Novel. The renewed covenant made with the house of
Israel and Judah is the Abrahamic covenant fulfilled in Christ.
It is set in contrast to the ceremonial and judicial laws given
at Sinai because the blood of bulls and goats do not really save.
Jesus Christ inaugurates the coming of this new kingdom and
renewed covenant. In doing so, the New Covenant is “now” for us, since we
are saved; but it is also “not yet,” in that in heaven all people
will know the Lord form the least to the greatest.
There are teachers now in inaugurating the renewed covenant, but
there will be no teachers then. There
are saved people now, but the “knowing” is complete only in heaven.
No church, anywhere, is made up of all regenerate people, and is
without teachers or pastors.
Chapter
4: The Covenant Theology of the Bible (Part II): New Covenant
Fulfillment and Infant Baptism.
In the beginning few pages of
this chapter, Malone simply reiterates what he already said.
Then he brings up Jeremiah 31 again.
He says, “By definition, every heart in the New Covenant is
circumcised by God.”
The question to ask here, since Jeremiah gives us both the
inauguration of the New Covenant as well as some eschatological
realities to it, is “When?” “When
will they all know from the least to the greatest?”
“Now?” According
to Jeremiah, it will happen when there are no more teachers to teach us.
When will this be? In
heaven. Malone completely
misses the eschatological reality of the now and not yet as aspects of
the New Covenant. Then
Malone says that the New Covenant is not like the Sinai covenant that
had stipulation. He says
this because his new definition of “covenant” forces him to say
this. If he does not, then
the Paedo-Baptists interpretation of the New Covenant would be correct,
and would correlate to every other progression of the Covenant of Grace
seen in the Old Testament (which it does).
Then, Malone fights against the definition of the word “New”.
He wants this word to be “brand new.”
Unfortunately, the word means, “new, renew, or refresh.”
These are synonyms. What
is Malone’s response for “chadash.”
He quotes a number of uses of the word “new” in instances
where he thinks things are “brand new.” For instance, Exodus 1:8 says that they get “a brand new
king.” Question – is
“kingship new?” No, it
is not. He quotes Deut.
22:8, in terms of a “brand new house.”
Are “houses” new? No
they are not. A house may be built, but the “class” of “house” is
not new. He quotes others
as well, but fails to quote the same use of the word for things like,
“They are new every morning: Great is they faithfulness.” (Lam.
3:23) Are God’s mercies
new every morning? No.
But they are refreshed or renewed to us each day as we seek Him.
Job desired that his
glory was "fresh" in him, Job 29:20.
This does not mean “new” but renewed.
A survey of the Old Testament will show that such a
“renewing” in Hebrew is considered as new, though its cognate
is old, but simply refreshed. It
is almost never used of "new, as in "brand new" – as in
something never done before at all. Plus, the context of Jeremiah
is comparing Abraham's covenant with the Mosaic Law, the tablets of
stone, and the promises of the Lord to Abraham, of which we know Christ
is the fulfillment. Abraham’s
covenant is not new. It is
refreshed, renewed, fulfilled, completed, etc., in Christ (which
ultimately points to the use of this passage in Hebrews 8).
Malone’s “selective” use of the word is dubious.
Not only does the word new refer to something refreshed or
renewed, but in Jeremiah the prophecy is contrasting the New Covenant
with the Sinai Covenant, not the Abrahamic Covenant.
Malone then explains his dissatisfaction with seeing the New
Covenant as not completely new, and then says, “Baptist covenantalists
understand the New Covenant to be, in its essence, the possession of
these blessings by every covenant member.”
Where does it say “in essence” in Jeremiah or in Hebrews?
It doesn’t. But in
order to hold onto his theological perspective here, “in essence”
will have to do. He does
not deal with the eschatological impact of “no longer teach one
another” will any clarity. He
says on page 94 that some have tried to overthrow this
“individualism” that he is after with eschatological ideas in
Jeremiah 31. Instead,
though, of dealing with this issue, which drives the eschatological
content of the passage, he simply blows by it without mentioning the
problem for his theological view at all.
He then asks two questions: Can one be said to be in the New
Covenant without an actual Mediator?
Can one be under the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace
at the same time? I think not…”
Actually, were Abraham and his circumcised children in the New
Covenant? Yes.
Did they have a Mediator? Yes.
Was there a condition by which they would be blessed?
Yes. How then could Christ be a fulfillment of that Abrahamic
Covenant, but not be the Mediator over the covenant? What Malone is doing is mixing up the Covenant of Redemption
and the Covenant of Grace here.
Malone then says “In
addition, Paedo-Baptists who hold that Baptism is the counterpart of
circumcision are faced with the problem of Galatians 3:27, where all who
were baptized into Christ have clothed themselves with Christ.”
This is obviously a plea that since infants are baptized, they
are not necessarily clothed with Christ.
Malone is saying those baptized are clothed, ipso facto.
What does he do with Simon Magnus, or any other false professor?
Malone then moves into
Paedo-Baptist arguments “refuted” where he tries to outsmart the
warning passages of the New Testament.
He says that Baptists and Paedo-Baptists “are difficult for
both” to exegete and understand.
This is simply not true. Baptists
have a hard time with them because they are contrary to their
theological position. They
fit perfectly with a Covenant Theology framework.
Blessings and curses are seen in the New Testament because
covenant breakers and covenant keepers are sanctioned with one or the
other. He deals with
Hebrews 6 scantily. He says
it cannot be used to support infant membership. I am fine with that. Can
it be used to describe those in covenant with God that are not
regenerate, and yet fall away? Hebrews
6 and 10 deal exactly with that issue.
Malone offers little to disprove this, but he is dealing with the
wrong question trying to place these passages out of bounds to infant
membership. He needs to
deal with unregenerate membership.
Next he mentions John 15. He
quotes the passage and says this, “However, John 15 makes clear that
those disciples who do not “abide in Christ” were never “in” the
New Covenant to begin with.”
Malone then quotes the New Geneva Bible footnote that says that
John 15 is dealing with “the union of Christ the Mediator with His
redeemed people,” as if to say, “here, see, the Reformed Theologians
agree with me.” But in a
footnote on the bottom of page 103 he says, “There is no mention of
who is in or not in the covenant in this study Bible edited by Reformed
theologians.” I am glad
he cleared that up for us. Footnotes
can be helpful. Malone does
not deal with the “sap” issue, which is a difficult concept.
The branches are in the vine or else they would not be branches
(i.e. covenant members). They
are branches. Branches are
parts of the vine. If they
do not “abide” they are cut off.
Sounds like Old Testament ideas to me.
Then, upon the same lines, Romans 11 is used to disprove that the
same tree, or stump is still the same Covenant of Grace.
He says, “The issue in Romans 11 is not that of an individual
being a New Covenant member whop has been broken off as a covenant
breaker. Paul speaks of
faith, rather than ethic origin, as the prerequisite of being engrafted
into he root in the New Covenant era, whether Jew or gentile.”
Malone offers no exegetical work on the text, except a quote by
A.T. Robertson that he agrees with.
However, this idea is unattainable based on a few simple
observations. Were the
people in the stump to begin with and were they broken off?
Does Paul threaten the individual Gentile or Jew, though they
“may have faith”, that if they neglect to accomplish the conditions
of true faith, and obedience, that he could be broken off as well?
Why can New Covenant members, in a New Covenant epistle be broken
off from the same tree stump that Jews were broken off from in the New
Covenant? He then says
Paedo-Baptists use poor exegesis to determine truths in this passage,
where Malone offers no exegesis for his conclusions.
To return to Hebrews 10:29,
Malone says it is faulty to take secondary passages to overrule primary
passages about the New Covenant. This
is nonsense talking. We are
to take all of the Word of God that is profitable for teaching, and
apply it harmoniously with all of the Word of God.
Hebrews 10:29 is not a “secondary” Scripture.
Nor is Hebrew 10:29 a “disputed text” (??) as Malone would
like it to be. That would
make his position, at least in his own mind, more defensible.
He quotes John Owen who sees this verse pertaining to Christ,
“he was sanctified” pertains to Him.
Then Kistemaker, with another view, and the John Brown with
subjective opinion. Irregardless
of the view, the passage is dealing with “apostates,” the theme of
the entire chapter. Apostate from what? From
a profession? Trampling the
blood of the covenant? How
does one trample the blood of the covenant without having a relationship
within the covenant? (It is
interesting that he does not quote Calvin.)
Malone also quotes 2 Peter as well, as an “aid” to
understanding the possibility of poor Paedo-Baptist hermeneutics.
If Hebrews talks about one who can be sanctified by the blood,
then 2 Peter 2:1 can mean the same.
But what exegesis is this? In
dealing with the reference in 2 Peter 2:1 to false teachers “denying
the Lord that bought them” Kuiper appeals to other Reformed scholars
for the most plausible explanation: “These false teachers are
described according to their profession and the judgment of charity.
They gave themselves out as redeemed men, and were so accounted in the
judgment of the Church while they abode in her communion.” Kuiper then
adds, “ Hebrews 10:29 which speaks of the sure damnation of him who
‘hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified,
an unclean thing,’ must be interpreted in like fashion.”[57]
In Hebrews 10:29 and 2 Peter 2:1 the reference seems to be to what the
apostates professed to have, rather than to what they had in fact: to
argue from these Scriptures in favor of universal redemption appears out
of keeping with the context, for the seriousness of this apostasy is due
to the SPECIAL relationship which these men professed to Christ and the
Holy Spirit. If it be claimed that the terms “bought” and
“sanctified” refer to real benefits conferred rather than to
external profession, great difficulties will arise with the doctrine of
perseverance as well, which many hypothetical universalists are eager to
maintain.[58] The
idea here is the difference between one that is unclean and one that is
not. To understand this
concept a study of the Old Testament concepts should be made.
Chapter 5: The
Relationship Between Circumcision and Baptism
The first note Malone makes is
that circumcision is the sign of the covenant – The Abrahamic
Covenant. Well done.
He then makes a note that the congregation in the wilderness was
not circumcised. He is not
sure why. The reason seems
to point to the reality that those people were baptized into Moses –
men, women, children and infants. (1 Cor. 10:2)
Later, the children of those cut off were all circumcised before
entering the Promised Land.
In
the New Testament circumcision was still practiced.
This is actually devastating for Malone, though he skips over it
rather quickly. He says,
“The New Testament attitude toward circumcision is one of
strong opposition to its practice as a work for justification (Galatians
5:2). However, it still was practiced by many Jewish Christians out of
respect for biblical tradition (Acts 21:20-21).”
True, circumcision never availed salvation, though it availed
covenant obligations, either blessing or curse depending upon obedience.
But then he says, “it still was practiced by many Jewish
Christians out of respect for biblical tradition (Acts 21:20-21).”
Does he see the implications here?
First, to say that it was out of “biblical tradition” is
semantic nonsense. Biblical
tradition? Does he mean
Old Testament tradition? When
was circumcision ever “tradition?’
To fail to circumcise was to enact death by God’s judgment
(Exodus 4:23-24). How then
does this apply to New Testament dealings?
From pages 115-119 Malone attempts to discredit the passage of
Acts 21 relating to Apostolic Sanction and thinks it is “profoundly
unbiblical” to sanction circumcision along side Baptism.
However, this is exactly what the passage teaches.
Instead of exegeting the passage, Malone attempts to thrash
Douglas Wilson who purports a correct view of Acts 21.
What should we say about this passage?
The Jews were upset. They
thought Paul said they should not circumcise their infants. James and
Paul deter that wrong sentiment, something Paul never said, or did say,
or ever would say. (In Galatians Paul deals with the abuse of
circumcision, not circumcision itself).
And so James has Paul fulfill a vow for four men, Jews, who are
zealous for the law. He demonstrates by word (James, and subsequently
Paul's affirmation of that word) and action (in his own acts) that he
never said the Jews should ever stop circumcising their males.
Acts 15 demonstrates the same thing. It did not say that Jews
should stop circumcising, rather, it said that the Gentiles should not
start. Baptism was enough for them.
Paul had no problem standing up to Peter at all. We are not
talking about wimpy Paul here. If
James had told him something he thought was theologically in error he
would have never done it. We
would have another apostle/apostle confrontation to read about.
The fact is, Paul went right along with it and sanctioned it.
Also, Acts 15 and Acts 21 deal quite importantly with the underlying
question of church relations and membership, and in Acts 21 we have
questions surrounding the Regulative Principle at stake, as well as
apostolic sanction (positively I might add as Baptists like).
It comes down to the impossibility of escaping the apostolic
sanction of children included in the covenant (the Jews circumcising
their males even at that time) and the Regulative Principle of worship,
which James and Paul, by action and word, established for the Jewish
Christian synagogue. No
fancy footwork is going to change this. (And we only need one Scripture
to overthrow the entire Baptist theses on the New Testament this way.
Even MacArthur said this very same thing in the debate with RC Sproul -
if infants are in the New Testament covenant, then that does it for
Baptist Theology. That is the crux of the question.
Here we see that Acts 21 most definitely, in and of itself, puts
and end to Baptist theology. The Apostles sanctioned infant inclusion in the New
Testament.
Next, Malone attempts to rid
us of the need for the sacrament (?).
He does this in two paragraphs.
If baptism and circumcision are signs of the covenant then
Malone’s point is voided. We
have already discussed this and have seen that since they are both
signs, and are both symbolic of regeneration, one by blood, one by
water, there is little doubt as to their significance as sacraments and
one is the fulfillment of the other. If circumcision is as Malone says, only a seal to
“righteous faith” (quoting Romans 4:11), then why would God have an
8 days old infant take that sign?
Malone then tackles Colossians
2:11-12 and unjustly separates the reality of the sign and seal to the
participants. Christ makes
circumcision in the heart. But
that does not mean that Baptism is linked to that circumcision.
How could a Baptist know this experimentally or practically?
This would be impossible, as discussed before.
Then Malone says that Baptism is a sign of regeneration - which
is not true, and circumcision is the seal of regeneration.
Unfortunately he has his wires cross here.
Circumcision is a sign of the covenant, (Gen. 17) which signifies
heart circumcision (Deut 10:16 and Jer. 4:4).
Christ fulfills this in His death.
Jesus sends the Spirit who completes the regenerative
circumcision on the heart as a result of His death for the elect
(Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26; John 3:3ff). Baptism is a sign of the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace
that Christ fulfills – the Abrahamic Covenant (Luke 1:55; 1:73).
It is a sign of the covenant made in Christ, and symbolizes
washing and regeneration. Malone
is overlapping and confusing the two signs.
He seems to miss that Christ has fulfilled the bloody rite of
circumcision in His death – which is why Paul detests the abuse of
circumcision as equaling salvation.
Chapter
6: Household Baptisms, the “Oikos” Formula and Infant Baptism
In all honesty, this chapter
that Malone writes against Jeremias is a waste of ink. The reason: he only deals with Jeremias first work and sides
with Aland, rather than taking up Jeremias’ second work that refutes
Aland. Since Malone has not
done his homework here and is arguing without having all the facts, I
will simply resort to a couple of points about household baptisms.
First, if Malone is right, and
individualism replaces the “family”, then we ought not, in any
capacity, to see covenant language surrounding baptism anywhere in the
New Testament. This,
though, is exactly what we find. He
first mentioned Acts 2 and makes only one mention for it on page 130,
and then treats it after the household baptisms on pages 137-141.
The summary of his argument is that “those that are afar off”
mean that Gentile believers, and others afar off, will be called into
the covenant and regenerated. The
children, or the promise to the children is still dependent on
Malone’s view of “those who had received his word.”
In other words, even though Peter was talking to cognitive Jewish
adults, the idea applies to children that later, when they are not
children anymore (? – adults later) will hear the word and believe
too.
These men, from all over the
land, were hearing the glory of God in their own language.
They are Jews, scattered abroad because of exile, and since they
have been captured and reprogrammed by the Roman oppression, they all
have their own language from different areas.
Remember, the people of Israel have been scattered all over.
Here, together, we see the forming of God’s people being
brought back into the fold. The
text says, “Men of Israel…”
Then Peter goes on, “But this is what was spoken by the prophet
Joel: 'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will
pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall
prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream
dreams. And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My
Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy. I will show wonders in
heaven above And signs in the earth beneath: Blood and fire and vapor of
smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood,
Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD. And it shall
come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the LORD Shall be
saved.'“ Prophetic passages can be tricky.
We should turn to Joel to see what Joel actually says.
Joel 2:28-32, “And
it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all
flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall
dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions. And also on My menservants
and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.
“And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth: Blood and
fire and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, And
the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of
the LORD. And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the
name of the LORD Shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem
there shall be deliverance, As the LORD has said, Among the remnant whom
the LORD calls.” What
is different? Peter does not quote the last part of the verse 32.
He leaves it off. Why?
Let me ask another question first; who is this prophecy about?
Gentiles? It says in Joel
2:27, in context, “Then you shall know that I am in the midst
of Israel: I am the LORD your God And there is no other. My
people shall never be put to shame.”
This applies to Israel then.
Peter is preaching to Jews.
He quotes the fulfilled passage.
Now might I ask, does this passage ring with covenant ideas or
individualistic ideas? Are
we talking about family here, or individual people?
It says “sons and daughters.” Is there anything about
menservants and the like? Yes – even menservants, maidservants, old
men and young men. Sounds like everyone in the household is being covered here.
Ok so far. Let’s
see what else Peter says. He
quotes David’s Psalm about Jesus when He is entombed.
He will not see corruption.
He did not see corruption. Jesus was raised from the dead.
He directs this to whom? It says in Acts 2:36, “Therefore let all
the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom
you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
It is directed to Israel. Professor:
Why should the house of Israel know this?
I thought Peter, at this point, would at least have his theology
straight and think that individuals should be addressed, not Israel.
Baptists say that changes when Peter quotes verses 37-38, “Now
when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to
Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what
shall we do?” Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of
you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins;
and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
See, Peter says they have to repent, and then be baptized!
The covenant seems to change.
It is now individual. But
we should ask a few simple questions, “Do you think Abraham needed to
believe in the promises as an adult?”
Yes. “After he
believed did he tell Isaac that he needed to believe as well?”
Yes. Did he circumcise Isaac before or after he explained that?
Before. Abraham believed.
Isaac was circumcised and later believed.
Adults pricked in this way, seeing they are already adults,
should repent and be baptized. Then
the verse, “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all
who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call,” is different
than Baptists would say. But Joel is the one who helps us with understanding this.
Is this covenantal language or not?
It is, very much so. What
is Peter saying here? He is
including the believers, and their children in the covenant.
The promise is actually for them. But wait!
It also says “and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord
our God will call.” Does
that mean “everyone” else who will be saved?
How could Peter be talking covenantally?
Baptists often think that at this point the Paedo-Baptist
argument falls apart because those who “are far off” are also the
unsaved Gentiles who will come into the fold later.
But we ask, “Does Peter believe that the Gentiles are included
in the Covenant at this point in time?” the answer is No.
That will not happen until Acts 10.
Read the verse that Joel quoted but Peter left out earlier.
“For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance,
As the LORD has said, Among the remnant whom the LORD calls.”
Peter does actually quote this but later in his message. He leaves the phrase “whom the Lord calls” off until he
“clinches” his argument with it about Jesus being raised from the
dead. In other words, it
looks as though he is “filling in the blanks” to Joel’s prophecy
and adds a bit more commentary on what happened.
He makes things more clear by doing this in his finely interlaced
sermon. Then he says “as many as the Lord will call.”
So Peter preaches to Jews and it is smothered in covenant
language. Children are
referenced, and “as many as the Lord calls” is referring to Jews.
What Jews? Jews not
present. Peter is preaching to the scattered people of God.
God is calling the remnant back as Joel prophesied – His chosen
people – people of the covenant.
Yes, later, Gentiles are seen as those grafted in.
Gentiles, according to Romans 11, are grafted into the same trunk
that the Jewish branches were broken off.
Malone, at this point, simply did not do his homework.
Back to the households, the
issue here is not whether infants are in the households.
Whichever way a person would argue is relevant upon one simple
point – the term “households” is not an individualistic term.
It is covenantal term. Malone
is so taken up in thinking that he can argue infants out of the
“oikos” formula, that he forgets the formula itself, the term
itself, is family oriented. This denies, completely his thesis. Luke, the precise historian, is very precise with his
wording. That is why there
is a slight variation at to the Greek phrasing in the Jailer’s home as
there is in Lydia’s home which demonstrates some important
differences. Malone does not seek any of this out. His most strained exegesis is the Jailer’s house in which
“he believes” the whole house believed, thought he text says
that the jailer believed and the house rejoiced in his new faith, though
they too were baptized. Ultimately,
Malone rests on inductive reasoning for his conclusions and misses the
covenant terminology of the family.
Chapter 7:
Answering the Infant Baptism Proof-Texts
We have discussed Joel and
Acts – Malone completely misses the boat exegetically here.
He says this is the best proof text that Infant Baptism likes to
use. It is a tragedy that
he completely befuddled his exegesis here and the text is quite solid
for Paedo-Baptism and infant inclusion, and the continuation of the
Abrahamic Covenant. What
would the Jews have thought when Peter said tot hem “to you and your
children and those afar off?” These
were, in fact, Jews of the Diaspora! They would have immediately thought of Abraham, and God’s
promise in Joel.
1 Corinthians 7:12-16 is the
next verse. Again, we are
not looking for Infant Baptism in the text, but we are wondering why God
sees children as holy, or even husbands as sanctified?
He takes to task G.I. Williamson.
Why? Why not Calvin,
Luther, Owen, Edwards, or someone with a bit more backing here?
Anyway, in his typical style, he chooses Williamson. He
does mention Ezra 10:2-3, which he should.
Paul is making a case that one believer sanctifies the husband,
and that the children are regarded as holy.
He does not say how they are, but simply says they are.
God sees these children as holy.
Paul is attaching this to the Old Testament views of clean and
unclean, as Malone points out. He
says, “children are acceptable to God…”
Really? Just a while
ago, well, for 142 pages so far, he is telling us that only the
regenerate in the Covenant of Grace are acceptable before God.
How is it that children are “holy?”
He says they are because their parent(s) are holy.
Wait! Because of the
parents, (Old Testament covenantal language) the children (Old Testament
covenantal language) are holy (clean – Old Testament covenantal
language.) Mr. Malone, help
me out here. Why are you
retracting everything you have said so far to demonstrate Old Testament
covenantal language on children that are regarded as holy, but should be
regarded as unclean? Malone
says that the children are “holy” which means “set apart” and
not “holy saints.” The
word is used 544 times through the LXX and the New Testament as
regarding “holy” and Malone attempts to discredit its use as
“saints.” He says,
“the same Greek word is also used sometimes as a noun in substantive
form for “saints” or “holy one,” as Williamson claims, but when
it is in noun form, it is usually prefaced by the article the, as in
“the saints.”” If the
word can mean saint, or holy, the point is not that we are trying to
make the children out as “saints of God” but that the language used
is not individualistic language but covenant language.
Malone is so entrenched in fighting Williamson’s Paedo-Baptism,
that he overlooks this verse and its contradiction to his
“individualistic” thesis completely.
The next verse he uses is 1
Corinthians 10:1-14 about the Israelites being baptized into the Red
Sea. He says, “Paul is
obviously speaking figuratively here, and one must be careful not to
press in every detail a figurative passage.”
Then he says, “such figurative language cannot overthrow clear
New Testament instructions for a sacrament instituted by Christ.”
This is interesting. First
he says it is figurative – the idea of being baptized here.
Is it? The cloud
baptized the Israelites when they went through the Red Sea.
How figurative was this? The
men, women and children, including infants, and infants in the womb,
were baptized when they went through the Red Sea.
Why would Paul even bother using that kind of language figurative
or not? Nor does this
passage overthrow the New Testament teaching, or the Old Testament
teaching on the sacrament of the covenant sign.
Malone sounds a bit frustrated when he says, “Appealing to
metaphorical and disputed passages to establish a sacrament and it
practice is not hermeneutically sound.”
Why not? These are
no disputed passages. Acts
2, 1 Corinthians 7 and 10 are not disputed at all.
Why say such a thing? They
are though, devastatingly, covenantal passages that destroy the
“individualism” that Malone would like to set upon in the New
Testament.
Chapter
8: Jesus’ Attitude towards Little children
Malone cites the texts of the
children being brought to Jesus and blessed.
Malone’s “suggestive” ideas around the children
“responding” to Jesus here is ludicrous.
The verb used is “to offer”.
Brephos – infants – little children 1-2 years old do
not have the capacity to “offer themselves.”
The parents brought the children and he did not want the
offerings to be hindered – i.e. the children themselves, not the
parents. The parents
brought an offering of children, of infants, and Jesus wanted them.
Malone says, “There is no promise to these children unless they
come to Jesus and receive the kingdom as well.”
Huh? Jesus said, “for to such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven.”
The kingdom is possessed by them.
Why would Malone say there is not promise to them?
According to Acts 2 there are many promises to them!
Malone’s use of the Greek here is selective. He summarizes his findings by saying this, “Several
paedobaptist authors such as Matthew Poole, Warfield, and John Murray
have agreed that there is no warrant for or an example of infant baptism
in these passages on Jesus’ dealings with children.”
This is true. But that is not what he should be looking for.
He should be looking for covenantal language being overpowered
individualistic language and the eradication of all “children”
blessings from the New Testament. Does
he find this here?
Chapter
9: the Disjunction of John’s and Jesus Baptism with Christian Baptism
Malone believes John’s
baptism and Jesus’ baptism are Christian baptisms.
This chapter is so full of assumptions and no exegetical work on
the texts, that I do not have much to say about it.
Malone is simply not working with the text, but assuming everyone
will simply agree with him. He
has nothing to say about Meredith Kline and “By Oath Consigned”
here, which is amazing since Kline destroys Malone’s faulty
misconceptions out of hand.
Malone
does not ask if this baptism of repentance by John included whole
families. He simply says
that it is a baptism of repentance and so assumes that means cognitive,
thinking, older “disciples.” Would
the covenant head of the family come out without his family to meet the
covenant lawsuit administration of God?
Is John bringing God’s covenant lawsuit out against the Jews or
is this simply a “Christian Baptism” in the name of the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit? There is
more than meets the eye here and Kline references this, though Malone
ignores it. I would direct the reader to check Kline’s work, as well as
the online work of Kim Riddlebarger where he outlines well the
information on John. He
says, John's baptism is frequently omitted in discussions of Christian baptism,
but this should not be the case, since John the Baptist is a pivotal
figure in the overlap between the old and new covenants. It is important
to remember, in this regard, that circumcision is not only a sign of
blessing, but also "a sign of Christ's redemptive judgment with its
benedictions and maledictions alike." If true, this means that we
must expand any discussion of baptism to also include the idea that
baptism also is a sign of blessing and of curse. At this point, Kline
asks the rhetorical question, "must we enlarge our theology of
baptism so as to see it in a more comprehensive symbol of the
eschatological judgment that consummates in the covenant of which
baptism is the sign?" [Kline, BOC, 50]. The answer, says Dr. Kline,
is yes.”
Chapter 10: The weight of precept, the
argument of silence and the Regulative Principle of worship.
Malone wonders why people have
used the argument from silence to prove infant baptism.
The answer is easy. Unless
God has abrogated the practice of including infants in the New Covenant
then the practice continues. Malone
spends a whole chapter trying to disprove this.
He tries this in three ways, 1) the weight of precept, 2) the
more consistent argument of silence itself, and 3) the regulative
principle of worship.
First, Malone wants to list
the positive commands for Paedo-Baptism and he finds none.
When I look for a positive command to baptize a professing
believer who I think is regenerate, in Malone’s language, I find
“exactly zero.”
Second, why do we need a positive command from the New Testament
to ensure a godly sacrament? Malone says that we must have one in the New Testament
because we are New Testament Christians.
This is his Dispensationalism talking.
The weight of precept is the mind of God as much as good and
necessary inference is the mind of God.
What exactly does “precept” mean for Malone?
That he sees it clearly? That
it seems straightforward to him?
This is not an exegetical argument on a text that explains this.
Next he deals with the
argument from silence. He
quotes Acts 15 believing that Paedo-Baptists say infant baptism can be
found there. That is not
the point of the passage at all. The
point is that the Jews were not told to stop circumcising, and the
Gentiles did not need to because their baptism was enough.
Malone needs to deal with that aspect of the passage.
Malone says that Paedo-Baptists use the same argumentation to
support Infant Baptism as they do the Lord’s Day, but Malone thinks
the Lord’s Day is clear. Funny.
I have not found a Scripture that says the “Sabbath”
“Switched” from the seventh day to the first day of the week.
Thirdly, he deals fruitlessly
with the Regulative Principle. Quoting
the confession does not help because the confession on the Regulative
Principle does not teach that you need a positive sanction in the New
Testament to form a doctrine. This
is true for both the 1689 Baptist Confession as well as the Westminster
Confession of Faith. The
1689 Baptist Confession of Faith says, “The light of nature
shews that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all;
is just, good and doth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared,
loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart
and all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is
instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will,
that He may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices
of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations,
or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.”
Malone quotes this himself.
The italicized words, though do not discount good and necessary
inference. Not at all.
Whether it is prescribed by picking at the mind of God, or by the
clear attestation of “Thou shalt not…” then it is still the will
of God. I am personally
surprised that Malone overrides his own Confession in this
regard. There is really no need to say any more than this, where
Malone takes this to extreme. He
cuts off his own foot with his own Confession.
Where does Malone find a positive, clear, explicit statement of
believer’s baptism that says, “when a profession of faith is made by
the regenerate disciple of Christ, after proving himself, he may be
baptized in water by immersion?”
Malone needs to concede that Credobaptism is built by an
inductive collection of texts.
Chapter
11: the Argument of Expanded Blessings to “Covenant Children.”
Malone begins this chapter by
the following, “One of the
great pearls that shines as brightly as the rest, from the Paedobaptist
perspective, is found in rhetorical questions such as: "If the Old
Testament children were granted the covenant sign, in this New Covenant
day of expanded blessing and fulfillment, shall we prohibit the covenant
sign to believers' children?" "Are our New Covenant children
less blessed and privileged than Old Testament children?"
"What happens to our infants who die in infancy?"
These are good questions. Baptistic
theology has no answers for children because children are not part of
their agenda. Malone will
attempt to tell us they are, and that parents should fulfill the
commands to Christ in taking care of them, but in reality, Baptistic
theology does not allow children into the covenant.
For instance Baptists should not pray with their children.
Why do they do this? This
is an Old Testament principle that they are utilizing for New Covenant
times. They conveniently
forget this because of practicality.
They know they should pray with their children and teach tem to
pray.
Malone says that there is no
unity among Paedo-Baptists with regard to Infant Baptism and its
covenant promises to believer’s seed.
Upon this note he is partially right depending on who one reads.
Malone is selective, so do not expect much here.
I do applaud him to tearing down the hyper-covenantalist view
that thinks that Infant Baptism saves the child (Doug Wilson).
But this view is inconsistent with the rest of the Bible.
Circumcision does not save.
Paul vehemently wrote against this in Romans and Galatians.
Baptism does not save. But
like circumcision, baptism sets the curses or blessings on the person,
whether they are 1, 5, or 50. They
will either be blessed by the sign or cursed by it depending on their
obedience. And we know only
the regenerate will be obedient by Christ’s power.
They will improve on it or they will be cursed for it.
Malone simply denies the Scriptures here.
He does not believe the promises are really for his children.
In this, he is a covenant breaker. Isaiah 59:21 says, “As
for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit
that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth,
shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed,
nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth
and for ever.” Does
he believe this? Mat
19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer the little children, and forbid them not,
to come unto me: for to such belongeth the kingdom of
heaven.” Does Malone
believe this? By his own
admission, no.
In terms of having his
children less privileged than the Paedo-Baptists Malone says, “I think
not.” He is wrong. God was angry with Moses for not applying the covenant sign.
Abraham was told to be sure to apply the sign of the covenant or
else he would “break” the covenant.
Why does Malone think the New Testament sign is any less
significant when it is Christ that is being ignored in the fullness of
the New Covenant refreshed? He
even goes so far to assume that a non-covenanted child can partake of
the “possible” blessing seen in 2 Samuel 12:23 that David said when
“he would go to him.” Why
would Malone tread back into the Old Testament to retrieve
comfort from a Covenant Theological Scripture?
He has already rejected this.
This comes down to Malone’s own ideas here – if he needs a
New Testament “clear instituted prescribed” practice for his
children to be blessed, then he should look to the New Testament and try
to dig up a non-covenantal argument from weary Dispensational theology.
There are none. The children of believers are blessed based on the promises
of the Old Testament fulfilled in the New Covenant in Christ, and are
special to Christ when they are inducted into the covenant by reception
of the sign. By his own
admission, I am curious as to why Malone is even bothering with
“rescuing” his children from the Paedo-Baptists admission of their
non-covenantal status. Why
does he feel the need to do this? Can’t
he just say they are wicked little brats, and that God cares nothing for
them since they are not regenerate (he hates them) and leave it at that?
Why does he make a fuss? And
it is not harsh to say these things since his own theology teaches it.
It is what he is trying to prove!
The Baptism of disciples ALONE.
God cares nothing for His children.
What reason does He have to care for them?
On the other hand, the faithfulness of God for the promises made
to believers and their seed give them every hope that God will be
faithful to all those promises. What
promises do Malone’s children have as children?
Chapter 12: The
Testimony of Tradition and the Historical Argument of Silence.
Malone begins here by saying,
“I have deliberately chosen tradition as the last pearl to add to the
ring, simply because it should be the smallest. I fear that often it has
been the largest. However, if the Scripture is our only rule of truth
and practice, then the role of tradition must be only to clarify and
corroborate what Scripture clearly sets forth. Marcel laments, “O the
inconsistency of Protestants who wish to found baptism upon tradition or
upon "the authority" of the Reformers.”
We cannot allow the unified testimony of the greatest of
Paedo-Baptist divines to overthrow our own consciences bound to
Scripture alone, especially in regard to the sacraments supposedly
instituted by Christ. Was this not the heart cry of the Reformation to
begin with? To Paedobaptists, the two most attractive areas of tradition
are the uncertain practice of Jewish proselyte baptism and the
documented practice of the early church as testified by the Apostolic
Fathers. In both of these
testimonies, T. E. Watson and Paul K. Jewett have presented the most
incisive summaries I have read.”
Malone wants to be part of the Reformation.
He wants to sound the continual heart cry of the old divines.
Unfortunately, when you hold to dissenter and non-reformed
aspects of theological ideas you simply cannot.
We have gone over this before.
Malone says that the best he has read on the Jewish proselytes
and the early Fathers are Watson and Jewett.
Jewett is better because he relies quite extensively on William
Wall, as mentioned earlier in this paper.
Why Malone did not read Wall is questionable.
He is right though, all of the greatest theologians of the church
have believed in Paedo-Baptism. This
should cause Malone pause, as said before.
When you disagree with the church, when you dissent from it, you
must have solid grounds to do so, and convincing grounds to practice it. Malone has neither. Simply
from the contradictions, the poor exegesis, the assumptions and the
inductive logic shown so far, one would wonder why others who read this
manuscript did not help him see these problems. And this is the best-written polemic in two hundred years?
It is not necessary to comment
on Malone’s use of the early fathers, the Didache, and the divines
like J.W. Alexander. Jewett
does a far better job in dealing with history, where Malone should have
acquiesced to him entirely omitting this space for the chapter.
There were no quotes from the early fathers, simply a reference
from the Didache (the Didache does not mention election – so should we
disbelieve that? No.
Rather we should understand that the Didache was written for neophytes.)
He does mention Alexander who says that Baptists can never
perform a valid baptism since they cannot be sure the person is
regenerate. This is true, though Malone simply says, “Such illogical
and extreme statements by one of history’s most respected reformed
leaders reveals the weakness of the Paedo-Baptist position.”
The reasons he thinks this is because of Acts 2:41 which, for
Malone, demonstrate the “professor’s baptism” in the New
Testament. He does not
consider whether this is a dry or wet baptism at all.
Nor does he think through the implications of this, if he is
right, being simply towards the Federal heads of families. Nor does he think through the prescription here – there is
not one word of institution, but only of description of
one historical event. Does
this somehow make Alexander’s question, invalid?
Will Malone produce the exegetical work to first prove this is
not a dry baptism, or infilling of the Spirit, i.e. conversion, as well
as proving that this Scripture annuls Paedo-Baptism?
I am sure he cannot.
Chapter 13: What
Difference Does it Make?
Malone then takes this last
main chapter to demonstrate how a belief in Credobaptism can have
practical implications. 1)
He thinks that the baptism of disciples alone is what the New Testament
is about. (We have already
dealt with that at length all through this short critique.)
2) It affects evangelism. (True
– a faulty idea of those incorporated into the church will produce a
faulty evangelism and hermeneutic towards the family.)
3) The church should not gear itself towards seekers, but
disciples. (This is false in that it should gear itself to families and
making disciples out of them all.) 4) The autonomy of the local church
is emphasized, (True, the dissenter movement continues to break apart
the church of Jesus Christ.) 5)
The church is made of up baptized disciples and should gear itself that
way – the church is only made up of Christian priests (this affects
their ecclesiology and is practically unattainable no matter how great
length they go, for they will never know if they are truly baptizing a
disciple or not. He is
obviously referring to the visible body here.) 6) Each church as an
assembly of baptized disciples requires the practice of church
discipline (in Baptist church this should occur less since all the
members should be regenerate. But
church disciple is bigger than that, and Jesus instituted it (Matthew 16
and 18) as a means to keep the church within the bounds of covenant
keepers. 7) The church of baptized disciples should practice biblically
regulated worship (this should be truer, but because, as Malone pointed
out, that the right administration of the sacraments determines a true
church, the Baptist church is disqualified by his own admission and by
the stance of the Reformers.)
Chapter 14: Postlude
– A final Appeal to Build Baptist Churches
Malone wants “Reformed”
Baptists to build “Reformed churches” that add to its “Solas”
the “Baptism of Disciples alone.”
I have already commented on this, but it seems amazing to me that
in light of the Scriptures, and the historical trace of exegesis for
ecclesiology, that the dissenter movement continues to push away from
the Reformation and the Reformed Theologians of our day do not rise up
with their pens against them. Reformers
do not burn dissenters at the stake (any longer) but they should be
writing fervently against their poor exegetical work, and their
misunderstandings about Covenant Theology.
Malone calls for people to raise up Baptist churches, I would
make a call to men to become “theological redwoods” so that would
not happen, and we would attempt a unification of all the churches based
on sound doctrine, not newly invented ideas.
Unfortunately, with the theological degradation that is going on
today, as Malone notes in Baptist churches, it will take a great move of
God to unite us together.
Appendices: 1-4
Malone has 4 appendices, which
really amount to little after going through the book.
His chapter on the “mode” of baptism is not convincing at
all, although, I must say, it is where most of his “exegetical” work
is seen on that issue. The
others on Spurgeon and the mode of baptism, the book critique on the
Biblical doctrine of infant Baptism by Marcel, and the appendix to the 1689
Baptist Confession of Faith are something the reader can peruse and
think through themselves.
[57]The
Evangelical Theological Society. (1967;2002). Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society Volume 10 (Vol. 10, Page 193).
Evangelical Theological Society.
|
|
Back to the
Book Reviews
|
