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 Coven |
