Before I go any further I wish clarify an objection. Many Paedobaptists insist that some of the arguments presented against their position are borrowed from others. Indeed they are. I seek to not present anything novel. These arguments are some that have lead me to not embrace paedobaptism while I made my theological shift from Arminianism to Calvinism. It was tempting to embrace the whole Reformed position, paedobaptism and all, in order to be accepted and included in the broader "Truly Reformed" circles. It was certainly tempting and would have been easier to simply accept infant baptism from its persuasive arguments and be received by the upper echelon of Christianity. Yet after much study, honest study, my conscious is bound to the Word of God which I believe does not allow for paedobaptism. Not by command nor inference. I am aware of the paedobaptist position(s) (there are a variety) and simply reject them. This is perhaps what seems to anger some.
Let me repeat that I am not trying to bring any new objections and arguments to the discussion. Let me also say neither is the paedobaptist. The arguments they present are borrowed from others- Zwingli, Luther, Calvin, Owen, Ursinus, the Westminster Divines, Hodge, Murray, Berkhof, Marcel, Jeremias, Pratt, Wilson, Horton e.t.c.; all whom have disagreed on very significant points or borrowed from others and expanded the arguments(s) themselves. Thus my paedobaptist brethren are borrowing the thoughts and information of others as well. That is not a bad thing, so long as one has truly examined the evidence from both sides and have been persuaded, not by the rhetoric or stature behind the one arguing or by counting noses, but by the Holy Writ. Neither one of us are bringing anything new to the table. How about we both admit that?
Without granting the argument that baptism replaces circumcision and corresponds with it on a one to one basis so much so that they are identical. This is a point we shall return to later and in more depth, in yet another article. Sufficient for now is to affirm with Paul Jewett:
We have agreed that circumcision means "essentially" what baptism means in the New Testament. What is needed is not a repetition of this point but rather a close look at the Old Testament to determine exactly what is the nature of the non-essential diversity between the signs. Paedobaptists, it would seem, are so committed to the similarity of circumcision and baptism that they care little for the task of determining wherein the two are dissimilar. Circumcision is baptism and baptism is circumcision, for all theological purposes. The difference between the signs is so incidental that no good thing, theologically speaking, could come from probing it. But if this is the case, then where is the warrant for "old" and "new" as appropriate adjectives to describe the difference between the covenants? Why is the Bible in two parts?
Therefore, we cannot approve this method that simply identifies the new with the old. We can only protest that such an emphasis on the inward and spiritual blessings sealed by baptism as the key to the interpretation of the Old Testament rite of circumcision is a faulty approach, which needs to be balanced by a recognition of the outward and external blessings that circumcision also represented to those who received it. To interpret circumcision exclusively in terms of baptism is to read the New Testament back into the Old in a manner that violates the movement of holy history and denies the progressive character of revelation. We must never write systematic theology at the expense of biblical theology. We must explore the ways in which the Old Testament teaching about circumcision differs from the New Testament teaching about baptism (emphasis mine).*We shall now proceed to examine if the paedobaptist is consistent with applying the "good and necessary inference" that lead them to paedobaptism, with applying the same hermeneutic with paedocommunion.
It was John Murray that championed the argument of "good and necessary inference" which he believes to be from the WCF's (Westminster Confession of Faith) "good and necessary consequences" (WCF 1:6). In Murray's own words:
The evidence for infant baptism falls into the category of good and necessary inference , and it is therefore quite indefensible to demand that the evidence required must be in the category of express command or explicit instance.*
The basic premise of the argument for infant baptism is that the New Testament economy is the unfolding and fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham and that the necessary implication is the unity and continuity of the church.*In other words since the sign of the covenant for the people of God was circumcision in the Old Testament and that sign bears not just external significance but spiritual as well, unless there is express command to abolish this sign to the covenant people of God, which included infants and adults, then this sign and seal carries over into the New Testament in the outward form of baptism and is to be given to the covenant people of God, again, which includes the children of believers. To put it, yet, a different way- since there is no express command to abolish the inclusion of infants from among the covenant people of God; although there is no New Testament command or explicit examples of infant baptism in the New Testament, we must infer that since baptism replaces circumcision and to be "identical" with it , infants must be included into the covenant people of God and are to be baptized. The "good and necessary inference" of the sign of God's covenant people is identical in meaning but differs in form in the Old Testament economy and New Testament economy. Again, unless there is an explicit command in the New Testament to abolish giving the covenant sign and seal to infants of the covenant people, we can infer from the biblical data that is must continue from the Old to the New. That is a common argument from paedobaptists.
Without granting that premise I wish to move forward to demonstrate that that same argumentation is rejected and abandoned by the majority of paedobaptists when it comes to infant communion. According to Exodus 12 the Passover meal was to be for the "household" (v. 3-4) and to be established with them and their sons forever (v. 24). Now apply the same "good and necessary inference" hermeneutic from many paedobaptists that demand that the "household" baptisms in the New Testament which is to include infants. Take that same principle and apply it to the Passover meal in Exodus 12 and you are led to believe that children, not nursing on their mother's breasts, must have been included in the Passover meal -which is replaced with communion. Furthermore, since it was to "you and your sons forever" (bear in mind that a similar phrase is used by Peter in Acts 2:38-39 and is a reason for paedobaptists to baptize infants) and we have no explicit command in the New Testament to rescind the sacrament of the Lord's Table to covenant members, then by "good and necessary inference", just as with the sign of covenant membership, children must be included to have a place at the Lord's table. Yet a great majority of paedobaptists will abandon the hermeneutic that led them to infant baptism when it comes to infant communion.
They attempt to do so through a few ways. One of which is to deny that children were not allowed to participate eating of the lamb in the Passover meal. At this juncture paedobaptists are at disagreement with each other. John Murray held the view that children were not allowed to participate while Berkhof affirms that they did participate. Murray and many others deny children were allowed participation on several grounds. One being that v. 26 sates they are to give an answer to their children when asked why they celebrate the Passover meal. The reasoning is that children were not allowed to participate unless they were old enough to ask about it. The answer to that objection is, exegetically speaking , there is nothing in the text that says they were only allowed participation unless they asked. It only states parents were to testify to their children the extreme importance behind such a service when the children were old enough to inquire.
Perhaps a better answer to the objection is as Fred Malone writes:
The inclusion of children in the meal is clear because there were no other leavened breads and meats allowed to be present in the household ( Exodus 12:19, 28, 29). Except for infants still on the breast, there literally was nothing else for the children to eat but the Passover meal!*Quite interestingly Murray demonstrates the weakness of his position while showing a glimpse of recognition of his inconsistent hermeneutic. He writes:
It could be resolved by going in the other direction, namely,that of admitting infants to the Lord's supper. And when all factors entering into this dispute are taken into account, particularly the principle involved in infant baptism, then far less would be at stake in admitting infants to the Lord's supper than would be at stake in abandoning infant baptism.*Another way in which paedobaptists attempt to affirm peadobaptism and deny paedocommunion is on the basis of 1 Corinthians 11:28. They (rightly) maintain that a child cannot examine themselves as commanded before participation. Yet the "good and necessary inference" that led them to paedobaptism was on the basis of a lack of command to rescind or prohibit the sign of the covenant to infants born to established covenant members. Where, then, is the command to prohibit these same infants born into the covenant by virtue of their parents, rescinded in the New Testament? There isn't one. That puts the paedobaptist in a conundrum by the logic of their very own hermeneutic (of baptism). A command to examine oneself is not the same as a command to rescind.What about the view of paedofaith, if God can grant an infant faith can he not grant them the ability to examine themslves? What is the appropriate age to do this? Just as it has been objected that the examples to repent and believe before baptism, in the New Testament, is alleged by paedobaptists- is for unbelieving adults or those cognizant. How do we not know that the same command for self-examination is only for adults or those cognizant? Appealing to 1 Corinthians 11:28 does not help their case. It exposes it. It reveals their inconsistency in applying their hermeneutic to all areas. Fred Malone explains this to be the reason he re-examined his position as a paedobaptist:
If children in the Old Covenant were allowed to participate in the Passover Feast as soon as they were able to consume the elements, but children in the New Covenant are not allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper until a professed faith and self-examination are evidenced, is there also inconsistency with the hermeneutics of infant baptism. What hermeneutic must determine consistently the subjects both of baptism and the Lord's Supper?*
After serving happily for seven years in Presbyterian churches, I was unsettled when reading Exodus 12. This text revealed that the household children partook of the Passover meal. Since I believed baptism was a continuation of circumcision and the Lord's supper was a continuation of the Passover, then did this mean that Presbyterians should allow children to take communion from their earliest years? I found that theologian decided against such a notion. the reason he gave, however, was that the New Testament requires partakers of the Lord's supper to examine themselves first (1 Cor. 11:28). Then it hit me. The New Testament also requires baptismal candidates to repent first. If one is hermeneutically consistent, one must accept both paedobaptism and paedocommunion, or one can accept neither. This discovery uncovered many inconsistencies in my position, leading me to adopt the position that only disciples should be baptized. I was a Baptist, again.*It is this flip-flopping inconsistency Malone realized of his past hermeneutic, that Jewett brilliantly says:
There is a third reason to be explored, as a reason, by paedobaptists for rejecting paedocommunion. It is to appeal to church history but as we shall soon see, the earliest testaments of infant baptism favored the inclusion of infant communion. They well understood that that the two sacraments go together. You cannot be a partaker of one yet be denied the blessing of the other. I will explore that issue at a later time.
They have so far pressed the unity of the covenant as to suppress the diversity of its administration. They have, to be specific, Christianized the Old Testament and Judaized the New.
It is this double movement within the argument from circumcision - reading the New Testament as though it were the Old and the Old Testament as though it were the New - which makes the argument so easy to use and so difficult to criticize. The reader should be advised at the outset that Paedobaptist reasoning does not flow in one direction like the water in a brook but rather can be likened to the great currents of the sea. As the deep, heavy water is constantly flowing over the sill at the Straits of Gibraltar and out to sea, while the lighter, less saline water is flowing inward from the Atlantic to replace it, so it is with the Paedobaptist argument from circumcision. It moves in two directions at the same time, reading the Old as though it were the New and the New as though it were the Old. It is this compounded error that makes the Reformed argument for infant baptism, apparently so plausible on a superficial level, seem utterly confused when one probes it in depth.*
Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
*Mr. Paul K. Jewett. Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (pp. 96-97). Kindle Edition.
* John Murray, Christian Baptism (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970), p. 72
* Ibid., p. 48
* Fred Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone (Cape Coral, Fl.: Founders Press, 2007), p. 24
* John Murray, Christian Baptism (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970), p.77
* Fred Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone (Cape Coral, Fl.: Founders Press, 2007), p. 27
*Tom Nettles And Russell Moore, Why I am A Baptist ( Nashville, TN.: B7H Publishing Group, 2001), p. 137-138
*Mr. Paul K. Jewett. Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (pp. 91-92). Kindle Edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment