From the TeachingtheWord Bible Knowledgebase

Part 4 of a series. Read part 3.

The position on baptism presented in this series is the author's personal doctrinal position, and is not part of TTW's official doctrinal statement.

Upon what principles of interpretation must we base an examination of the doctrine of baptism - or any other Bible doctrine?

These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (1 Corinthians 2:13)

Five Key Principles

Before addressing the three key paedobaptist premises set forth in the last article in greater detail, it is important not only to define terms but also to define Biblical principles for the interpretation of Scripture. In his book, Let the Reader Understand, Dr. Dan McCartney summarizes the grammatical-historical hermeneutical principles that apply not only to baptism but to all doctrinal issues, and the priority in which those principles should be applied:

1. The near context is more determinative of meaning than the far context. A statement of Paul should be related to other statements of Paul before being compared to statements of Matthew or Isaiah....

2. A didactic or systematic discussion of a subject is more significant for that subject than a historical or descriptive narrative. It should be obvious that when a historical narrative reports something as happening under some specific circumstance, one cannot draw theological conclusions from it [alone]....

3. Related to number 2 is the principle that explicit teaching is more significant than supposed implications of a text....

4. Literal passages are more determinative than symbolic ones.....

5. Later passages reflect a fuller revelation than earlier. The most obvious application of this principle is that the New [Testament] takes precedence over the Old. Again, there is no real conflict between the testaments when properly understood in their whole biblical...contexts, but the later revelation is fuller and clearer.... [1]

Difficulties

In this study we shall see that the foundational hermeneutic of the paedobaptist position contravenes many of these sound, Biblical principles, both individually and also as to their proper priority - especially points 3 and 5.

Most paedobaptists would say that they agree with both of those points. They would concur with statements that the New Testament takes precedence over the Old; that the New Testament is God's fullest and clearest revelation; and that the New Testament interprets how the Old Testament is fulfilled. But as we shall see, it is easy to demonstrate that in actual practice paedobaptist theologians use inferences drawn from the Old Covenant's administration as the bedrock foundation of their position. They place an implicit Old Testament matrix over the far more explicit New Testament teachings about the nature of the New Covenant and how it is to be administered in the church.

The Paedobaptist Position: "Good and Necessary Inference"

It is because of this flawed hermeneutic that the late Dr. John Murray of Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, in his classic book promoting paedobaptism, asserts so strongly that the implicit takes precedence over the explicit in making the paedobaptist case - and that it is, as he puts it, "indefensible" for those who question paedobaptism to demand explicit evidence for the practice from Scripture. Murray writes:

One of the most persuasive objections and one which closes the argument for a great many people is that there is no express command to baptize infants and no record in the New Testament of a clear case of infant baptism. . . . 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.[2]

The Credobaptist Position: "New Testament Priority"

As I mentioned in an earlier article, after studying the Scripture texts on the covenants and baptism using a "clean sheet of paper" approach, and employing what I believe to be sound and properly-prioritized hermeneutical principles, I then tested that work against the writings of men on both sides of the issue. When I came upon this statement by Dr. Fred Malone, I found that he had articulated some of my own conclusions:

The priority of the New Testament must be maintained in order to determine how the Old Testament is fulfilled in it, not vice versa. Understanding this principle is essential...[and I believe invalidates] the paedobaptist claim for the authority of infant baptism upon good and necessary inference from the Old Testament.

The paedobaptist principle that whatever is in the Old Testament continues unless it is specifically abrogated in the New Testament actually negates the hermeneutical principle that the New Testament is the final, clearest revelation of God that has final authority to determine how the Old is fulfilled in it (John 4:21-24; Matthew 28:20; Ephesians 2:20). It negates the only instituted baptism expressly set down in Scripture, that of disciples [believers] alone, by an illegitimately applied good and necessary inference from the Old Testament. It places the burden of proof upon those who hold to New Testament finality and priority as if such a position is untenable when, in reality, all profess to hold to that principle. This inconsistency is why liberty is given to Presbyterian pastors on the issue of New Testament priority for disciples' communion alone [i.e., serving the elements only to believers], but, through inconsistency, no liberty is given to those who hold to New Testament priority regarding disciples' [believers'] baptism alone. [3]

References:

1.  Dan McCartney and Charles Clayton, Let the Reader Understand (Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1994), 195-197. Italics are in the original. A long-time professor of New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, McCartney later became Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Redeemer Seminary in Dallas, Texas. Like Richard Gaffin and others at WTS, McCartney ironically twists his own stated principles to construct a redemptive-historical/Biblical-theology matrix that undermines much of systematic theology - a practice that runs counter to the grammatical-historical hermeneutic he states in this quotation. I cite him because he is a noted representative of the paedobaptist position and states the hermeneutical principles well, despite his frequent practical violation of those principles.

2. John Murray, Christian Baptism (Nutley, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970), 72.

3. Fred Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone: A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism Versus Paedobaptism (Founders Press, 2003), 34-35.

Next: Is Water Baptism "To You and To Your Children"?

sac0203-4

Copyright 1998-2024

TeachingtheWord Ministriesmmmmmwww.teachingtheword.org

All rights reserved. This article may be reproduced in its entirety only,
for non-commercial purposes, provided that this copyright notice is included.

We also suggest that you include a direct hyperlink to this article
for the convenience of your readers.