8/12/2019 1994 Issue 7 - Theonomy and Baptism: Reflections of a New Paedobaptist - Counsel of Chalcedon
1/4
heOIOgiCal inertia pushes both
ways: there is the tendency to
remain in a static position -
unmoved and unchanging, but once
motion hasbegun, there is the tendency
to continue moving in a straight line
until
we reach the end -- like falling
down
the stairs. Tumbling down the
theonomic.stairs has produced more
than a few bumps and bruises. I was
warned some years ago, as I came near
the upper landing of heonomy, that I
was
in
danger of falling.
As
a Baptist
pastor I
was
especially
cautionedaboutthe logical
(theological) implications
of
theonomy
and the
inevitable conclusions of
covenant theology
-
especially paedobaptism.
They
were right.
Thankfully, there were
a
few
b ptists
in
my life
that failed to perceive of
this alleged
danger
and
encouragedme to take my
first few theonomic steps.
This new appreciation for
the
Old
Testament was
exciting. New Testament Christianity
had
been
replaced by
whole Bible
Christianity. A few more steps seemed
safe enough. I was encouraged to read
Calvin, Hodge, Warfield, Machen,Van
Til, Murray, Bahnsen, Rushdoony,
North, et. al. -- but always with this
one caveat: "These guys are off
concerning their views of baptism."
The warning was heeded for a while,
but not without some arousal of
curiosity.
Many more theonomic steps were
taken over the years -- baby steps and
giant steps. More alarms were sounded
-- some quite hysterical. Why have
these theolOgians bumbled so whenit
comes
to
the question o f baptism? I
asked. I was confidently assured that
these men had failed to be completely
Reformed in this area and were
following Rome. "After all," I was told,
"these men are fallible. This was a
fantastic claim -- cenainly one that
demanded careful examination. While
all men are fallible, the question
concerning these great Reformed
paedobaptist scholars still begged an
answer: "Given their uncompromising
commitment to
the
principle of
'Scripture alone,' their rigorous level
of scholarship and careful attention to
details, the fact that theyhadproved to
be such able men of God to whomwe
turned with so many other imponant
questions, specifically, where do they
err from their otherwise reliable
principles of biblical interpretation to
consistently produce this alleged
false
understanding of the doctrine of
baptism? These men do not have the
authOrity that would preserve them
from all error. They do, however, have
sufficient authoritytomake me hesitant
in
patronizing them.
I began
to
read -- one of the more
dangerous activities of Christianity.
As I went to the Scriptures to study this
issue out I was struck harder than ever
before concerning the imponance of
one's interpretive prindples. I was told
by some that all I needed to do was get
my concordance and look
up
every
.Robert Randy) Booth pa
8/12/2019 1994 Issue 7 - Theonomy and Baptism: Reflections of a New Paedobaptist - Counsel of Chalcedon
2/4
the covenant sign (baptism) and be
counted
as part
of
the covenant
community of God's people.
writings [Old Testament] which are
able
to
give you the wisdom that
leads
to
salvation through
faith
which is in Christ
Jesus. All
SCripture
[Old
Testament]
is
inspiredofGodand profitablefor
teaching,
for reproof,for correction,for
training in
righteousness; that
the
man of God may
be
adequate,
equipped for eVelY good
work. Besides these passages, Christ
and the writers of the New Testament,
over and over again quote from and
God alone
may
exercise the
prerogative to alter His Word. In other
words, ChHstians may not
arbitrarily
declare any portion ofGod's
Word
void,
including any portion of the Old
Testament. Any claim for change
between the Old Covenant
and
the
New Covenant must be validated by
fmther revelation of God
as
found in
the SCriptures themselves.
Both
the
Old and New Testaments are to direct the
belief and
practice
of he
New
Covenant
believer.
Ironically, the New Testament
settled this issue for me -- it explicitly
admonishes
New
Testament believers
to rely on the authOlity of the Old
Testament. When Jesus said, Man
shall
not live by
bread
alone,
but
on every
word that proceeds
out
of the mouth of
God (Matt. 4:4),
He
was quoting from
and referring to the Old
Testament.
Jesus was
unequivocal about the
fact
The New Testament
does
not
set
aside the Old Tes-
tament t relies on and
emphasizes
the
continued
validity of the Old Testa-
ment for God's people in
the New Covenant.
that His ministry in no way
invalidated the Old
Testament, asserting:
Do not
think
that
came to abolish
the
Law or the Prophets; did not
come
to
abolish,
but
t
fulfill.
For truly say
to
you, until
heaven and
earth pass away,
not the smallest letter or stroke
shall pass away from
the
Law,
until all
is
accomplished.
Whosoever
then annuls
one
of
Dividing the Bible and
the covenants of God is
unwarranted. We might
as
well sever a tree from its
roots
and
expect
it
to
survive. The Old and New
Testaments are
tied
together and are mutually
dependent on one another.
The Old Testament needs
the NewTestamentand the
New Testament needs the
Old
Testament
to be
properly interpreted
and
he least of these
commandments,
and so teaches others,
shall be called least in
the
kingdom
of
heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches
them,
he
shall be
called
great
in
the
kingdom
of
heaven
(Matt.
5: 17-19).
TheBereans examined
the
Scriptures
[Old Testament] daily, to see whether
these things were so (Acts 17: 11).
Even
the apostle's teaching had to stand the
scrutiny of the Old Testament. Paul
refers to the Old Testament when he
says
in
Romans 15:4, For whatever
was wHtten in earlier times [Old
Testament] was written for our
instruction
...
In 1 Corinthians 10: 11
we
are
told, Now these things
happened to them
as
an example, and
they were written [Old Testament}
for
our instruction, upon whom the ends
of the ages have come. And again
we
read approvingly of the New Covenant
use ofthe Old Testament 5Cliptures in
2 Timothy 3:15 17
:
That from
childhood you
have known the
sacred
apply the Old Testament SCriptures to
New Testament believers.' The New
Testament does not set aside the Old
Testament. It relies on and emphasizes
the continued validity of the Old
Testament
for
God's people in the New
Covenant.
Both the Old and
New
Testaments
interpret one another. The RefOlmed
principle known as the analogy ofaith,
(Le., SClipture interprets SClipture) is
our guiding interpretive principle. It
places an emphasis on the unity of
SClipture, while allowing
for
some
change where new biblical revelation
calls
for
such change.
t is
flurefore
presumed, by
the
covenantal
method
of
interpretation,
that
the teachings and
practices of the
Old
Testament are
still
valid
and
reqUired for
believers in
the
New
Covenant
era unless God has
revealed
in SCripture some change in the
use, f01m,
or
application
of
His
former
revelation.
understood. No matter where we start
our study of a doctrine we are forced to
consider it in light of the entire Bible.
The demand that we begin our
study of any doctrine with the New
Testament
alone
must be immediately
frustrated. This is true for
two
important reasons. First, the New
Testament can only be interpreted
properly in the context of the Old
Testament. Both the Old Testament
text itself, and the culture it produced,
provide the foundation
for
understanding how those who first
received the New Testament would
have understood its teaching. God
preserved an inspired written record
of both the history of redemption and
the historical experiences ofHis people.
These are not minor points that may
be overlooked or brushed aside i we
are to come to a right understanding of
any doctrine.
No
fact (or verse) of
Scripture is isolated from any other
September 994
TH
COUNSEL
of
Chalcedon
7
8/12/2019 1994 Issue 7 - Theonomy and Baptism: Reflections of a New Paedobaptist - Counsel of Chalcedon
3/4
fact -- they are all related and have
impact on one another. We may not,
tI;lerefore,
rush
toche New Testamem,
concordance in hahd,
and
presume
that we have all the
tools
and
information necesSary to reach
an
accunite
conclusion about any
doctrine.
A
e ~ b n d
reason that starting with
theI:' ew Testament is immediately
frustrated is because there are no
doctrines
in
the New Testamem that
not have their roots
in
the Old
Testament. When we read .
in Galatians 3:29 that weare
"Abraham's offspring" .and
lieirs
ac,ording to promise,
we are i i n t h ~ ~ t e l y driven
to
.
Genesis
to
gain
understan,ding. When we
rea,d
in
Philippians 3:3, we
re
the
drcumcfsion,"
we must
totl;le
Old
"Testament to
djscqver
~
circumcision
was and
what
function it
performed.
When
we read in Romans
1 5 : a C h r l s t c a m e t o c o n f t r m t h e p r o m l s e s
l'iade to the fathers: or in Ephesians
i:12
that the Gentiles were exdw led
from he commonwealth of Israel,
and
strangers
to the
covenants
of
promise,
it
is only i i i the
Old
Testament that we
diScover
the
' foundation for these
teachings.
'How
did
the Jews understand the
baptiSrrt.
ofJohn
in John
3:251 What
were the various baptisms of Hebrews
6:2?Why
was circumcision of the
heart
in Colossians 2:11-12
represented by baptism? What
represented cirCumcision of the heart
in the
Old
'Testament? To seek the
answers for thek basic questions
without turningto the Old TeStament
would
be
vain. Other examples of
how stait lng with the New Testament
drives us iinmediately to
the Old
Testament are seen
in
the dOCtrines of
creation, sin, redemption, the sacrifice
Of
Christ the
atonement
the
priesthood
the
eldership,
church
discipline, the Lord's Supper, malriage,
divorce, households covenants,
judgmem, heaven,
and
much more.
In a
letteno
his son in 1850, we see
an
example of
how
Rev.
C. C. Jones
applied this principle of biblical
interpretationto the question ofcapital
punishment. This same principle of
continuity must be brought
to
bear on
allother doctrinal. questions, including
baptism. Rev . Jones adVised his son:
The
fallacy
ofyour young friend on
the capital punishment question, so
far as the Scripturesare concerned,lies
insetting the New Testament over and
above the Old, whereasboth are equally
the Word of God, equallyauthoritative,
and
form
one
perfect revelation, one
perfectruleoffaithandpractice. They
are not
in
any respect antagonistic,
but
consonant,
and
mutually support the
one and the other. Nothingissetaside
in the Old Testament in and by the
New save the types and shadows and
ceremonial. laws, all which find their
fulfillment in
our
Lord and savi01lX,
Jesus Christ
and
expire, as the lawyers
would say, by the statute of their own
limitation. But all the laws ofGod that
embody our duties to God and men,
whethersoctallyorcivilly, remain ever
in
force. These laws are recognized In
the New Testamem, but not repeated
in
extenso, there being no necessity for
it .. The New Testament is built up out
ofandupon the Old,andisnotcontrary
to
it in any thing whatever. t ever
recognizes
and
then supports the Old.
18 l
THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon l Septelllber, 1994
Anotherfal.lacy ofyour young friend
is that weare not bound to do anything
butwhat weare distinctlycommanded
in
so
many words by the New
Testamenttodo.
You
perceive at once
that this principle cannot be admitted
without involving
us
in
many
difficulties.
This
fallacy grows
out
of
the first and
falls
with it. All that is
necessary is for the New Testament
to
acknowledge the Old, and the two be
united
in
one
perfect
revelation.
Neitheris complete without the other
..
I
need
not
proceed any
umher.
You
can manage the
controversy now, I think,
with this little help. 2
the dlspensatiOilal
notion
oftsolating the New Testament
from
the Old Testament, as
though
we
may determine any
doctrine in .t.\ proper relation
t redenipltve history with the
New Testdment
alone, is
a
dangerous
and misguided
method of determining truth. The
problem with
this
dispensational
method is not so much the starting
with the
New
Testament, since the
New Testamentimmediately pointSus
to the OldTestament. The real.problem
posed by this method is that
it
not only
wantS to startwith the New Testament,
it also wants
to
stop with the New
Testamentand
settle
the issue with the
New Testament
alone.
We must
not
forget that all Scripture c including
the Old Testament --
is
profitable for
doctrineC2 Tim. 3: 10). Starting
and
ending with
the whole
Bible
Is the only
sure
way t amve at sound doctrinal
positions.
The dispensational system
does not adequately account for the
necessary unity of the Bible.
Given the unchangeable character
of God there can
be no
question about
the principle of continuity
in
His
revelation (the Bible).
Continuity
and
unity should
be
presumed over
discontinuliy . Who, but God alone,
8/12/2019 1994 Issue 7 - Theonomy and Baptism: Reflections of a New Paedobaptist - Counsel of Chalcedon
4/4
may presume to change what God has
said? When
it
comes to Scripture, only
God is permitted to say what is in fact
new
about the New Covenant. Dr.
Greg Bahnsen has written, "everything
God has said
should
be that by which
man lives (Matt. 4:4), notsimply those
things which God has spoken
twice
(and
in
the right places). We must live
by
every
Scripture unless God explains
otherwise .. " 3
Having fallen down the theonomic
stairs and having landed safely on the
paedobaptist step, let me comfort
others who fear such a
fall.
like
aU
truth, even when we avoid it and fight
against
it
at first,
in
the end
it sets us
free.
Thatwhich,atfirst,
we
cannotsee
at aU, we come to embrace and love.
Suddenly, thebeauty of ts instruction
is seen on every page of Scripture so
that we wonder how we ever missed
seeing it in the first place. Rather than
being the monster I imagined, the
doctrine of believers' infant baptism is
now a comfon and a friend. The
knowledge that God has set apart my
family, inc udingmy beloved children,
for special covenant blessings and
promises is reassuring to me as a
believer who labors to train them in
the fear of the Lord. It is a comfort to
know and serve a covenant-keeping
God. I once hated the Doctrines of
Grace because I did not understand
them and thought them
to be
the
MERIC
he First 35 Years
opponents of evangelism
and the
Kingdom of God. Now I love the
Doctlines ofGrace and know them to
be the very gospel which advances
God's kingdom. Believers' infant
baptism is a blessing
to
God's people-
not an enemy. n
'e .g., 2 Cor. 6, Rom. 8:36; 9:25-26;
10:6-8, 11,
13, 15;
Gal. 4:27; Heb.
8:8-12; 10:30; 13:5; 1 Peter 2:10; etc.
'Robert Manson Myers,AGeorgian
atPlinceton
(New
York:
HarcourtBrace
JovanOvich, 197
6),89
-90.
3Greg L. Bahnsen, T11eonomy in
Christian
Ethics
(se
cond edition,
Phillipsburg, NJ; Presbyterian
and
Refonned Publishing Co., 1984), 184.
For over100years Americans havebeen subjected to historical misin
formation. We have been given lies for built and myths for facts.
Modern, unbelieving historians have hidden
the buth
ofour nation's
historyfromus.
America:TheFirst35
Years notonly corrects the lies,
but
also points
out
things "overlooked" by modem historians.
t
interprets American history from a Ouistian perspective so that you
hearnotonlywhat happened, bywhyithappened-andwhatit means
to us today.
32
lectures on 16-90 minute cassettes,
200
page note
book, 16 page study guide, lecture outlines, index bibliography.
special rate
for
Counsel of Chalcedon readers--
MERICA: The First 350 Years- 64.95x
=
Louisiana residents add
7
sales
tax
J2J:J)
=
SHIPPING
AND
HANDLING: Add 10%
(15
UPS)
=
(Check or Money Order) Total Enclosed
(name)
(Street Address or P.O. Box)
(City) (State) (Zip)
PLEASE ALLOW 4-6 WEEKS FOR DEliVERY
Send self-addressed
stamped
envelope to receive more information
September, 1994
t
TIlE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 1 19
Top Related