One of the frustrating things in discussing matters of faith and practice in scripture is agreeing on the ground rules of the dialogue. For some, a clear command or example is required in order to see the validity of the matter. Case in point: paedo-baptism and credo-baptism. Most credo-baptists insist that we who practice paedo-baptism do so without a biblical warrant. That is, according to them we are practicing something which is neither commanded nor exemplified in scripture. For a recent discussion on that subject in which I engaged, see these posts: here, here, here, here, here.
My point here is not to re-debate those two positions. My point is to show that if someone demands an explicit proof via chapter and verse for every belief and practice in the Christian faith, he demands too much. That is what my post Sabbath and Women was all about. If that is the standard, then, as I point out there, women should not participate in communion. Ridiculous? To be sure. But that is the logical conclusion of such a demand.
The Westminster Divines had it correct when in chapter I on the Holy Scriptures said:
VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture:
Robert Shaw comments on this section of the WCF:
In maintaining the perfection of the Scriptures, we do not insist that every article of religion is contained in Scripture in so many words; but we hold that conclusions fairly deduced from the declarations of the Word of God are as truly parts of divine revelation as if they were expressly taught in the Sacred Volume. That good and necessary consequences deduced from Scripture are to be received as part of the rule of our faith and practice, is evident from the example of our Saviour in proving the doctrine of the resurrection against the Sadducees,–Matt. xxii. 31, 32; and from the example of Paul, who proved that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, by reasoning with the Jews out of the Old Testament Scriptures.–Acts xvii. 2, 3. “All Scripture ” is declared to be “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;” but all these ends cannot be obtained, unless by the deduction of consequences. Legitimate consequences, indeed, only bring out the full meaning of the words of Scripture; and as we are endued with the faculty of reason, and commanded to search the Scriptures, it was manifestly intended that we should draw conclusions from what is therein set down in express words.
If we could agree on this principal of “good and necessary consequence,” then perhaps we would be more ready to accept one another’s position on debatable issues as valid. That does not mean that we have to agree on the practice. I don’t expect a Baptist church to begin baptizing infants. They should not expect Presbyterians like me to toss our babies out with the baptismal water. But perhaps, just maybe, we can have civil and even productive discussions about something like baptism without vilifying one another’s beliefs. And that would be a good thing for the Kingdom of God.
May 28, 2008 at 10:08 am
Amen! I believe that completely, and I have NEVER said that every belief and practice demands an explicit proof via chapter and verse. That, my friend, is what I believe you would call a straw man argument.
I do not demand or require an explicit chapter and verse for every single belief and practice in the Christian faith. I am, however, strongly influenced by direct commands and examples of what I see taking place in Scripture concerning baptism (because we do have some direct commands in Scripture concerning baptism). And the direct commands and examples in Scripture concerning baptism do not in any way address or support infant baptism. The explicit instructions/commands we see in Scripture are to baptize those who have first repented and believed. The explicit examples we have of those being baptized are only those who have first repented and expressed faith. Now, you can certainly assume or infer that infants were being baptized (that’s certainly your right to do), but both sides should be able to agree that there are no examples of such a practice in the NT.
This is not conjecture or speculation…this is fact. Therefore, while I certainly see the reason for your practice of infant baptism, I do not see it being practiced or even commanded in Scripture. What I do see in Scripture, as I said above, are baptisms of those who have first expressed repentance and faith.
That is why I believe Credo-Baptism is the only correct and biblical practice.
I hope that helps you see where I am coming from, and also helps you to see that while some may, I do not require an explicit command for every church practice, and I don’t think most other Credos do either. On the subject of baptism, though, I and they see an overwhelming example of the practice that was carried out in the early church, and infant baptism (according to what we have in inspired Scripture) was not a part of it.
Thanks.
May 28, 2008 at 10:25 am
Brian, I don’t believe I said that you demand chapter and verse for every belief and practice.
What I said above is, “My point is to show that if someone demands an explicit proof via chapter and verse for every belief and practice in the Christian faith, he demands too much.”
You wrote, “Now, you can certainly assume or infer that infants were being baptized (that’s certainly your right to do), but both sides should be able to agree that there are no examples of such a practice in the NT.” I agree, if we define it as “explicit” examples. You are correct that we can infer or assume that children were present in household baptisms. Similarly, we assume and infer that women were included in communion in the NT, though there are no clear commands for it and not even one example of it.
Again, my point is to demonstrate that it is certainly valid for covenant theologians to interpret the sacraments in light of the whole of scripture and connect circumcision and baptism. We are simply practicing what the WCF speaks of.
I do see where you are coming from. I was once a credo-baptist myself. I have great love and respect for many credo-baptists and in no way want to disparage their beliefs and practices.
Interestingly, if you were to bring your credo-baptized children to our PCA church and they presented themselves for membership, upon their credible profession of faith we would gladly receive them into membership-credo/immersion and all! I don’t know of any Baptist churches that would do the same for my paedo-baptized grown children.
May 28, 2008 at 10:33 am
Brian, I forgot…I am glad the instances of Baptism in the NT are very clear to you, for you. Obviously they are not as clearly in favor of the credo position for others as they are for you. Church history is not as favorable to the credo position as you seem to think, but that may be for another post.
The NT examples are obviously not clearly credo/immersion–at least not clear to many, many theologians and pastors throughout church history.
But then again, that is one reason we have denominations.
May 28, 2008 at 11:30 am
BTW, I Don’t think your example of women and the Lord’s Supper is a very strong one in support of there not being an explicit command for women to be a part of the Lord’s Supper.
We assume or infer that women were a part of communion because, for one thing, Paul mentions both men and women regarding communion in 1 Cor. 11.
In 1 Cor. 11, Paul is addressing the church, specifically mentions women, and immediately follows that with a rebuke to the church (which he just previously included women along with the men) about how they are doing the Lord’s Supper.
So, while there is no single verse that says, “Women ARE to be involved in the Supper”, there are certainly stronger references to them in Scripture being a part of the Lord’s Supper than there are even any implicit mentions of infants being baptized.
May 28, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Brian you are right of course to use the word infer. That is exactly the basis for infering that there were children in those households in Acts where baptisms took place.
eg Acts 16:15 “The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. 15 And after she was baptized, and her household as well…”
Again, 16:33 “And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family….”
My point being…we paedos infer that there were among these housholds, certain ones who were not yet professing faith, yet nevertheless receiving the sign of the covenant (as in Abraham’s household’s case), believing that since that was what God had commanded in the OT, and since there is no repeal of placing the sign on children, these early adult professors followed suit.
In my, our, view, the case for paedo-baptism is every bit as strong as women participating in communion.
But of course, that is where the rub is and why there are Baptist and presbyterian churches.
May 28, 2008 at 12:50 pm
And what may be my concluding thoughts on the paedo-credo issue, a few things:
1. The point of the Sabath and Women post was to demonstrate that all of us come to conclusions on some matters of faith and practice via deductions on the basis of good and necessary consequence. Paedos do it. Credos do it. In no way am I saying that you and all credos demand explicit command/example for each practice. In fact you demonstrate that you DO NOT demand such.
2. Thus, it is hypocritical (in a very mild sense, not calling anyone a hypocrite) to demand a command/example for infant baptism (even if the only instance of such a demand is on this one issue).
3. Last, but not least, we will not see this issue settled in our lifetimes. In fact we will not see it settled until we all get to be with the Lord. And, in my postmillennial mindset, that will be a long time from now! Till then, we should roll up our spiritual sleeves and get about Kingdom work–even with each other!
Many blessings to my credo-baptist brothers and sisters.
May 28, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Amen, brother!