The
false dichotomy is the most prevalent kind displayed in persuasive writing. Chapter
2 of the Blue Book expounds on a great example: Covenantalists believe in a
hermeneutic that leads to continuity within Scripture while Baptists support
discontinuity. The false dichotomy then rests on a cracked foundation: the idea
that covenants between a superior and an inferior are always conditional.
“The
question of how we should interpret the Bible is at the very heart of the
baptism debate—indeed it is the foundational issue.” BB at 15. Justus is spot
on with this assessment. Interpretational methods will lead to particular
conclusions, or at least to a particular range of conclusions. We may be
interested, then, to see how the paedobaptist chooses to interpret Scripture.
Here, Justus is quite helpful, as he gives us the “Reformed or Covenantal
Method.” BB at 16. This method “sees a basic continuity between the Old and New
Testaments, with the New flowing out of the Old and building on its
foundation.” BB at 16-17. One could hardly argue with such a method of
interpreting Scripture. Though we will soon learn that when it comes to baptism
what the paedobaptist means by this hermeneutic is that there is a basic
continuity with the way by which God chooses who His people will be—the
children of His people are His people—and how they should be marked.
To
display the strength of his interpretational method, and to give the veneer
that the only conclusion to be drawn from the stated method is paedobaptism,
Justus describes for us the alternative: “The Dispensational or Baptistic
Method.” BB at 18. This language is intentionally provocative. Not all Baptists
are Dispensational, and the Baptist church predates Dispensationalism by
hundreds of years. The way in which Justus uses the word “dispensational” could
be read as pertaining solely to epochs of time rather than the theological grid
of Dallas Theological Seminary (he uses a lower case “d”), but he knows good
and well people will conflate the two. What he says is this: “the
dispensational method of interpretation emphasizes the discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments.” BB at 18-19.
Justus goes on to say that these scurrilous dispensational interpreters of
Scripture view the New Testament as a “complete replacement of the Old
Testament,” which contains a delicious irony given Dispensational criticism of
Reformed believers adhering to what the Dispensationalists call a replacement
theology. BB at 19.
While
I appreciate the irony, the proffered dichotomy is risible at best when it
comes to baptism. Justus claims his continuity method of interpreting Scripture
gives the paedobaptist clear insight into Paul’s statement to the Galatians
“that we are ‘Abraham’s offspring’ and ‘heirs according to promise.’” BB at 21.
And he says that we know what Paul means by “we are the true circumcision”
because of our going to the Old Testament. BB at 21 (citing Philippians 3:3).
Justus’s
use of Galatians to prove his point about scriptural continuity leading to a
practice of paedobaptism is curious. For Paul says, “it is those who are of
faith who are sons of Abraham.” Gal. 3:7. Paul then goes on to describe how the
promise of faith precedes the Law, and that the inheritance of those who
believe is not based upon the Law, but upon the promise. See Gal. 3:15-22. In fact, the whole point of Galatians is to put a
stop to the Judaizers who were forcing people to be circumcised and follow the
Law in order to be Christian. “Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive
circumcision, Christy will be of no benefit to you . . . . For in Christ Jesus
neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working
through love.” Gal. 5:2, 6.
In
this last quote from Galatians we can readily see the feckless nature of the
paedobaptist’s argument in the New Testament. Paul’s explication to the
Galatians regarding the need for circumcision being obviated never addresses
the idea of baptism having replaced circumcision as the outward sign of God’s
people. Paul addresses circumcision a number of times in his ministry, and
never says the practice should end in light of baptism. Instead, he always,
invariably, makes the point that salvation comes not through the Law but by
grace and faith in Jesus Christ. Why does circumcision mean nothing? Because
all that means anything in Jesus Christ is “faith working through love.” Gal.
5:6.
Justus’s
use of the Phillipians verse is equally frivolous. Justus declares, you’ll
recall, that continuity between Old and New Testament is critical so that we
can know what Paul means when he says “we are the true circumcision.” What’s
funny is that Paul says that those who are the true circumcision are those who reject physical circumcision. “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil
workers, beware of the false circumcision; for we are the true circumcision,
who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no
confidence in the flesh.” Phil. 3:2-3. Did you catch that last part? He’s
saying that to have physical circumcision is to put confidence in the flesh. Justus
would have us believe that physical circumcision, after Christ has risen from
the dead, is placing confidence in the flesh, while physical baptism is simply
following our Lord in the replacement of an older sign.
I’m
not saying we shouldn’t baptize, as I’m sure you know. Instead, I bring this up
to illustrate the inane conclusion one would have to draw from Justus’s use of
this text---we must know our Old Testaments to know what “the true circumcision
is,” and this knowledge should somehow should lead us to the incite that
baptism is the new circumcision, which Paul’s whole argument against
circumcision is that outward signs have no bearing on salvation or the identity
of God’s people.
Are
covenants between God and Man always conditional?
Justus
moves from his plea for continuity into an explanation of what a covenant is.
When a covenant is between and inferior and a superior he argues that it is a
conditional promise. BB at 23. This is poppycock, and one need look no farther
than the first book of the Bible to disprove it. While God certainly makes
conditional covenants with Adam and Moses, His covenant with Abraham is
unconditional: “[Eliezer] will not be your heir; but one who will come forth
from your own body, he shall be your heir. . . . Now look toward theheavens,
and count the stars, if you are able to count them . . . . So shall your
descendents be. . . . Know for certain that your descendants will
be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and
oppressed four hundred years. But I will also judge the nation whom they will
serve, and afterword they will come out with many possessions. As for you, you
shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age. . . .
To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as
the great river, the river Euphrates.” Gen. 12:2-6, 13-15, 18. There’s not an
“if” in all those promises. God’s promise to Abraham was completely without
condition, and in spite of Abraham’s repeated efforts to muck it all up God
kept His promise. Now, I must note, to Justus’s great credit, that he
accurately describes the eternal covenant of the Godhead by block-quoting
Spurgeon; but the idea that all of God’s covenants will people are conditional
is an inexcusable error (or sloppiness).
But
Justus wants us to know that God does not only covenant with individuals, but
also with “the various corporate spheres of human life, such as households and
society.” BB 25. Indeed, and communal covenants are the bailiwick of the paedobaptists.
Yet they seem to think that Baptists believe some innumerable collection of
individuals have been redeemed, when in fact we hold that a very particular,
peculiar, and in fact holy community has been redeemed: the Church. And that very
large community gathers together in smaller communities known as churches.
Finally,
we read a heading that resonates with the addled Baptist brain: “What Does This Have to Do with Infant
Baptism?” I know you’re reading, breathless with anticipation, but what
follows that header are four paragraphs that express it’s just simply vitally
and critically important to have a proper interpretational method when
addressing doctrine, and one should choose the “covenantal interpretive
principle [which] provides a consistent and biblical method for interpreting
the Bible” while eschewing the dispensational/baptistic model of interpretation
which will lead to a conclusion that God “had more than one plan” for
redemption. BB at 28-29.
Of
course, had God multiple plans for redemption He wouldn’t be consistent in His
soteriology, making Him unorthodox (and not actually God at all, if you take
the logic to its conclusion) so naturally one wouldn’t want to adopt an
interpretive model that led to such a result.
Comments