When formulating a doctrinal position, it is imperative that we adhere to the historic counsel of the Westminster Confession of Faith. In the first chapter, section 6, we read:
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: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (bold mine).
From this counsel we observe that all things necessary for mankind’s salvation, faith, and life are either expressly revealed in the Scripture, or can be deduced from good and necessary consequence. So, in determining rather or not infants can rightfully be baptized, we must first consider those passages that expressly “set down” such an ordinance.
Some contend that Colossians 2.11-12 establishes such a norm, an explicit command to baptize infants cannot be found in the New Testament corpus. Although this is the case, before a person can refuse the practice of infant baptism on these grounds must first take into consideration their own practices and beliefs (Greg Strawbridge, Covenantal Infant Baptism: An Outlined Defense, pg. 20). This is the case for the following reasons.
Many practices, positions, and beliefs are held in the church today without explicit Scriptural warrant. For instance, take into consideration the participation of women in communion, the observance of Christian Sabbath on Sunday, the recognition of Christmas and Easter as religious holidays, the use of musical instruments, and the ownership of property by churches. This also goes for commonly held political positions, such as anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research, and anti-gambling.
Moreover, some essential facets of the Christian faith are not validated with explicit Scriptural warrant, such as the Trinity and the Nature of Christ, but rather are inferred through comprehensive biblical theology.
Besides, if we were dependent upon explicit biblical command alone in determining practices and beliefs, then there are many examples that are clearly enunciated in the Scriptures that are not adhered to today. Consider the following examples:
• Cast out demons (Mark 16.17)
• Speak in new tongues (Mark 16.17)
• Pick-up snakes with your hands (Mark 16.18)
• Protection from drinking deadly poison (Mark 16.18)
• The laying on of hands with the observable healing of the sick (Mark 16.18)
• The usage of handkerchiefs in physical healing (Acts 19.11-12)
• Greeting each other with a “holy” kiss (Rom. 16.16)
• The use of alcohol in communion (1 Cor. 11.21)
• Speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 14.5, 26, 39)
• Prophesying (1 Cor. 14.1, 5, 26, 31, 39)
The reason that these different points are made is to relate that an explicit Biblical command is insufficient in either denying or refuting infant baptism. These matters can be settled by the good and necessary deduction of Scripture. Commenting upon the authority of the deduction of Scripture, Dr. Robert Reymond asserts, “Biblical principles have the force of commands by good and necessary inference; as a biblical principle” (A New Systematic Theology for the Christian Faith, pg. 936).
Consequently, for a person to deny the administration of baptism to infants on these grounds alone is an attack on logic and logical deduction itself.
If a case for infant baptism is not “expressly set down in Scripture,” then the case for infant baptism needs to be made from the “good and necessary” deduction of Scripture. This is why John Murray commented, “An express command or a proven instance is not the only kind of evidence that should be regarded as sufficient. What by good and necessary inference can be deduced from Scripture is of authority in the church of God as well as what is expressly set down in Scripture” (Christian Baptism, pg. 69).
In following the apologia of Mark Ross, the case for infant baptism can fundamentally be made from the rightful deduction of two points: (1) The continuity of the Old and New Covenants; and (2) The similarity in substance of circumcision and baptism (From Baptism and Circumcision as Signs and Seals in The Case for Covenantal Baptism, pg. 99).
Enjoy this post? Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.
Consider sharing this post:
Related posts:
- An Apologia of Infant Baptism: The Argument from Silence Both paedobaptists – those that adhere to infant baptism –...
- An Apologia of Infant Baptism: What Does Circumcision and Baptism Mean? In comparing circumcision with baptism, John Murray proposed that they...
- An Apologia of Infant Baptism: Unity of the Covenants Within the Reformed Tradition there has always been an emphasis...
- Infant Baptism Resources After initially coming to Christ in December of 2002, I...
- Covenant: Defined and Delivered Last week I ended my post – An Apologia of...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
An 8 Part Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism « Reformed and Reforming
on Jan 11th, 2010
@ 5:54 am:
[...] came across Matthew’s work while actually searching for a picture to use in my new series, An Apologia of Infant Baptism. Apart from these posts I encourage you to scan through the rest of his blog. I believe that [...]
Covenant: Defined and Delivered « Reformed and Reforming
on Jan 12th, 2010
@ 1:35 pm:
[...] week I ended my post – An Apologia of Infant Baptism: Formulating a Doctrinal Position - with the following words In following the apologia of Mark Ross, the case for infant baptism can [...]
An Apologia of Infant Baptism: Unity of the Covenants « Reformed and Reforming
on Jan 20th, 2010
@ 9:37 am:
[...] Food for Further Thought: Formulating a Doctrinal Position [...]