II

heOIOgiCal inertia pushes both

ways: there is the tendency to
remain in a static position --
unmoved and unchanging, but once
motion has begun, 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 theonomy, 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
encouraged me 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had been replaced by whole-Bible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 when it
comes to the question of 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 they had proved to
be such able men of God to whom we
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 authority to make 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<ltore Covenant
Reform"d Churah In iexarkana. AR.
16 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon September, 1994
occurrence of the word "baptism in
the NewTestamentahdtheisSUewould
be easily resolved.' I was assured that
the Old Testament could shed little or
no light on the subject. But those
earlier theonomic steps had taught me
that the Old Testament had abiding
validity unless God Himselfhadaltered
His instructions.
As I studied the issue of baptism it
was clear that this doctrine did not
stand alone (for example, my views of
ecclesiology, eschatology and ethics
werealltiedinwiththis). If
the dispensational inter-
pretive principle of
separating the old
covenants from the New
was right, then the baptists
were right -- theonomywas
wrong. If the interpretive
principles of covenant
theology were right,
emphasizing continUity
between the Old and New
Testaments, then my
baptist views were in
trouble. Wecansummarize
the issue like this:
1) The dispensational view -- a)
Old Testament instructions are not
valid unless they are repeated in the
NewTestament, b) the New Testament
gives no explicit command to baptize
infants and include them among God's
covenant people, c) therefore, infants
are not to be baptized and included
among God's covenant people ..
2) The covenantal view -- a) Old
Testament instructions are valid unless
God Himself authorizes a change
by funher revelation (theonomic), b)
the infant children of believers were
included as a part of God's covenant
people in the Old Testament and
received the covenant sign of
circumcision, c) the New Testament
gives no new revelation excluding the
children ofbelievers from Hiscovenant
people, d)therefore,the children of
believers should continue to receive
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
inspiredof Godand profitable for 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 of God'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 the 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. It 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 I came to abolish the
Law or the Prophets; I did not
come to abolish, but to fulfill.
For truly I 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 the 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).
The Bereans" 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 of faith,"
(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. It 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 of His people.
These are not minor points that may
be overlooked or brushed aside if we
are to come to a right understanding of
any doctrine. No fact (or verse) of
Scripture is isolated from any other
September, 1994 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 17
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 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 driven
to . Genesis to gain
understan,ding. When we
rea,d in Philippians 3:3, "we
are the drcumcfsion," we must
totl;le Old "Testament to
djscqver circumcision
was and what function it
performed. When we read in Romans

!l'iade to the fathers: or in Ephesians
i:12 that the Gentiles were "exdw:led
from the commonwealth of Israel, and
strangers to the covenants of promise, it
is only iii the Old Testament that we
diScover the' foundation for these
teachings.
' How did the Jews understand the
baptiSrrt. of John 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 turning to the Old TeStament
would be vain. Other examples of
how staitlng 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
interpretation to the question of capital
punishment. This same principle of
continuity must be brought to bear on
all other doctrinal. questions, including
baptism. Rev. Jones adVised his son:
"The fallacy of your 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 of God 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
of and upon the Old,andisnotcontrary
to it in any thing whatever. It ever
recognizes and then supports the Old.
18 'l', THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 'l' Septelllber, 1994
Anotherfal.lacy of your young friend
is that we are not bound to do anything
but what 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 .tt.\ proper relation
to 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 pointS us
to the Old Testament. 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
Testament and 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 to 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,
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), not simply 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 cannot see
at aU, we come to embrace and love.
Suddenly, the beauty of its 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!udingm y 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
MERICA
he First 350 Years
opponents of evangelism and the
Kingdom of God. Now I love the
Doctlines of Grace 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, A Georgian
atPlinceton, (New York: HarcourtBrace
JovanOvich, 1976),89-90.
3Greg L. Bahnsen, T11eonomy in
Christian Ethics (second edition,
Phillipsburg, NJ; Presbyterian and
Refonned Publishing Co., 1984), 184.
For over 100 years Americans have been subjected to historical misin-
formation. We have been given lies for built and myths for facts.
Modern, unbelieving historians have hidden the buth of our nation's
historyfromus. America:TheFirst350 Years not only corrects the lies,
but also points out things "overlooked" by modem historians. It
interprets American history from a Ouistian perspective so that you
hearnotonlywhat happened, bywhyithappened-and what it 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--
---------------------------------------
AMERICA: 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