New Covenant Baptism, Part 2

I'm grateful for the comments on Part 1. For the most part, everyone has been respectful. However, if I have to answer another question about the term "orthodox"..., "I shall be very put out" (Prince Humperdink, The Princess Bride). Please forgive me if my responses appear to be unkind. I assure you that they are not meant to be. It is hard to accurately convey the intended emotion in an e-mail or a blog.

This next section is very short. Under the heading "New Covenant Baptism in the New Testament", there are several sub-headings. This post will only contain the section on "The Critical Role of Hermeneutics." Part 3 will be a bit longer and will be entitled "Orthodox Christian Baptism." It will contain several sub-headings: 1. The Continuity of Baptism in the Gospels, 2. Baptism in Acts and the Epistles, 3. Baptizo. Part 4 will be the conclusion and will also include the section entitled "Why So Many Infant Baptists?" and the conclusion.

NEW COVENANT BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The Critical Role of Hermeneutics

A friend, who is pondering the merits of the two views, recently asked, "Can you recommend any good books that support believer's baptism?" The response, "Yes, the New Testament." Simple as it may sound, the New Testament is not merely the best place to look for such teaching, it is the place one must look. Oft quoted is this statement by B.B. Warfield, "It is true that there is no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament, no express record of [infant baptism]... the warrant for infant baptism is not to be sought in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament where the church was instituted." This kind of hermeneutics is troubling, especially coming from such a highly respected theologian. But, this is what the paedobaptist must do to make his case. However, when developing a doctrine on a particular subject, one must look to the clearest passages . One should not look primarily to the Old Testament to develop a doctrine clearly revealed and stated in the New Testament. We may go to the Old Testament to add to our understanding of the person and work of Christ, justification by faith alone, etc., but, we must never look to the Old Testament as the primary source of truth when developing these doctrines. When trying to learn something about a particular subject, one does not look to the shadow of a thing, but to the thing itself. How ludicrous to study the shadow of a majestic oak, as imposing as it may be, when the oak itself towers above in all of its glory! Therefore, we are compelled to ask, "Where is the towering oak of revelation concerning the New Covenant? The answer is obvious--the New Testament. All things pertaining to Christ, including his person, his work, his ordinances and his covenant are not to be sought in the shadow--those types and shadows found in the Old Testament such as circumcision and the Passover meal--but in the New Testament where the things which were formerly hidden are most clearly revealed. Why infer from the shadowy Abrahamic covenant a ritual performance of an ordinance which was instituted by Christ, and clearly revealed, in the New Testament? Commenting on this subject, Fred Malone, in A String of Pearls Unstrung, said "'The New is in the Old concealed; and the Old is in the New revealed' is an agreed upon hermeneutic which places more authority upon New Testament institution than upon Old Testament inference." Let us, therefore, look to the towering oak of New Testament revelation to find the clearest teachings on the subject of baptism.