Malone then tackles John Murray and the ideas surrounding good and necessary inference. Malone’s presuppositions will not allow him to use “good and necessary inference” in a consistent manner, but only when it suits him (like women partaking of the Lord’s supper, but not Infant Baptism). He questions whether it is a safe hermeneutic at all. The New Testament regulates New Testament worship for Malone. He quotes the Westminster Confession of Faith in this way trying to prove his point – “The elements of Christian worship must be clearly, “instituted by God himself,…limited by his own revealed will, and…prescribed in holy Scripture” (WCF 21:5; 21:1; 1:6).”[13] This is not what Malone believes. He is thinking about it this way, “The elements of Christian worship, i.e. New Testament worship, must be clearly, “instituted by God himself, [in the New Testament]…limited by his own revealed will, [in the New Testament] and…prescribed in Holy Scripture in the New Testament.” This is Malone’s point. Otherwise, he knows he has given up his case the moment we are able to resort to the Old Testament concerning New Testament worship. This, again, demonstrates his Dispensationalism.
Do we trust dispensationalists in interpreting scripture.....or actually, re-writing theology? Aren't we suppose to be "whole Bible" people, not New vs. Old?
The question is can we trust Matthew McMahon, who believes in presumptous regeneration? If you haven't run into Matthew McMahon before, he has been on the Highway before. In fact it was one of the most highly debated discussions I have seen on the Highway.
I'm not interested inn the "last word". Your post was terribly off topic. Could you possibly show me how it fits? I'm interested in discussion with folks who are dogmatic about being scriptural.
First, Malone wants to list the positive commands for Paedo-Baptism and he finds none. When I look for a positive command to baptize a professing believer who I think is regenerate, in Malone’s language, I find “exactly zero.”[62] Second, why do we need a positive command from the New Testament to ensure a godly sacrament? Malone says that we must have one in the New Testament because we are New Testament Christians. This is his Dispensationalism talking. The weight of precept is the mind of God as much as good and necessary inference is the mind of God.[63] What exactly does “precept” mean for Malone? That he sees it clearly? That it seems straightforward to him? This is not an exegetical argument on a text that explains this.
It seems Fred isn't a covenant theologist at all, but rather a dispensational schismatic. I'm a Biblical Christian.......not a New VS Old christian.
It is not off topic at all, I was just saying that I don't agree with what McMahon says, and he has lost any respect I may have had for him quite some time ago. I think calling Malone a dispensationalist is ridiculous and I don't really care if you agree with me or not. (Just in case you think I may be mad, I am not) My last word comment is just to show you that I am not interested in debating you on this matter. In fact the only reason I am even responding to you, is because you asked for clarification.
I seriously doubt that Fred Malone is dispensational since he part of the Reformed Baptist movement. They generally disdain Dispensationalism. The Sovereign Grace Movement calls RB dunking presbyterians.
Just so you know what I believe about circumcision (I believe it is consistent with Reformed Baptist CT). I am only mentioning this, just in case you may not be aware of what I believe on the subject.
Physical circumcision and "circumcision of the heart" are related only in the aspect that circumcision being a picture (type) of circumcision of the heart. I believe that is basically what Romans 22:25-29 is saying. The physical aspect of circumcision is found in Romans 3:1-…, “…unto them were committed the oracles of God.” This is something that only physical Israel were entrusted with. This aspect did not depend on if they were circumcised of the heart or not. True Israel on the other hand are as Paul puts it (Romans 9:8) “That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” This of course, even in the Old Testament wasn’t always something that pertained only to physical Israel. Of course now the Church is the true Israel of God, all who are in Christ.
I would consider the source of the accusation accusing Malone of being a dispensationalist: Matthew McMahon and his cronies. If you read his criticisms of other groups that do not reflect his personal convictions with any regularity, you will notice that he will hurl the slurs "Antinomian" and "Dispensational" toward them with as much conviction and consistency as Jesse Jackson hurls the slur of "racist" toward conservatives. It gets to the point that the words are stripped of all of their historical and theological meaning. I would not put too much stock into a guy who practically believes in baptismal regeneration.
Honestly, from where I am sitting, it appears to me that McMahon is finding it difficult to deal with Malone's work. His emotionally laden skreed in the form of a book critique criticizes Malone for such silly things as for not quoting Witsius enough in his study. Please. I think Dr. McMahon recognizes in his heart that the theology he utilizes for his brand of Covenantalism is inconsistent with a thorough and consistent biblical exegesis, something that Malone establishes with precision in his book defending baptism. As a result, McMahon is flaying about attempting to attach some discredit to what Malone has argued. In a way, it is a tad embarrassing.
Fred
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
Baptist Covenant Theology (BCT) and Covenant Theology (CT) are NOT the same! While I commend some Reformed Baptists for looking and embracing more and more of CT, there are still some further steps to be taken to call them fully covenantal and not dispensational in their hermeneutic. If BCT is not fully CT then what do they embrace that is different—more discontinuity in the OC/NC (a dispensational hermeneutic) as been shown here in posts on Jer 31, etc. As revealed in previous posts Malone has allowed some dispensational hermeneutic principles to influence his previously held covenantal views (Malone is an ex-Presby and graduate of RTS where CT is taught).
Moreover, just because someone is incorrect in one of his views should we throw out the truth with the error. Calvin was incorrect about inherited depravity in interpreting Romans 5:12-21 embracing the RCC view—do we throw “everything” he said out? Are Calvin's words stripped of all of their historical and theological meaning?
Just because John MacArthur use to support the Independent Fundamental Churches of America "eternal Sonship" doctrinal statement or that he believes in an “age of accountability” (inadvertently believes it is age 20, read, Safe in the Arms of God, p. 45) does this mean we throw “everything” he has ever said away?
While I have disagreed with McMahon in his extreme brand of Covenantalism (and have done so vigorously in posts at the Highway, i.e. Antipaedobaptist Fred Malone-A Critique), his point that Malone “demonstrates his Dispensationalism” is valid … (though I wish he would have used a more irenic tone to do so ...)
How exactly are you defining "Dispensationalism?" You do realize that discontinuity is not equated with "dispensationalism" correct? Dispensationalism is a specific theological view of the Bible. It does involve hermenuetics that recognize discontinuity, but recognizing aspects of discontinuity between the testaments as Baptist CTers do, does not equate dispensationalism. To suggest it does demonstrates a woeful ignorance of Dispensational theology. Perhaps you could specify some passages from Malone's work where you believe he is "dispensational" or engages in a "dispensational" hermenuetic?
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
How exactly are you defining "Dispensationalism?" You do realize that discontinuity is not equated with "dispensationalism" correct? Dispensationalism is a specific theological view of the Bible. It does involve hermenuetics that recognize discontinuity, but recognizing aspects of discontinuity between the testaments as Baptist CTers do, does not equate dispensationalism. To suggest it does demonstrates a woeful ignorance of Dispensational theology.
Fredman, first I am not speaking about Dispensationalism, “a specific theological view of the Bible,” as you stated! Second, I stated that some interpret the Bible using a dispensational hermeneutic, which is different than mere Dispensationalism. This is freehand, a short method, of stating that someone sees less continuity between the OC and the NC. I am speaking of hermeneutics and not merely a form of premillennialism originating among the Plymouth Brethren, (a central doctrine being the distinction between Israel and the church, stressing discontinuity … in the OC/NC...) etc.
Quote
Perhaps you could specify some passages from Malone's work where you believe he is "dispensational" or engages in a "dispensational" hermenuetic?
I used the example of Jer 31 earlier which is already posted and been refuted here at the Highway….. Several of the discussions can be viewed here or, as stated before, you can see his hermeneutic analyzed here (please check out all Strawbridge's resources). Or, you can do a search for Malone here at the Highway and get over 125 hits …
Calling people with whom one disagrees names is a very poor form of argument; indeed, it is usually a tacit admission that one has lost the argument! It is certainly not the way to win people to one's point of view.
BTW, I would not agree that the Baptist interpretation of Jer31 has been refuted on this forum. IMO, Jer 31 and the associated texts in Hebrews are the elephant in the bathroom of paedo-baptism, and likely to remain so.
The fact is, of course that neither Malone nor Reformed Baptists in general are dispensational. It's just a stick that Malone picks up to beat them with.
The real difference between credo- and paedo-baptists is their starting point. If you start with Abraham, you inevitably end up imposing the promise upon the reality, the shadow upon the substance which is Christ (Col 2:17 ). I attatch a post which I made on the Puritan Board some time ago on the subject, 'When did the New Covenant start Biblically?'. It was deleted and I was banned for my trouble, so I offer it here (slightly adapted):-
'The New Covenant starts with the cross (Luke 22:20). The Covenant of Grace was made in eternity between the Father and the Son for the redemption of mankind (Eph 1:3ff). We are in this covenant as the elect who are in Christ (See Larger Catechism Q.31).
The New Covenant is the outworking of the C of G. ‘I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself’ (John 12:32). We can make plans to go away on holiday, but the plans are not the holiday itself. We cannot say that we have been away until we actually go. Likewise, although the plans for man’s redemption were infallibly laid before the foundation of the world (eg. Titus 1:2), that redemption was not accomplished until the death and resurrection of the Saviour.
Two questions will immediately come to mind:- 1. How were the O.T. saints saved? 2. Where do the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants fit in?
These two questions are really one. The O.T. saints were saved as they believed the promises of God. As we look back to the cross, they looked forward to the promised Seed or Messiah. Of course they could not see clearly; exactly how the Messiah should come and how He should achieve salvation was a mystery to them (Col 1:26-27), a mystery which would not be revealed until Christ should come (Eph 3:3-5; Heb 9:8). The Abrahamic and other Covenants then, were the Covenants of Promise (Eph 2:12). Each one spoke of the coming Seed or Messiah. When Abel made the ‘more excellent sacrifice’ (Heb 11:4) he was trusting in the Adamic Covenant (Gen 3:15, 21), believing the promise of God of a Seed who should bruise the serpent’s head, and understanding by faith that the lamb that he was sacrificing in some way portrayed the Lamb of God who should take way the sin of the world. How much detail did he understand? Not a lot, I think. But he saw himself as a sinner in need of redemption, hung on to the promise that he had and it was enough.
Abraham received a promise that his physical heirs should inherit the land of Canaan. That is all very well, but what he really sought and obtained by faith was ‘a better, that is, a heavenly country.’ His physical descendants did indeed inherit the land, but his spiritual heirs (Gal 3:7-9 etc) have inherited heaven and earth (Rom 4:13). ‘These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, were assured of them, embrased them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth’ (Heb 11:13).
The O.T. saints, then, were saved by grace through faith just as we are. But they were saved as they looked forward to the New Covenant (1Peter 1:10-11) of which the Old Covenant was merely symbolic (Heb 9:9-10) and the other Covenants were promisary.
My purpose in posting this is to make a point which I’ve made many times here before. Any understanding of the Covenants must start and finish with Christ. For all the promises of God in Him [not in Abraham] are Yes, and in Him Amen to the glory of God (2Cor 1:20). He, and no one else, is ‘the author and finisher of our faith’, the Alpha and the Omega. If you start with Adam or Abraham, you are not starting at the beginning (John 8:58) and you will inevitably end up missing the point.'
Fredman, first I am not speaking about Dispensationalism, “a specific theological view of the Bible,” as you stated! Second, I stated that some interpret the Bible using a dispensational hermeneutic, which is different than mere Dispensationalism. This is freehand, a short method, of stating that someone sees less continuity between the OC and the NC. I am speaking of hermeneutics and not merely a form of premillennialism originating among the Plymouth Brethren, (a central doctrine being the distinction between Israel and the church, stressing discontinuity … in the OC/NC...) etc.
(Fred) Well, Joe, I recognize you are attempting to differentiate between "Dispensationalism" as a theological system and a dispensational hermeneutic, but your explanation only creates more confusion. First off, suggesting some one is using a dispensational hermeneutic to interpret the Bible implies he is practicing some form of Dispensationalism, thus he is suspect and guilty by association due to his hermeneutics. Furthermore, you need to explain what is a dispensational hermeneutic, at least in your mind and I do not think you have adequately done this. Is it your contention that any recognition of discontinuity between the OT and the NT automatically equates a dispensational hermeneutic? I would argue that you as a CTer must recognize some form of discontinuity between the Testaments. Surely you note a distinction between how God operated in the OT with one theocratic people comprising the nation of Israel to how he is dealing with the Israel of God as a spiritual people? Is there anything "new" about the new covenant, or do you take McMahon's strained approach and suggest the new covenant is just the Abrahamic covenant renewed with spiritual Israel with the Gentiles sort of tacked on?
Granted, one of the distinction of a genuine Dispensational hermeneutic is a separation of Israel from the Church, but where has Malone emphasized this in his work on Baptism?
Quote
I used the example of Jer 31 earlier which is already posted and been refuted here at the Highway….. Several of the discussions can be viewed here or, as stated before, you can see his hermeneutic analyzed here (please check out all Strawbridge's resources). Or, you can do a search for Malone here at the Highway and get over 125 hits …
(Fred) To be honest, "refuted" is an overstatement of the facts. I have not read anything that has "refuted" what Malone has established in his book. McMahon, Strawbridge and even several others here on this board, have attempted some form of "refutation" but they have yet to adequately interact and answer Malone's penetrating critique of the paedo's core presuppositional hermeneutics of the "good and necessary inference" principle. He devotes at least the first 3 or so chapters of his book outlining it and interacting with it. What I found interesting is Malone's pointing out how paedo's and dispensationalists error in similar fashion. Dispensationalists do not give the NT revelation priority in defining the prophetic fulfillment of Israel and paedo do not give NT revelation priority in defining the subjects of baptism. Both systems read OT revelation into the NT, rather than allowing the fuller NT revelation to shed light on how the OT was fulfilled. Perhaps you may argue that such an approach is a "dispensational hermeneutic," but that is just normal biblical exegesis in my mind.
Fred
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
First off, suggesting some one is using a dispensational hermeneutic to interpret the Bible implies he is practicing some form of Dispensationalism, thus he is suspect and guilty by association due to his hermeneutics.
Are there not different forms of Dispensationalism? Does not MacArthur, who you work for, embrace his own form of Dispensationalism? Does not New Covenant Theology (NCT), which you support, embrace “some” Dispensational ideas? Dispensationalism, in all its many brands, sees less continuity (some more than others) in the covenants than CT. Thus, yes, if one is not CT, more than likely they are using some form of dispensational hermeneutic somewhere in their methodology. Pure and simple a dispensational hermeneutic sees too much discontinuity! The less proper continuity the less proper interpretation. The more proper continuity the more proper interpretation. As Dr. Gerstner reveals, the dispensationalist's theology determines their hermeneutic and not the reverse.
The phrase “dispensational hermeneutics,” as stated in previous posts, is not meant to be derogatory—thus not meant to be a negative phrase (although some like grace2u have "wrongly" taken it as negative and have been reproved by Baptists in this area before. Notwithstanding Grace2u has allegedly repented of his actions, however keeps singing the same ‘ol song). However, Fredman, if your perception of the phrase is so negative, one can only wonder why are you so intimately involved with different aspects of Dispensationalism? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />
Please realize “dispensational” in the phrase “dispensational hermeneutic” is being used by CTers in a very general sense. Basically, anyone who sees less continuity in the covenants is using such a hermeneutic (of course there could be exceptions…) …. Have you read MacArthur (“…a Dispensationalist but also holds to some vital points of Covenant Theology”—John G. Reisinger), who states, “So, I see more continuity there (and I don’t want to get too technical here) than the old dispensationalists, but maintaining the clear distinction between Israel and the church, which is a hermeneutical issue?” Thus, MacArthur sees more continuity than the “old dispensationalists,” but less than the CTers. Malone is much the same way …, but a little more covenantal IMO than MacArthur.
Quote
Furthermore, you need to explain what is a dispensational hermeneutic, at least in your mind and I do not think you have adequately done this. Is it your contention that any recognition of discontinuity between the OT and the NT automatically equates a dispensational hermeneutic? I would argue that you as a CTer must recognize some form of discontinuity between the Testaments.
No one TMK has stated that there is not any discontinuity between the OC and the NC. Our argument, which is factual, is that Malone and others see less continuity then their CT brothers. Thus, his argument is more dispensational—that is, he sees less continuity in the covenants. Maybe the terminology that would assist you the most would be less covenantal, however this description normally meets with reprisal by many as well, for BCTers do not wish to be associated, in any form, with pure CT. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />
Quote
Granted, one of the distinction of a genuine Dispensational hermeneutic is a separation of Israel from the Church, but where has Malone emphasized this in his work on Baptism?
Malone’s overall method of interpretation, as shown in Strawbridge’s articles, and by others here, is more dispensational or less covenantal a hermeneutic than CTers and honest biblical interpretation will allow. It clearly falls apart in their interpretation of Jer 31, etc. Moreover, Malone begins his hermeneutic from the middle of the Bible (NT) and then moves backwards, instead of the beginning—that is at the beginning of the story of redemption and moving forward. This is clearly seen in his overall interpretative and writing method …
Quote
(Fred) To be honest, "refuted" is an overstatement of the facts…
And what more would we expect from someone who works for MacArthur’s ministry, who himself embraces his own brand of Dispensationalism, and you who support NCT? I believe “refute” is a proper term as seen by the fruit that has stemmed from our discussions on “baptism” here at The Highway. The fruit being a number of former Baptists (including myself) who now embrace paedo baptism as opposed to credo baptism. Pilgrim, if the list is not confidential, can give the names of others that have made this successful journey in truth. Or, perhaps they will speak themselves …
