The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Are you Reformed?

I actually agree with you about Robin's statement that "Baptists don't deduce." Not that I don't understand what they mean by saying that.

Without saying too much I thought I would quote from a book written by Samuel E. Waldron called 'A Modern Exposition 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.'

Pages 437-438.

Waldron goes on to explain if paedo-baptists could clearly establish their argument for infant baptism from circumcision and the old covenant, then we should embrace it.
Paedo-baptism arguments logically assumes not just the unity but also the identity of baptism in the New Covenant and circumcision in the Old Covenant.

It is true that we can use good and necessary deduction about a doctrine like the Trinity, because it is clearly taught. However, we cannot say the same thing about infant baptism.

Please understand I am not giving this information for debate purposes. Rather, I am giving it in order to better understand Reformed Baptist argument on the issue.
As I read the book written by Waldron, it is very clear that he has enormous respect for Reformed Paedo-Baptists. Both Reformed Paedo-Baptists and Reformed Credo-Baptists, have more in common with each other than they have against each other. This is clearly seen in how similar their confessions are to each other. For example the WCF and the LBCF 1689.

Hopefully this gives a little more clarity to what Robin said.

Robin, have I accurately reflected what you meant?

Tom

It doesn't require deduction to conclude that the bible teaches the Tri-unity of God.

To put it allegorically, if a passage says
And another says,
Then it is necessarily true that Spot has four legs. The facts are contained in the book without any need for "deduction." Reformed Baptists are Trinitarian because the Scriptures contain all the statements that make His tri-unity necessarily true.

We do not find that water baptism under the New Covenant necessarily follows circumcision under the Old Covenant, and such information is not contained in the Scriptures, but rather is "deduced" from assumptions about the continuity of the Covenants. Why, for example, are female infants baptized when only males under the Old Testament were circumcised? Of course that's silly, because in Christ there are no more distinctions of gender or race. Under the Old Covenant only birth was required (and 8 days of life); and under the New Covenant it's the same: New birth. As the Old covenant was physical and temporal, so the New is spiritual and eternal. Only citizens of the Kingdom (by faith, not by the will of man) receive the outward sign of the covenant. That isn't deduced either, but necessarily contained in the Scripture.

Sorry, but that illustration is the very definition of a deduction. Without deduction the statement would have to be propositional... Spot is a normal dog with four legs. One de facto MUST deduce that Spot is a normal dog because he has four legs. I have never heard nor read anyone throughout history who has not agreed that the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly deduced from Scripture and must be because there is no single propositional statement that teaches it. THIS is what the WCF means by "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced". It doesn't mean that a person adds to Scripture what isn't there. And likewise, one doesn't ignore nor remove from Scripture what is there in order to justify one's personal beliefs. All Credobaptists I have known over the years have agreed with WCF I:VI. You are the very first to raise a question about its verity.

Oh no, I am finding myself agreeing with Pilgrim about that being a deduction. But not agreeing with him about infant baptism being a clear deduction from the Scriptures.
I might call it a speculative deduction, but not a clear deduction from the Scriptures.
Tom

Robin
I thought I would try to show you why I agree with Pilgrim about "deduction"
In your allegory about normal dogs having four legs. You stated some facts about normal dogs having four legs. Your saying that Spot is a normal dog, requires us to deduct that Spot has four legs.
In the case of the Trinity we are given a lot of facts about it. From those facts, we can put them all together and see where they take us. But that process is a deduction of where those facts take us.

In the case of infant baptism, Paedo-Baptists say that good and neccessary inference from the facts of Scripture leads to infant baptism. Yet when I examine those facts, I see no more than a speculative possibility that their deduction is biblically sound.

This to me is the crux of the matter between the two sides.

To add a little more to that you said:

I definitely agree with the first part, right up to where it says "In short, Reformed Baptists don't "deduce."
For I believe that in order for something to be a "good and necessary consequence." It must be "either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Scripture."

Tom

Sorry, Pilgrim and Tom, but I think Robin is correct as far as his illustration is concerned.

Pilgrim, it seems to me that you are saying that we deduce that Spot is a normal dog, because he has four legs. In effect, you are saying that the facts are that all dogs have four legs, and that Spot has four legs. Therefore we deduce that Spot is a normal dog. That would indeed be a deduction, rather than a fact, because although Spot has four legs, he may be other than normal in many other ways.

But in fact, what Robin said (Robin, please correct me if I err) is that Spot is a normal dog; it is a given fact. The other given fact is that all normal dogs have four legs. Therefore, and this is not deduction but fact, Spot has four legs. If he did not have four legs, he could not be a normal dog, making the given fact to be false.

In mathematical terms, given:
a = 1
and
b = a,
then
b = 1.

That is not a deduction, but a law of mathematics.

That's all I wanted to say about the illustration. Sorry to address so small a matter, but I am greatly pressed for time, trying to get my four computers upgraded to Windows 10 before the free upgrade expires on Friday.

Sorry Meta4 but I must without hesitation disagree with the above, including your mathematical illustration since it is irrelevant to what Robin wrote:

Robin's conclusion is fallacious and contradictory to the very definition of what a Deduction is...

In Logic: Deduction is a process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises presented, so that the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true.

The 'premise' is: [if] All normal dogs have four legs.

AND: Spot has four legs.

Therefore: [deduction]: Spot is a normal dog.

The verity of the deduction is directly dependent upon the verity of the premise itself. As I wrote before, the doctrine of the Trinity is a deduction based upon certain premises found in Scripture.

Premise: There is only one God.

AND: There are 3 persons who are named God.

Therefore: The 3 persons are the one God.

1. Robin's presupposition is apparently that if the phrase used in the WCF "or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture..." is erroneous, then the doctrine of paedobaptism is of necessity erroneous since it is a doctrine based upon deduction.

2. The fact is there are a number of doctrines we hold dear which are based upon sound logical deduction based upon incontrovertible biblical facts, give the presupposition that the Scriptures are divinely inspired and thus (deduced) that they are infallible and inerrant.

3. Both paedobaptism and credobaptism have been debated for centuries because neither doctrine is based upon incontrovertible propositional statements in Scripture.

4. Credobaptism mainstains that "immersion" is the only proper mode of baptism. But there is not one single text in the entire NT that teaches that "baptism=immersion". This view is nothing more than someone's 'deduction' which has no factual premise.

Therefore, to reject the validity of reasoning and deduction is to reject an essential method which even God Himself uses in Scripture, e.g., Isaiah 1:18; Acts 17:1ff.

So, here we are again getting into a debate over baptism which in the past in 100% of the cases has turned ugly. Ironically, when I studied at a Baptist seminary, I was not assualted verbally, ridiculed, etc. There were many irenic discussions between the lone paedobaptist (me) and the rest of the faculty and student body. Methinks (deduction), the reason was because most of their arguments didn't apply to my view of paedobaptism, which was the result of my doing a major theological paper for my theology class when I was at Westminster Seminary (Philly). I also had the opportunity to publicly debate John Reisinger on the topic of baptism many years ago. That too was a very pleasant experience. We agreed to disagree on the subjects for baptism and the mode, but we were in total agreement on how children of believers should be raised and taught, much to his surprise.

Okay, just a long way of saying that IF this thread starts to go sour, I am going to lock it down without any further notice. I will NOT allow what has always happened before happen again here. The Admins may be out numbered by Baptists, but I've got the bigger gun...

Pilgrim, I do hope that you do not think that the above is what I was doing. Please understand that I was not addressing baptism, the Trinity, or anything else other than the illustration of the dog.

Nevertheless, I do believe that what I wrote above was correct. You wroteWhich is what I was responding to when I wrote "Pilgrim, it seems to me that you are saying that we deduce that Spot is a normal dog, because he has four legs." I was pointing out that Robin said Given A, and Given B, then C; but that you apparently took it a Given A, and Given C, then B.

Robin said:
A. All normal dogs have four legs, and
B. Spot is a normal dog; therefore
C. Spot has four legs.

But from your saying "One de facto MUST deduce that Spot is a normal dog because he has four legs," to me it seemed that you were understanding Robin to have said:
A. All normal dogs have four legs, and
B. Spot has four legs; therefore
C. Spot is a normal dog.

If I misunderstood you, then please forgive me. I still maintain that what Robin did say about Spot, as he said it, was aptly illustrated by my mathematical analogy, and was correct. Once again, this is only in regard to the illustration of the dog.

If you disagree, then may we agree to disagree, just as we must do with regard to baptism. There is certainly no ill will on my part.

Pilgrim
Correct me if I am wrong, but this discussion really isn't about baptism at all. It is about "deduction" and what the word means.
I agree with your definition of what the word "desuction" means and what is ironic about that is I am a Baptist.
I looked elsewhere to see what they said about the word and it is in keeping with your difinition.
Tom

no such implications toward you whatsoever.

Yes, I incorrectly responded to what Robin wrote even when I quoted what he actually wrote. although I reversed the second premise with the deduction to which I apologize, the schema is the same, i.e., First Premise > Second Premise > Deduction. My example of the Trinity should have made that clear:

1. There is only one God
2. There are 3 persons who are called God.
3. Therefore the 3 persons are the one God.

As I stated previously, the doctrine of the Trinity is derived from deduction since there is no one propositional statement to be found in Scripture that clearly states the Triunity of God. The doctrine is formulated by "good and necessary inference" which allows one to rightly deduce the doctrine of the Trinity. This process of reasonable deduction was the basis upon which the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds were written.

If that isn't sufficient enough, then I agree that we should agree to disagree.

No offense taken. I also find myself in agreement with my Presbyterian brethren on the mode of water baptism, that total immersion is not exclusively valid over other modes. I think it's the "best" visual representation of death, burial, and resurrection, but those who are sprinkled experience no less legitimate a form of baptism.

I hope it's okay for me to jump in here, for I find this post very interesting and informative (given so much of this is very new to me) and I am so eager to learn and understand the what's and why's of everything.

So with that said, I have a question, maybe two, or three, or four...

What does it mean to be confessional vs non-confessional?

What good does it do to baptize an infant? I know countless people (even in my own extended family) who were all baptized as infants in the Presbyterian church in Northern Ireland, and not a one of them served God as adults. So, I find it hard to wrap my head around that one and I would like to understand why paedo over credo?

I believe 100% in the doctrines of grace, Calvinist Soteriology, and in credo baptism. I no longer believe in dispensational Premill. Leaning heavily towards Historic Amil (based on what I've been learning over the past few weeks only) although I haven not ruled out Historic Premil either. Would a Reformed Baptist church be a good fit for me? Are there any other options? I don't have a RBC church near where I live.

What is meant by the Regulative Principle of Worship?

Lastly, HP and HA are so distinctly different, so how can they both be considered Orthodox?

I realize this is a lot of questions... And I haven't even started on the CT bit yet. Just answer what you feel up to answering. No pressure!

PS: Based on what I've read here I'm guessing I am a Calvinist Baptist? Perhaps! It's so good to finally have a label! Just kidding. Ahahahaha.

Oh boy, I just read a few more posts above and learned I should not be asking the "credo/paedo" question here... Sorry about that.

Oh, I remember this same awkward, lonely search myself, Leah. It was the reason I started the ExCharisma group all those years ago before moving it to the-highway. I too am a "Calvinistic Baptist," formerly Presbyterian (here is why), and Charismatic (Pentecostal, kinda sorta) before that.

I'll take the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) question (it's also described in the "why" article in the above link): It means that God is the One who tells us how He is to be worshiped; that we are not to "invent" new ways of worshiping Him that He didn't command. In other words, the RPW forbids human inventions that we think will please Him. It forbids superstition, in other words, which I define this:


He tells us how He is to be worshiped! We are not to do what we imagine might please Him because it makes us feel "spiritual" or gives us a thrill. Every tradition has it's extrabiblical inventions, from "making the sign of the cross" to "the altar call." I think it also applies in a broader sense, but that's a whole 'nother subject, "credo-vs-paedo," not going there again, lol.

I hope that's helpful.

-Robin

I'll try and answer all your questions, but I'll be brief. Since most are unrelated and you want more info for one or more of them, it might be better to start a new discussion/thread for each subject. It is really difficult to keep things on topic with several different subjects being discussed in a single thread.

Confessional: To embrace a Confession as one's own as representative of one's own beliefs.

Unconfessional: Actually, this is an impossibility. The claim is that a person does not recognize any of the historical written creeds as being sufficient/worthy of their approval. In short, the person is a "Rogue"; not identifying with any group or denomination. Typically, the reason is because the person holds to a doctrine(s) which the formal Confessions reject as heretical. Now, I said it is an impossibility for someone to profess to be unconfessional. Why? Because as soon as you ask that person what they believe about xxxxxx and they answer, they are stating THEIR confession. So everyone in the general sense is confessional.

What good does it do to baptize an adult? It isn't what baptism does to an individual but rather what baptism MEANS! Credobaptists for the most part (exceptions noted) define baptism subjectively, e.g, Baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality. Paedobaptists define baptism objectively, e.g., Baptism is the visual demonstration (sign) of the Gospel; God's salvation in Christ. As the water washes away the filth from the body, so does Christ's blood wash away sin. It is also a (seal), i.e., what the sacrament of baptism visually demonstrates, it is likewise applied to the recipient who has true living faith and is thus in union with Christ.

To say that Baptists ONLY baptize believers is patently untrue, for it is virtually impossible to infallibly know who has true faith. In fact, the honest Baptist will admit that not everyone who is baptized is saved. This is one of the main reasons for the change in name from "Believers Baptism" to "Credo Baptism". For the latter better expresses the reality of the situation; Baptists baptize someone on the basis of a "credo", a PROFESSION of faith vs. actually possessing faith.

At this point, a Calvinistic Baptist church would suit you well, i.e., a Baptist church which not only holds to the infamouse "Five Points of Calvinism" (soteriology), but also believes in the pure preaching of the Word, administers proper church discipline for violations of doctrine and/or life, and practices biblical worship, aka: Regulative Principle of Worship. There are such churches in the USA, albeit few in comparison to all Baptist churches. The same could be said for paedobaptist churches as well; few vs. many.

In its simplest form: The proper worship of God is that which God has expressly commanded in Scripture. There is what I consider an extreme view of the RP which believes that only Psalms can be sung (Exclusive Psalmody) and sometimes no instrumentation (Acapella singing only). There are some excellent articles on this subject on The Highway in the "Ecclesiology" section: Calvinism and the Reformed Faith > Ecclesiology > Worship (heading).

That depends on who you ask! IF one is asking if HP fits into the main frame of Christianity, then the answer could be yes, for HP doesn't really impact on the foundational doctrines of the faith, e.g., Trinity, deity of Christ, historic fiat creation, virgin birth, death, burial and resurrection of Christ, etc., etc. However, if the question is asked in reference to eschatology specifically, then things get rather sticky. Historic Premil, IMHO, is an admixture of Amillennialism and Dispensational Premillennialism. HP is held mostly by Baptists, but there are two denominations which are Presbyterian and confessionally hold to HP. In the US it would be the Bible Presbyterian Church and in Europe the Reformed Presbyterian Church (there are some churches in the US and Canada too, one of which I attended). Both those denominational founders were close friends and both were friends with Bob Jones. That is one of the major reasons for their similarity, especially in regard to their Fundamentalist beliefs.