As I begin to dig in to a Reformed Baptist hermeneutic, I find that I have to deal with some assumptions (not the same as presuppositions) before I begin.

In a more formal work on biblical hermeneutics the first chapter would (should) be on the Bible. I’m just going to go ahead and assume 1) Biblical inerrancy, 2) the Protestant Bible contains all the inspired writings of both the Old and New Testament, and 3) that the consistent message of the Bible is Jesus Christ (cf. Luke 24:25-27 and John 5:39). These “assumptions” are not presuppositions for the sake of this discussion. These are topics that would be developed and defended in a fuller treatment of the subject. I’m taking a shortcut and assuming them to be true already.

On top of that, we would also have a discussion of the Protestant hermeneutic which would include sola scriptura and “the analogy of faith”. That is that scripture alone is authoritative for life and practice and that tradition and man-made rules cannot bind the conscience. The analogy of faith would say that scripture interprets scripture. We need to take the Bible as a whole when wrestling with difficulties. That does not negate the need to take the text in its original setting first, but it requires us to go farther than that as well. Again, these issues are going to be assumed and not defended in this blog series.

One of the first presuppositions we need to deal with is the relationship between the New Testament and the Old Testament. This is a contentious issue but a foundational one. Reformed Baptists are first, Reformed. That means that we would take our cues from the Reformers on this and other issues. Fundamentally, the Reformers recognized continuity between the Testaments. That is why many of them baptized babies for example. Infants were included in the older covenants and there is nothing in New Testament that abrogates that practice so it must continue.

Our presupposition about the relationship between the Testaments is that there is continuity and that the New Testament defines for us what that continuity looks like.But in addition to being Reformed, we’re Baptists, that is we believe in baptism upon credible profession of faith. Does this mean that we disagree with the Reformers we’re supposed to be taking our cues from? Yes and no. Yes, we disagree on the proper subjects of baptism. No, we don’t disagree on the principle of continuity, we just understand it differently. As a matter of fact, I would argue that we are more consistent in consistency. For the Reformed paedobaptist the continuity lies in automatic infant inclusion but the symbol radically changes. What was in the older covenants a bloody removal of a piece of flesh becomes a ceremonial washing. I’ve heard some paedobaptists shrug off this by saying, “Well, there is continuity and discontinuity.”

As Reformed Baptists we don’t want to throw out what our Reformation forefathers have said and our Reformed brothers are saying, but we want to be more consistent Reformers. We’re not content to live with this discontinuity when there is no Biblical warrant for it. Nowhere does the Bible tie together Old Testament circumcision with New Covenant baptism and therefore, applying the analogy of faith (allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture), we’re inclined to reject it. Indeed, when the New Testament refers to baptism in the Old Testament, it always points to water events (1Co 10:1-2, 1Pt 3:20-21) and never to circumcision.

As we critically evaluate how other Reformed traditions handle the relationship between the two Testaments, we find that we agree almost entirely. However, there are some points where the other traditions are not being consistent in the right places. So our presupposition about the relationship between the Testaments is that there is continuity and that the New Testament defines for us what that continuity looks like. This is significant. What we’re doing in this is taking our class on how to read the Bible from the New Testament. We’re allowing Christ and the Apostles to tell us how to read our Bibles.

Others in the Reformed tradition would say that they are doing the same thing, surely. But are they? Returning to the example of baptism (because it is such a big target in this discussion), they are reading the New Testament through the lens of the Old ¹See Greg Welty’s A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism, “Paedobaptists simultaneously “Christianize” the Old Testament (read the Old Testament as if it were the New) and “Judaize” the New Testament (read the New Testament as if it were the Old).”, not the other way around. As I’ve pointed out above, the way the New Testament looks at baptism in the Old Testament is as a water event. The way it looks at circumcision is not that it changed to a water rite but that it changed location, from the foreskin to the heart (Rom 2:28-29, Phil 2:2-3, Col 2:13). The Reformed paedobaptist approaches the question from the perspective of the Old Testament first and then imports that meaning there into the New. Since they begin with that presupposition they do not see the New Testament texts cited as regulating infant inclusion. They aren’t purposely being disobedient to the New Testament teaching, they modulate the what the New Testament teaches on this issue with what the Old Testament said. To them, this is simply applying the analogy of faith to the question.

A Reformed Baptist hermeneutic presumes the operation works the other way around. We assume continuity between the covenants and we allow the New Testament and Old Testament prophecies and promises of the New Covenant to us tell what or demonstrate how that continuity works in a New Covenant setting.