How Philosophy Kept Me a Baptist

This is an ironic title, because if there is one denomination of Christian nowadays that abhors the presence of philosophy, it’s Baptist.  I actually had a pastor warn me before entering college saying “Never take a philosophy class, it will ruin your faith.”  Instead, I got my BA in it.

Now, in all truth, Philosophy didn’t actually keep me a Baptist, but it has enabled me to see errors within the Presbyterian scheme.  Philosophy can be used as a wonderful tool serving as the handmaiden of theology.  Specifically, I will be exploring the application of various discussions within philosophy to hermeneutics and the theology derived from it.  Some might criticize my comments below saying that I am using philosophy as a source by which I’m judging Scripture, but I would argue that my use of philosophical tools is no different than learning how to read.  Just like my ability to read does not undermine the authority of Scripture, neither does using tools to engage in proper hermeneutics undermine Scripture as the authority.  Though the position doesn’t seem to exist today as an official title or position, Bernard Ramm says there is a great place for what he calls “philosophical theologians" (Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, pg 169)  They serve as watchdogs, and though they may not be able to provide exegesis of the original languages, they track trains of thought and use the tools of philosophy to help guard orthodoxy.

There are 2 discussions from philosophy that I intend to apply.  First, In Metaphysics there are 2 related concepts: the “Indiscernibility of Identicals” and the “Identity of Indiscernibles.”  The former is a given fact.  If x=y, then x is exactly similar to y.  The latter though is a debated theory.  It is the reverse of the Indiscernibility of Identicals, if x is exactly similar to y, then x=y. Secondly, I want to engage with a discussion from the Philosophy of Science and its relevance to Epistemology.  We learn within this branch of study the human ability to recognize patterns and connections, even if they never exist.  The ability is practically uncanny.

By means of an introduction, let me say that in my studies of Covenant Theology and baptism, I ultimately realized that straight exegesis was impossible.  There are presuppositions that influence even the minutest detail in interpretation.  How we get those presuppositions are formed from a plethora of sources, which are ultimately grounded in our ability to know.  The assumptions we make are powerful tools, because they ultimately affect our perspectives on every aspect of life, so we need flesh out our presuppositions, our ability to know, and the framework by which we interpret everything.  And I want to also state that presuppositions are not inherently bad.  They are of absolute necessity to know and understand, and are good as long as they are right.

There are two primary theories of knowledge: foundationalism and coherence theory.  Foundationalism is holding to something as the base from which all other knowledge is built upon.  Being a Confessional Baptist, the first sentence of my accepted confession (1689 2nd London Baptist Confession) strongly asserts the foundation of knowledge, especially in the realm of salvation, faith, and obedience, is the Bible.  The problem with foundationalism, is that it is inherently circular, or at least without foundation itself.  We accept reason because it is reasonable or we accept sensory experience, because it feels or seems right.  Because of that, others have sought to explain our ability to know through another method: Coherence theory.  It is the idea of the compilation of various tidbits of information that all make sense together from which becomes the web that everything else adheres, becoming a web of knowledge.  This is pure opinion, but I believe our cognitive state is probably some mashup of both theories, and from them we form presumptions as we interpret life.  We accept certain pieces of information as brute facts to form our foundation (knowing that their acceptance is inherently circular), interlinking them to create a web, by which we then process and interpret everything else.  

Realizing this had me thinking as I engage the various theologians and their arguments and then coming to Scripture for myself.  On a few occasions, I found both explanations as viable interpretations of the passage.  Other times, I thought that the interpretations given by the theologians were terrible, because it was quite evident the amount of eisegesis that was present in the text.  Of course, given the concept of coherence theory, their interpretation fit well within a preexistent web of knowledge and interpretation, but was that truly the correct interpretation?  How am I supposed to come to know what the true interpretation is if every approach is filled with presuppositions and could only be understood within a realm of coherence?

To further the issue, the Philosophy of Science supplied some studies into our coherence ability. In How Science Works, John Norton spends some time in the beginning of the book explaining how the human mind works.  He states, “The problem with our remarkable pattern finding abilities is that we can sometimes be far too good at finding patterns.  We delude ourselves into thinking there are significant patterns when in fact there are none” (Norton, How Science Works, pg 2.9). He uses some examples from various scientific studies discussing incorrect connections that we make, like with full moons causing all sorts of problems (knowing people who have worked in hospitals, I have heard this one plenty), and giving children sugar increases hyperactivity (which they show that it is more the excitement of getting something sweet as opposed to the “sugar rush”).  For better or worse, our minds work in some coherent fashion, sometimes conflating and connecting ideas when we ought not, or mistaking exactly what connections ought to be made.  One might even argue against me, stating that I’m conflating ideas by combining this study supplied by John Norton with a coherence theory of knowledge.  I think I’m making a good connection, but I will allow the judicious reader to decide for him- or herself.

Hermeneutics is a very tricky business.  And first, because it is so difficult, and we can so easily entangle ourselves, we need to be gracious in every approach to Scripture.  But now that we have set the stage for some philosophical considerations, let’s begin to press some questions into our study.

I have heard some Baptists say that our Presbyterian brothers are so sensitive to covenantal language that they miss the straightforward meaning of passages of Scripture, especially of Acts 2:38-39.  And the truth is many Presbyterians will outright admit that one seeks in vain to ground infant baptism in the New Testament.  All of the passages within the NT that they use for support must be understood through a specific lens of the OT, namely the OT via their framework of Presbyterian Covenant Theology.  They have created a very particular framework or webbing by which the scope of Scripture is interpreted.  Is their lens right?  

This needs to be stated at this point: Every student of hermeneutics puts on a pair of glasses to interpret Scripture, because ultimately we are depraved, and our feeble "eyesight" requires a prescription to see clearly.  As objective as we would like to think we are, we still interpret everything within our own framework, but again, that’s not a bad thing.  Here’s a statement from Moises Silva:

The old advice that biblical students should try as much as possible to approach a text without a prior idea as to what it means (and that therefore commentaries should be read after, not before, the exegesis) does have the advantage of encouraging independent thinking; besides, it reminds us that our primary aim is indeed to discover the historical meaning and that we are always in danger of imposing our meaning on the text.  Nevertheless, the advice is fundamentally flawed because it is untrue to the very process of learning.  I would suggest, rather, that a student who comes to a biblical passage with, say, a dispensationalist background, should attempt to make sense of the text assuming that dispensationalism is correct.  I would go so far as to say that, upon encountering a detail that does not seem to fit the dispensationalist scheme, the student should try to “make it fit.” The purpose is not to mishandle the text but to become self-conscious about what we all do anyway.  The result should be increased sensitivity to those features of the text that disturb our interpretive framework and thus a greater readiness to modify that framework. (Silva, "The Case for Calvinistic Hermeneutics," Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, pg 307)

As Silva here states, we all do it.  It is simply a matter if we admit it or not.  The hope is, seeing that we work from an interpretive grid, we can then go back and scrutinize our grid as necessary.

The discussion of epistemology and the philosophy of science up to this point is merely to raise questions.  It is in a sense, the means by which we recognize the need to scrutinize the system.  None of issues raised above necessarily prove that infant baptism is wrong, but it I think a reflective reader at this point would begin to see where the question may arise “Do paedobaptists make connections where none exist?  And through those connections do they create a system of interpretation that is faulty?”  We build our interpretive grid through various factoids and establish a system of coherence which then becomes our foundation to interpret everything else.  But as some various studies in science (and discussed in the philosophy of science) have shown, we are maybe a little too quick at creating coherence and connection, which will ultimately give us a faulty system of interpretation.

Infant baptism is grounded within the continuity of the Old and New Testaments, which is inherent in the framework of the Covenant of Grace.  It can be summarized as “one covenant under two administrations” (Denault, The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology).  Due to this specifically defined continuity, argument can then be drawn via parallels between the Old and New Testament.  Under the old administration, the covenant sign of being a part of the covenant community is circumcision.  Under the new administration, it is baptism.  Both signs point to the same spiritual reality, namely the circumcision of the heart (aka regeneration).  Believing that all Scripture is inspired and profitable, the Old Testament is to be used for our directive just as the New.  Whatever isn’t directly abolished in the NT from the OT, then still applies.  Thus, I’ve heard it succinctly stated, “God put believers’ children in the covenant with Abraham, and until He takes them out, we will continue to include them.” (I believe this ought to be attributed to Warfield, but cannot locate the quote.)

Is this connection between baptism and circumcision justified?  This is where the discussion within the metaphysics theory of the Identity of Indiscernibles is of value.  Given that there do exist a great deal of similarities between baptism and circumcision, do they necessarily equal one another and therefore ought to be applied in exactly like fashion?  Given that the theory itself is debated, perhaps we ought to tread the ground here lightly.

Lets elaborate on the theories further.  First, the Indiscernibility of Identicals: Imagine holding a red ball in your hand.  Someone walks up and asks, “What is that red thing in your hand?”  And you reply, “A ball.”  “Red thing” = “ball” (x=y) and therefore the two objects spoken of are equal and similar in every regard, thereby equivalent.  It’s really a matter-of-fact statement, like 1 equals 1.  But the Identity of Indiscernibles isn’t as simple.  Now suppose you have two red balls in your hands.  Every feature was exactly similar.  If you dropped both balls on the floor, you could not discern which ball was which.  Are these exactly similar balls identical?  No.  Perhaps you deny that they are exactly similar and thereby uphold the theory. Or perhaps you posit that they are exactly similar yet in relation to one another they are still 2 distinct balls and therefore cannot be considered exactly identical.  Even if you mix up the balls, you can still discern that they are two distinct balls.  Whichever way you approach it, the result is the same: there are two separate balls and therefore are not the same ball. (One might protest the meaning of “identity” here, saying that they can be two distinct entities but still remain identical.  I simply would argue that because they are two distinct entities, they can never be exactly identical, only exactly similar, which in the end might simply be an issue of semantics and the precision of analytic philosophy.)

With that understanding in mind, lets look at baptism and circumcision.  They are both signs for entering into the covenant community.  They both are external signs pointing toward an inward reality.  Both are signs of judgment.  The weight of their similarities is a force to be reckoned with, but even given the great deal of similarity between the two, should they be consider equivalent so that I baptize my infant child?  No.  The distinctiveness of the New Covenant and the changing of the sign ought to be of enough weight to at least cast doubt to the similar application.  Their similarities can be compared, but their distinctives must be maintained.  Even if the covenantal signs are exactly similar, they still must be recognized as two distinct signs of two distinct covenants.

The Presbyterian covenantal system must now be drawn into question.  Because of the blurring or dismissal of the various distinctives of each covenant, we must ask if their hermeneutical system correctly handles all of the evidence.  The system overemphasizes the continuity between the Old and New Testaments and creates the framework to permit the identity of the two, blurring the distinction that they are two separate signs and covenants.  It should be stated that Presbyterians do see distinctions between the two signs: one is bloody, the other not; one is given only to males, the other to both male and female.  But their hermeneutical grid casts important distinctives aside because they only see it as aspects of different administrations.  Just as the Obama and Bush administrations look different, yet it is the same USA, and all laws apply the same, likewise the Old and New Testaments are differing administrations under the same Covenant of Grace.

This is where the Baptist covenantal hermeneutic wins the day in my study of the two systems.  As I mentioned above, our cognitive abilities make connections, sometimes too well and this can cause us to blur distinctions and identities of two different things.  Like with children and sugar, there is a real connection between the two and hyperactivity, but the connection is misapplied.  It isn’t the sugar itself that causes the “sugar rush,” but excitement of the sweets and special treats.  In similar fashion, the Presbyterian scheme is on the right track when it sees unity between the two testaments, they just simply misapply connection, and ignore the distinctives supplied in the Old and New Testaments regarding the nature of the New Covenant.  Baptists correctly utilize the similarities and distinctives of each covenant.

Many wonderful books and articles exist the express the distinctiveness of the New Covenant, comparing and contrasting the two systems mentioned in this article. I would direct you to my Reformed Baptist brethren who have written at great length on the subject, and my feeble attempts to reproduce their work would only dull the fine gems they have hewn.  My purpose here was to simply provide explanation, from a philosophical perspective, how Presbyterians come to their conclusions via making connections in their hermeneutics which ought not be.

A short list of books for further reading, and better arguments than I've presented above:

The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology by Pascal Denault

Recovering a Covenantal Heritage edited by Richard Barcellos

The Kingdom of God by Jeff Johnson

And obviously compare chapter 7 of both the Westminster Confession of Faith with the 1689 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith