Paul Manata and the Exclusion Principle (Part III)

In my last post, which I kept very simple, because I believe that the covenant arrangement is basic Christian doctrine, I said that the existence of a religious community was not required for the Exclusion Principle. All that is required is that a group exist that shares common values and beliefs and that those values and beliefs must be a requirement for fellowship in that group. This was precisely the way of the Mediterranean world during the time of the New Testament and even to a great degree, it remains to be the way of that world, at least much more than is the case in the West. Today, I continue my interaction with Manata’s notes and thoughts on why he is not a Baptist by reviewing a very small component his actual argument.

Manata says, “The EP in Deuteronomy, involving the Hebrew verb translated “utterly remove,” is “consistently associated with the covenant motif” (Rosner: 65). Paul uses the LXX translation of that verb in I Corinthians 5:13. According to Deuteronomy, people are “utterly removed … because of breach of covenant” (Rosner: 65).” All Israelites were born into the covenant. They were, by right of birth, members in the covenant. The New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace is fundamentally different in that regard. Manata assumes a continuity here that he has not proven. He merely takes it for granted, spilling a lot of ink here and there attempting to connect one irrelevant fact with another in my opinion. Second, the word that Paul used in 1 Corinthians 5:13 is exairo and it is under the semantic domain of either belonging to or included in the membership or to be excluded from. Throughout the semantic domain to which this word belongs, the sense is that the group which this man is to be excluded from is the Corinthian community and any and all fellowship with that community. Jesus used a similar word to inform us that the world would exclude us as well. Does this mean we would be removed from some covenantal arrangement? Manata’s problem is that he insists on only looking at 1 Corinthians 5 through a very narrow lens. There is no hint here of the legal workings of removing someone from a covenant. There is no covenant motif in the Corinthian pericope and to read one into it on the basis of how Paul uses Deuteronomy 17 to accomplish the excommunication is weak in my view. Should we examine how the NT writers, to include Paul use the OT Scripture to make their points and employ the same principles everywhere in the NT that Manata employs here? Space prohibits such an analysis but it is safe to say that one could never employ Manata’s principles here consistently in their interpretation of the NT Scripture without doing significant damage. In Deuteronomy 17:7, the purging was by way of stoning. If we are going to claim Manata’s level of continuity between the two covenants, why didn’t Paul have the man stoned? Why only select the last half of the text? Could it be that Paul had adopted the same holiness expressions from Deuteronomy, having been trained to think this way about those who rejected God’s moral law? Could it be that this was Paul's way of appropriating an enduring principle that reflects both continuity and discontinuity? The principle of godly standards exist in both covenants and the obligation to obedience exists in both covenants while the presence of conditionality is ended with the Old. Why take it so far as to say that Paul is removing a man from the covenant? The fact here is that in reality, for practical purposes, credobaptists do exactly the same thing the paedobaptists do when they are confronted by these situations. It seems that Manata’s distinction is little more than an abstraction. His removal has no more bite than the Baptists. We both recognize that a person’s obstinacy in such cases leads us to the same conclusions and same sort of relationship with them.

There can be little doubt that Manata is correct on the Exclusion Principle where Israel was concerned. I agree that there was a covenant motif, a holiness motif, and a corporate responsibility motif present. But Manata is only begging the question in this argument. He assumes that the Corinthian man is actually “in” the New Covenant like the Jew was in the Old Covenant. The fact that similar language is used has little to do with the covenant status of the Corinthian man and everything to do with the fact that Paul wanted the Church there to disassociate from him. We must remember that this is a predominantly Gentile community. There is no evidence anywhere in the two letters to suggest that Paul had brought the Corinthians to a full-orbed Jewish understanding of the Old Covenant. The language he uses reflects his own training and no doubt his thinking in terms of the sort of people who should be in community with the Church and those that should not be. But there is nothing to suggest that Paul pushes this so far as to believe he was removing a covenant member from the covenant itself. We will see other incidents of the Exclusion Principle elsewhere in the NT and I am convinced one you weigh these against Manata’s argument, you will see the inconsistency in how he argues his points.

I must confess that Manata has managed to spill much ink about the Exclusion Principle through the grid of a distinctly paedobaptists covenant theology lens. The argument and notes are littered with numerous references and supposed connections between how Moses used a word, and how Paul used a word and the connection between the two. But at the end of it all, one is left wondering if it is even possible to make more irrelevant connections between two passages than Manata has.

Now, to really subject Manata’s notes to some critical reflection, we must turn to a text that Manata has ignored, and he has done so to the demise of his own argument. After all, it was Manata himself that said we must allow the whole Bible to inform our view on this subject and on that point, he is not mistaken. This being the case, I think the best place for us to turn is John. John has a problem with a group of rogue “members” troubling the Christian community. It is his reason for penning his largest epistle. And in that epistle, he reveals a principle that is utterly destructive of Manata’s entire argument. John writes about this group that had left the community, “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.” (1 Jn. 2:19) This one verse points out that anyone who apparently belonged to the community but eventually left the community were never really members of the community despite appearances to the contrary. John never launched into some elaborate external/internal concept of the New Covenant to explain what was going on in this case. He simply said that these individuals were never of us. John is basically saying that if someone is a member in the New Covenant, they will remain with us. The Hebrew writer said the same thing in Hebrews 10:39, “But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.” This contradicts Manata’s claim that the Corinthian man must have been a legitimate member in the community if he was now being excluded from it. Of such people John tells his community that such people were never of us. They were never in the group.

From this point, I will begin to make a case for why paedobaptists covenant theology fails. Future posts will deal with the simple language in Jeremiah 31 and how those in Manata’s camp play hard and fast with rules. The argument will be very, very simple. I will leave you with the basic construction of the argument that will ultimately frame out a more thorough refutation of Manata’s argument.

(1)  All subjects for Christian baptism are members in the Church.

      (2)  Only regenerated individuals are members in the Church.

      (3)  Therefore, only regenerated individuals are proper subjects for Christian baptism.

As anyone who has studied logic can see, the argument is a standard-form categorical syllogism and since the conclusion follows from the premises, the argument is logically valid. The major term is “subjects for Christian baptism,” the middle term is “members in the Church,” and the minor term is regenerated individuals. I will have to demonstrate that all subjects for Christian baptism are members in the Church. To do this, I will have to provide a true definition and defense of “members in the Church.” If I can provide a biblically strong case for (1), then (2) will follow quite logically from (1). Once this is done, the conclusion will prove logically irresistible. In my opinion, not only is this a less complex argument than that constructed by Manata, it is much stronger, easier to demonstrate, and as a result, requires fewer digital symbols to communicate. The only solution I can see is for Manata to go the route of baptismal regeneration and to accept the stronger claims of those paedobaptists that make that argument. If infants are not regenerated, not elect, not called out by God, they have no right to be baptized, not being baptized into the body of Christ, the Church, by the Holy Spirit. But if they do have a right to be baptized, then they must be regenerated or in the process of being regenerated, called by God, elect, baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit.

Paul Manata and the Exclusion Principle of Paedobaptism

Paul Manata writes, in the second section of his argument for Paedobaptism, “It is my contention that in the biblical notion of the “Exclusion Principle” (EP, hereafter) we have, as it is found in the NT, warrants us in concluding that there is still an external/internal aspect to the covenant and, therefore, people can break the covenant.”

Manata essentially argues that because the apostle Paul quotes Deuteronomy 17:7 when he commands the excommunication of the Corinthian man, the external/internal aspect which was a component of the Old Covenant must also be a component for the New Covenant. The language used in 1 Cor. 5:13 is virtually identical with Deut. 17:7. Manata argues that the language of the apostle indicates that the Corinthian man was in fact a covenant breaker. If the New Covenant can be broken, then it must have the same internal/external aspect the Old Covenant had. But is Manata correct to conclude that the apostle affirmed that the New Covenant was actually broken by the Corinthian man? Manata then goes on to claim that this serves as the basis for why he thinks there is a basic continuity between the Old and the New Covenant. The warrant for this belief is supposedly observed in the “breakability” of both covenants. But is the New Covenant breakable? Is the New Covenant a Covenant of grace or a covenant of works? Is the New Covenant conditional or unconditional? The very best place to start, and perhaps the only place we need to look is located in Jeremiah where the nature of the New Covenant and its discontinuity with the Old Covenant is laid out more clearly than anywhere else in Scripture. When we say that Scripture is self-interpreting, we mean to say that the obscure passages of Scripture must be interpreted in the light of the clear passages of Scripture. Jeremiah 31:31-33 is about as clear a passage as we have for the nature of the New Covenant. So it is to Jeremiah 31:31-33 that we must go.

The first thing we notice in Jer. 31:31 is that God said that He will make a ḥādaš b^erît, new covenant, with the house of Israel. The covenant that God will make is different and new. Then we see the discontinuity spelled out as clearly as it could be with the Hebrew expression, lō(ʾ) k^e- b^erît, not “like the covenant” which I made with their fathers. Not only is this a new covenant, a different covenant, it is unlike the covenant that God had previously made with Israel and Judah. And then we see what I believe is the major difference between the two covenants, that which created the discontinuity: b^erît pārar, the covenant which they broke. The Old Covenant is a covenant that was broken, but the new covenant is not like that covenant. The contrast is clearly between a covenant that was breakable and one that will be written on the heart, and as such, is unbreakable. The Old Covenant did not contain the power of ability to resist breaking while the New Covenant, writing on the heart by the blood of Christ is eternal, unconditional, and as such unbreakable.

I think the apostle Paul shapes how we should think about the work of Christ in the New Covenant clearly in Romans 5:12-19. Man is either in Adam, subject to the Covenant of Works or he is in Christ under the New Covenant and not subject to the Covenant of Works. In Adam we all die, while in Christ we are all made alive. To be in Christ is to have our sins forgiven and our iniquities removed. To be in Christ is life without end. As Johnson puts it, “People are either in the first Adam or the second Adam. They are either lost or saved, in light or in darkness, under law or under grace.” [Johnson, The Fatal Flaw, 180.] Christ is the legal head of all those under the New Covenant. As the legal head, Christ is efficacious in all He does.

I want to come back to 1 Corinthians 5:1-13. Clearly there is a problem with a man in this community. But the community is itself spiritual in nature, not external, naturalistic, or based on religious forms. Participation in religious forms and rites such as baptism does not provide entrance into a spiritual covenant. Only the new birth can accomplish that. There is no language in the text indicating that the apostle considered the man to be a new covenant member. His hope was that excommunicating him would provide proof positive whether or not the man possessed genuine faith or not. Paul had previously written to the Corinthian Church ordering them not to associate with immoral people. But it was not immoral people in general, but immoral people who were also ean tis adelphos onomadzomenos, if anyone is calling himself “brother.” In other words, immoral behavior in the community cannot be tolerated. It does not follow that because this was also the case in Israel that both Israel and the Church must be the same entity. There is no logical argument to support such conclusions that does not commit numerous fallacies along the way. The process of church discipline not only serves as a “one another” tool to help us in our struggles with immorality, but it also serves to keep the community pure where it is executed properly. The Problem for Manata is that there is nothing in this text, a text addressed to a Gentile Church mind you, to suggest that the apostle believed this man was a member of the New Covenant in any way whatsoever. So when Manata spills pages and pages of ink trying to make a case that the apostle considered this man a member in the New Covenant, he simply wastes his time. I could link one irrelevant line of evidence after another ad infinitum and that would still fail to make the case. There is nothing in 1 Corinthians 5, or any place else in the NT to suggest that the New Covenant has two components; one internal and one external. Moreover, nowhere in the NT do we find people who are actual unregenerate members of the Church, a visible Church, but not the invisible Church. This is because there is no such thing as an actual visible church. There is only what we are doing as we employ the tools of human language when we talk about a visible church. The NT recognizes membership into the body of Christ, the Church of the Living God, and nothing more. Those members are only the elect whom God has chosen and covenanted with to be His own. The NT refers to those who claim Christ with their mouth but deny Him in their works as wolves, hypocrites, false apostles, false teachers, and false converts. They are not members in the Church and they certainly are not benefiting from the New Covenant in any way. John called them liars and liars they are. John said they were NEVER really of us.

So then, it does not follow that the Exclusion Principle requires a strong continuity between the covenants. All that is required for the presence of the Exclusion Principle is a holy community. Because the language in 1 Corinthians 5 is so clearly similar to that of Deuteronomy 17, it is only reasonable to explore the relationship between the two texts. What Manata fails to articulate, if not recognize, is that the Old Covenant had its purpose and place in the redemptive history and plan of God and one of those purposes was to point us forward to something greater, something better, something superior. And that something is the New Covenant, established in the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Note that I am not really putting up the Credobaptist covenant theology argument at this time. I will post such an argument, distilled as it may be, at the end of these review. I am simply offering up some critical thoughts of Paul Manata’s argument/notes at this time. I highly respect and appreciate Manata’s labors. I cannot say that enough. If life were a war, and I believe it is, Paul and I would be wearing the same colors. And if we were going into battle, I cannot think of a more noble and able soldier that I would want on my line. This is a small area of disagreement and Manata represents an excellent thinker who happens to take a different position than I. I hope to learn a good deal in the discussion.

Paul Manata and Paedobaptism

The purpose of this post is to provide a running interaction with Paul Manata's public notes and debates on the subject of baptism. I will attempt to keep each post very short until the summary, which will be a more succinct rebuttal of Manata's points.

First and foremost, I consider Paul Manata to be brother in Christ even though I do not know him personally. I have no reason to think that he is anything but sincere in his faith. I also consider Paul to be an exceptionally intelligent, well-educated brother in Christ. For this reason, I extend the appropriate amount of regard and appreciation for the arguments that Paul makes in his defense of Paedobaptism.

Paul opens his argument with the following syllogism:
My argument is simple: (1) All members of the visible Church are proper subjects of Christian baptism (2) Infants of one or more professing Christian parent are members of the visible church. (3) Therefore, infants of one or more professing Christian parent are proper subjects of Christian baptism. 

Concerning the major premise, Paul assumes something that he must prove, namely, that there is a real organism we refer to when we refer to the visible church. The concept of a visible versus invisible church came about in the third or fourth century. There is no evidence that the authors of the NT had such a concept in mind anywhere recorded in NT Scriptures. That does not mean that the terms are useless. Indeed, to use the expression "visible church" is nothing more than to employ a literary device to distinguish between those who do not claim to belong to a community and those who do. It says nothing official and should never be understood in that way. It is an expression that helps identify the actual status of someone claiming to be in the church. It is a communication tool, an idiom if you will. If we understand church synonymously with the body of Christ, then we understand that there is in fact only one church. That church is invisible itself, but its members are indeed visible. The claim to be in the church is not sufficient evidence to be in the church anymore than the claim to be an apostle is sufficient evidence that one is actually an apostle. I would adjust Paul's major premise (1) All members of the Church are proper subjects of Christian baptism. If Paul wishes to advance his case, he will have to demonstrate that the NT Doctrine of the Church clearly informs the concept that there is a visible church which should not be confused with the invisible church. 

Are infants of professing Christians members of the visible church? If there is no visible church, which I believe is the case, then infants cannot be members of it. What I mean is that there is simply the Church. The official Church of Jesus Christ is invisible in the sense that it isn't identified by anything like a building or a denomination. But the members of the Church are visible. Membership in the Church is synonymous with membership in the covenant. Discipline is designed to out those false members who demonstrate that they do not belong to the covenant. Paul needs to ask whether or not infants can be members in the church apart from faith in Christ, based on their merit as being children of professing believers which means they have rights to be in Christ, not based on faith, but based on their birthright. The implications of this second premise are far-reaching indeed. Nevertheless, if my rejection of Paul's major premise holds, then the minor premise turns out to be not an issue at all. Moreover, if the major premise proves to be impossible to demonstrate, then it follows that the conclusion is not valid after all. Paul's argument becomes logically implausible and as such, unconvincing.

Paul does on to say, "That is, baptism is for all those who join the visible church." He quotes men like Wayne Grudem, Mark Dever, and even Fred Malone. But if there is no such organism as a visible church, then baptism is not actually a rite intended for membership in it. But Manata is not quite correct in how he frames Grudem's words. Earlier in the same chapter Grudem says, "The pattern revealed at several places in the New Testament is that only those who give a believable profession of faith should be baptized...This is because baptism, which is a symbol of beginning the Christian life, should only be given to those who have in fact begun the Christian life. [969-970] Manata is correct to say that baptism was the outward profession, publicly emphasized statement of the individual of an inward change and affirmation to follow Christ. But the act of external baptism was only a reflection of what had already taken place in the person. Baptism was far more than some external ritual by which people joined the visible church. Manata misses this point completely. Baptism then, just like the Lord's table, is reserved only for those with a new heart, a living faith, and a purified conscience before God through the new birth.

As Manata moves through his argument, he points to certain pieces of evidence to support his case. Acts 2 is one of those pieces of evidence. Manata believes that surely, of the 3,000 that were added to the church, some of these were not elect. Here Manata confuses theological argumentation with historical narrative. Does Manata actually think that Luke intended to communicate that 3,000 people were added to the visible church, some of which were non-elect? Who could read about the historical event and miss the point that Luke is providing Theophilus with a general, but accurate account of the beginnings of Christianity? But Manata seems to lose sight of Luke's overarching purpose, getting lost in the weeds of his beloved system. Manata is not the only one that is sometimes guilty of this behavior. I have done it often in the past and am sure to do it in the future. It is only a natural tendency we sinners all seem to share. The point is that Manata takes this episode far beyond the bounds for which Luke intended it and that is not difficult to see.

To be continued.....