The Bible sufficiency teaches us everything we need to know in order to know, love and serve God. But how precisely does the Bible reveal this information to us? According to the Confession, the Scriptures reveal God’s will both directly and also indirectly. Here’s how the Westminster Confession states it: “The whole counsel of God … is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.”1For an extended discussion and defense of the use of “consequence,” see Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison Jr. (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992), 1:37-43. That is, sometimes we can find an explicit prooftext for a doctrine. Other times, we arrive at a doctrine by way of logical inference. However, the 2LCF changes the wording: “The whole counsel of God … is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture.”
Is there an important difference?
One can find at least three answers to this question:
Rejecting Doctrine-by-Inference?
Some Paedobaptists seem to think the Baptists are rejecting the legitimacy of doctrine by inference since Baptists insist on a clear reference to infant baptism. Accordingly, these Paedobaptists seem to interpret this change in the 2LCF as a Baptist attempt to promote a kind of “biblicism”—at least with respect to the question of baptism.2See Rowland Ward, Scripture and Worship: Biblical Interpretation and the Directory for Worship (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2007), 97, n. 34; J. V. Fesko, Word, Water and Spirit (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2010), 148; Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 219, n. 15.
Now I think that reading of 2LCf is highly unlikely in light of the “either … or” construction of the clause, in which “necessarily contained” stands in contrast with “expressly set down.”3Ryan McGraw, a Paedobaptist, doubts the Baptists are rejecting the legitimacy of doctrinal inference By Good and Necessary Consequence, Explorations in Reformed Confessional Theology, ed. Daniel R. Hyde and Mark Jones (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 51, n. 10.
Saying the Same Thing?
Others claim the Baptists are basically saying the same thing as the WCF. In his commentary on the 2LCF, Sam Waldron insists,
The phrase, ‘or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture,’ is equivalent to the phrase in the Westminster Confession it is intended to clarify: ‘or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.’ What may be by sound logic deduced from Scripture, that is to say, what is necessarily contained in it has the authority of Scripture itself.4A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, 5th edition (Evangelical Press, 2016), 51.
A Unique Baptist Hermeneutic?
Still others think the Baptists narrow the kind of doctrinal inferences allowed and, perhaps, allude to the Baptist hermeneutic for determining sacraments. James and Sam Renihan convincingly demonstrate that the Particular Baptists agree with the Reformed community on the legitimacy of doctrinal inference. Hence, the Baptists agree with the basic point of the WCF. However, the Renihans also believe the Baptists may be trying to clarify and tighten the kind of inferences allowed.
First, the phrase “good and necessary” could suggest the allowance of “good” inferences that aren’t “necessary.” Such an inference might be based on human reason rather than divine revelation.5I certainly don’t believe this was the intent of the assembly. George Gillespie, one of the assembly divines and wrote about this clause, expressly denies that “good” inferences can be grounded on human reason. See Treatise of Miscellany Questions (Edinburgh: Robert Ogle, and Oliver & Boyd, 1844), 102–103. Thus, the Baptists are trying to restrict the scope of inferences allowed to those that are necessary.
Second, the Renihans show how the Baptists disallow the use of inference on the question of the establishment and regulation of sacraments. Such covenantal ordinances require “positive law,” that is, direct commands for their institution and regulation. Thus, the Paedobaptists are wrong to base the practice of infant baptism on logical inference. For this reason, the Baptists are refining the language of the WCF to exclude any use of inference for establishing and regulating the sacraments.6See James Renihan, “‘Good and Necessary Consequence’ or ‘Necessarily Contained,’” Southern California Reformed Baptist Pastors’ Conference Papers, Vol. 1 2012, ed. Richard C. Barcellos (Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2012), 129–152; Samuel Renihan, “The Consequences of Positive Law: The Particular Baptist Use of Inferential Reasoning in Theology,” Journal of the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies (2016): 123–152. Fred Malone made a somewhat similar argument several years earlier, though not with the same amount of historical research. See The Baptism of Disciples Alone: A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism versus Paedobaptism, 2nd edition (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2007), 20.
My assessment
There’s no doubt that Baptists objected to the use of inference for infant baptism. I’m not convinced, however, that the use of inference should be disallowed for regulating NT worship. Otherwise, we’d have to reject the notion of a “Christian sabbath.”7I try to make the case that the “Lord’s Day” is to some degree established and regulated by good and necessary consequence rather than explicit command. “Commemorating Christ’s Coronation: How to Justify a First-Day Sabbath,” In Service to the Church: Essays in Honor of Dr. Robert Paul Martin, ed. Brian Borgman (Conway, AR: Free Grace Press, 2020), 101–111. I also think we can reject infant baptism as a “bad and unnecessary” inference.
Moreover, I fail to see how the phrase “necessarily contained in Holy Scripture” can perform double duty, simultaneously affirming the legitimacy of inferences and also supporting a more narrow Baptist hermeneutic of the sacraments.
Finally, as best as I can tell, the WCF means “good AND necessary,” not “good OR necessary.”8According to McGraw, consequences that are good but not necessary might be used to guide decisions regarding the circumstances of worship. But they cannot rise to the level of “Thus saith the Lord” unless they are both good and necessary. By Good and Necessary Consequence, 31. See also C. J. Williams’ helpful essay, “Good and Necessary Consequence in the Westminster Confession,” Reformed Presbyterian Theological Journal 1:2 (Spring 2015): 45–58. So it may be that the Baptists intended to narrow the scope of consequences to “necessary” only. If so, I don’t think that move was necessary since the WCF includes that idea. Thus, in the end, I think both Confessions are basically saying that same thing. Some of the Bible’s teaching is “expressly set down.” In other cases, God’s revealed will is “necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture.”
Leave a Reply