Here are some examples of this hermeneutical rule gathered from the Internet:
The credobaptists correctly point out that Peter specifically doesn’t address baptism in his second sermon, nor is there any mention of Peter’s hearers being baptized. The most reasonable explanation that Luke omits the topic of baptism during Peter’s second sermon….is that both Peter and John were arrested before they could administrate baptism. Just because baptism is not mentioned Acts 3, doesn’t necessary mean Baptism was not to be administered or imply non-essentiality. Peter and John’s assistants could have baptized them that day, or baptism could have been delayed for a day.
Descriptive vs. Prescriptive statements of in the Books of Acts concerning baptism. There are eight descriptions of baptism in the Book of Acts and only one prescriptive passage. Acts 2:38-39 is prescriptive and of course Peter teaches us about baptism before any took place in the NT era. We know it is prescriptive contextually,
THE REAL ISSUE. At the root level we see a misunderstanding of how any one doctrine is established and the function of Doctrine in general.
How many passages of Scripture are needed to establish a Biblical doctrine? Take for example, the Scriptural teaching concerning the Incarnation. The incarnation is presupposed on every page of the NT and doctrinally binding on all Christians to believe. And it truly is apart of the Gospel, because if there is no incarnation, there is no substitutionary atonement, hence no Christianity.
The incarnation is established upon the virgin birth narratives of which there are only two (Matthew and Luke). Following the guidance from Scripture, it only takes two passages of scriptural teaching on the same subject matter to establish any article of faith. Two passages from different authors, two passages from the same author in two different books, or two passages from the same author within the same book, but two different contexts.
Baptism is a unique doctrine is Scripture as it is suffers from too much doctrinal content. We have at least two or three teaching from our Lord, eight or nine examples of baptism in the Book of Acts, multiple comments by Paul, and two by Peter. This is an enormous amount of information compared to the doctrine of the Incarnation.
From the establishment of doctrine we notice: Every doctrine found in Scripture is its own article of faith. And each article of Faith stands alone by itself and doesn’t need to be substantiated or authenticated by another doctrine. Creation doesn’t need to be substantiated by Redemption, Redemption doesn’t need to be substantiated by Sanctification; neither inspiration v. eternal life, justification v. Hell, God’s providence v. Angels, Baptism v. Christ's resurrection, etc. And all articles of faith are interrelated into an organically unified body of Church teaching (fides quae) and are to be believed separately without doubting.
We now end up where we started. Re-quoting one of our examples:
‘The Bible says that it is the gospel that saves. "By this gospel you are saved . . . " (1 Cor. 15:2). Also, Rom. 1:16…. Neither of these verses, which tell us what saves us, includes any mention of baptism.” Matt Slick. Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.
Matt Slick quotes Romans 1:16 which contextually deals with the efficaciousness of the Word not baptism. And most importantly the usage of I Cor. 15:2-4 is most grievous. If one were to say, “Baptism is not apart of the Gospel because it is not listed in these verses, then what about the incarnation? Are we to say, God becoming man to take on the sins of the world, IS NOT THE GOSPEL? Nonsense.
The credobaptist usage of the “ONE WOULD EXPECT” argument is as common as is it fallacious. The belief for every text in the NT where the gospel is proclaimed, if baptism isn’t mention specifically in the text, then baptism isn’t necessary or accomplishes the things Scripture says it does…..is just bogus. This hermenuetical rule allows certain doctrines of Scripture to be dependent on others….and deciding that dependency is at the subjective whim of the interpreter.
And when you think about it….this “one would expect” argument comes dangerously close to transgressing the First Commandment: IF I WERE THE HOLY SPIRIT, I WOULD HAVE SAID IT DIFFERENTLY.
- “If water baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3?” John MacArthur, Grace to You. QA79
- The Bible says that it is the gospel that saves. "By this gospel you are saved . . . " (1 Cor. 15:2). Also, Rom. 1:16 says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile." Neither of these verses, which tell us what saves us, includes any mention of baptism. Matt Slick. Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. 11/22/08
- Paul Ramsey quoting Gal. 3:2, states “in a passage where one is vigorously defending salvation ONE WOULD EXPECT Paul to mention baptism.”
- Baptism, then, cannot be part of the Gospel. The Gospel is the "power of God to salvation" (Romans 1:16). It tells us what is necessary to know in order to be saved. Paul left baptism out of the Gospel. Therefore Paul did not consider baptism necessary to salvation.
- If water baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. However that is not the case at all. In fact there are many, many verses that declare salvation is by faith alone with no mention of baptism or any other requirement. Here they are for you to look up: John 1:12, John 3:16, John 3:18, John 3:36, I Cor 15:2-4, John 6:47, John 20:31. If baptism is necessary for salvation, then all these scriptures are wrong.
- Paul never made water baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached.
- This interpretive rule is only known to and used by Credobaptists.
- This interpretive rule is selectively used only for the Doctrine of Baptism and excludes all other doctrines.
- Demands exact precision in Scriptural language, where contextually none is given.
- What is not specifically stated in one passage of Scripture takes precedence over what is specifically and explicitly stated in multiple other passages of Scripture. In other words, the exception to the rule IS THE RULE.
- Ignores the common practice interpretive rule “Scriptura interpur Scriptura.”
The credobaptists correctly point out that Peter specifically doesn’t address baptism in his second sermon, nor is there any mention of Peter’s hearers being baptized. The most reasonable explanation that Luke omits the topic of baptism during Peter’s second sermon….is that both Peter and John were arrested before they could administrate baptism. Just because baptism is not mentioned Acts 3, doesn’t necessary mean Baptism was not to be administered or imply non-essentiality. Peter and John’s assistants could have baptized them that day, or baptism could have been delayed for a day.
Descriptive vs. Prescriptive statements of in the Books of Acts concerning baptism. There are eight descriptions of baptism in the Book of Acts and only one prescriptive passage. Acts 2:38-39 is prescriptive and of course Peter teaches us about baptism before any took place in the NT era. We know it is prescriptive contextually,
- Dual Commands: “Repent and be Baptized.”
- Dual Promises: “For the forgiveness of sins” and “You shall receive the Holy Spirit.”
- Baptismal continuance: “This promise is for you and your children.”
- Geographical or Missional significance: “For all those to are far off and away.”
THE REAL ISSUE. At the root level we see a misunderstanding of how any one doctrine is established and the function of Doctrine in general.
How many passages of Scripture are needed to establish a Biblical doctrine? Take for example, the Scriptural teaching concerning the Incarnation. The incarnation is presupposed on every page of the NT and doctrinally binding on all Christians to believe. And it truly is apart of the Gospel, because if there is no incarnation, there is no substitutionary atonement, hence no Christianity.
The incarnation is established upon the virgin birth narratives of which there are only two (Matthew and Luke). Following the guidance from Scripture, it only takes two passages of scriptural teaching on the same subject matter to establish any article of faith. Two passages from different authors, two passages from the same author in two different books, or two passages from the same author within the same book, but two different contexts.
Baptism is a unique doctrine is Scripture as it is suffers from too much doctrinal content. We have at least two or three teaching from our Lord, eight or nine examples of baptism in the Book of Acts, multiple comments by Paul, and two by Peter. This is an enormous amount of information compared to the doctrine of the Incarnation.
From the establishment of doctrine we notice: Every doctrine found in Scripture is its own article of faith. And each article of Faith stands alone by itself and doesn’t need to be substantiated or authenticated by another doctrine. Creation doesn’t need to be substantiated by Redemption, Redemption doesn’t need to be substantiated by Sanctification; neither inspiration v. eternal life, justification v. Hell, God’s providence v. Angels, Baptism v. Christ's resurrection, etc. And all articles of faith are interrelated into an organically unified body of Church teaching (fides quae) and are to be believed separately without doubting.
We now end up where we started. Re-quoting one of our examples:
‘The Bible says that it is the gospel that saves. "By this gospel you are saved . . . " (1 Cor. 15:2). Also, Rom. 1:16…. Neither of these verses, which tell us what saves us, includes any mention of baptism.” Matt Slick. Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.
Matt Slick quotes Romans 1:16 which contextually deals with the efficaciousness of the Word not baptism. And most importantly the usage of I Cor. 15:2-4 is most grievous. If one were to say, “Baptism is not apart of the Gospel because it is not listed in these verses, then what about the incarnation? Are we to say, God becoming man to take on the sins of the world, IS NOT THE GOSPEL? Nonsense.
The credobaptist usage of the “ONE WOULD EXPECT” argument is as common as is it fallacious. The belief for every text in the NT where the gospel is proclaimed, if baptism isn’t mention specifically in the text, then baptism isn’t necessary or accomplishes the things Scripture says it does…..is just bogus. This hermenuetical rule allows certain doctrines of Scripture to be dependent on others….and deciding that dependency is at the subjective whim of the interpreter.
And when you think about it….this “one would expect” argument comes dangerously close to transgressing the First Commandment: IF I WERE THE HOLY SPIRIT, I WOULD HAVE SAID IT DIFFERENTLY.
Last edited:
