Randy!

I didn't say that any Baptists said that they all agreed with each other. Where'd you get that idea? I said that many Baptists have made it a point to point out that paedobaptists disagree with eachother (i.e., other paedobaptists). I referred you to one such place, Dr. Fred Malone's book, The Baptism of Disciples Alone. T.E. Watson's Baptism Not For Infants, is another. Baptists have made much hay out of the claim that "paedobaptists authors can be used to refute each other." I was simply saying that I can now say this about them. So, if this has *always* been the case, then you are tacitly admitting that those Baptists were using stupid arguments to refute paedobaptists! Well, thanks Randy!

My books are all packed away right now so I can't give exact page numbers of specific references, but this should be enough substantiate my claim:

Dr. Fred Malone stated: "This expanded republication of Baptism Not for Infants (1962), often overlooked, is a welcome addition to any shelf as a useful refutation of infant baptism. Watson's unique method of argument is to take quotations exclusively from paedobaptist authors and allow them to refute each other."

So, not only didn't you understand my comment (which happens a lot), you also pointed out that these popular ways of arguing have been successfully met head on by myself.

Okay. But I, for one, will not use only the Bible. I will also pull on extra-biblical support (can't interpret the Bible in a vacuum). And, I will also appeal to any Baptist, paedobaptist, Roman Catholic, Arminian, or even apostate or any one else who happens to interpret a passage right, or shed some light on it which bears on its exegesis (say, a pagan archeologist).


1. In both mine and Jewett's mind, maybe.

2. I already said I didn't expect it to have an "effect" on you. So, this is no surprise, or worry, to me. I, for one, think Jewett's point is great, I see no way around it, and you just threw up some prayer of a possible response. Certainly you didn’t expect me to be convinced by that, I'm, sure. So, we're all even Steven on this score. I have the word of a scholar on one hand, you had a fly-by-night "maybe" as a rejoinder. I'm totally fine leaving it at that.

3. I know what Lane told you.

4. I know that it wasn’t him who you were discussing Jewett with.

5. I never said it was. Rather, I said:

Originally posted by Tom Bombadil: "Right now we're dealing with Jewett's rather devastating point against *your* interpretation of the verses Green Baggins point out."

So, I was talking about the verses that Lane pointed out, and your interpretation of those verses. Notice all I said Green Baggins pointed out to you were verses. And, all I said you interacted with him on was your interpretation of those verses. Not on Jewett. The grammar of my sentence cannot lead one to believe that I intimated that you and Green Baggins were discussing Jewett.

So, it's a real head-scratcher how you came up with that interpretation of my comment. A mystery. Cue Colombo music.

6. So, no facts mixed up here. "Again," or otherwise. Unlike what we've seen multiple times on your end. But, let's not degenerate this into a petty squabble. Seems like correcting your mixing of the facts about what I said, and letting the accusations go, is the only thing that should get an "again" put next to it.

Anyway, have a good evening!

__________________
Regards,

J.J.
PCA
Suffix