Baptism debate tonight on the web.

Brethren:

I will be debating Dr. Gregg Strawbridge on the subject of baptism this
evening live on line. Please see my blog at Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White for details and
the link to listen live, 8pm EST.

James


Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White

__________________

(Norseman Moderator)

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)
PuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I hope to make it home, and have kids settled in time to be there "live".

Thanks.

__________________
WWW.SURFWRITERS.BLOGSPOT.COM
Trevor
Christian/Husband/Father/Writer/Teacher--
--In that order.
Bethany Church, Sierra Madre, CA.
God is my King
"You've got to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, latch on to the affirmitive, and don't mess with Mr. in-between." Tony Bennett.

Thanks! I'm looking forward to it.

__________________
Dan
Member, Soaring Oaks Presbyterian (PCA)
www.soaringoaks.org
Northern California
The duty of a theologian is, not to please the ear with empty sounds, but to confirm the conscience by teaching things which are true, certain and profitable.
John Calvin, 1559

Anybody listening?

__________________
Dan
Member, Soaring Oaks Presbyterian (PCA)
www.soaringoaks.org
Northern California
The duty of a theologian is, not to please the ear with empty sounds, but to confirm the conscience by teaching things which are true, certain and profitable.
John Calvin, 1559

I'm listening

__________________
~Gloria G.~
Bride of Warren G.
Member of Trinity Presbyterian Church, PCA, Southeast Georgia

"Turn my eyes from looking at worthless things; and give me life in your ways." Psalm 119:37

Coming in late...ty...listening.

__________________
JC
URCNA
PA, but homesick for SC

"Who says you can't go back, been all around the world and as a matter of fact. There's only one place left I want to go, who says you can't go home" Bon Jovi

Dr. White has missed the entire point. And I don't believe he has not had those questions answered. He simply has dismissed the answers.

__________________
JC
URCNA
PA, but homesick for SC

"Who says you can't go back, been all around the world and as a matter of fact. There's only one place left I want to go, who says you can't go home" Bon Jovi

I thought he answered and gave good responses. I could say the same thing about his opponent sometimes.

I agreed with him and his answer concerning Show me a verse.

__________________

(Norseman Moderator)

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)
PuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

The problem is that they ARE missing eachother. The issue I take with Dr. Strawbridge is that he didn't share the point of the children are participants of the physical covenant community.

A personal shot I had to Dr. White is that there are plenty of Baptist kids that grow, get baptised, then walk away hating God also.

Another Question: Why is he debating Dr. Strawbridge? Isn't Dr. Strawbridge the pastor of the CREC church here in Lancaster County (ie., FV issues)?

Not saying that we should toss out everything he might say...but it may explain the issue I had with him tonight. Someone not connected to FV would have mentioned the above...

__________________
JC
URCNA
PA, but homesick for SC

"Who says you can't go back, been all around the world and as a matter of fact. There's only one place left I want to go, who says you can't go home" Bon Jovi

My kids needed parental attention, so I couldn't listen all the way through. Did someone hear where it will be available in the future?

__________________
Dan
Member, Soaring Oaks Presbyterian (PCA)
www.soaringoaks.org
Northern California
The duty of a theologian is, not to please the ear with empty sounds, but to confirm the conscience by teaching things which are true, certain and profitable.
John Calvin, 1559

No, he addressed the points. Each one that was raised. They both put forth what they believe is truth.
Many good points were addressed. It will probably be made available on the Alpha Omega ministries
web site. I will have to listen again,but it seemed as if Dr.Strawbridge did not address several issues raised.
For example all of the Hebrews verses in relation to those in saving union with Christ.
I think that he cannot respond to them and be consistent with the doctrines of grace.

__________________
Anthony D'Arienzo
Sunday School Teacher
Hope Reformed Baptist Church:
Medford, N.Y.

I love Doc to death....but yeah, LadyFlynt is right. Right after Strawbridge explained that his view of what it means to be in the covenant is different, Doc simply went past that and kept arguing as if what *we* (paedos) mean by in the covenant is the same as being *savingly in union* with Christ.

I'd beg to differ heavily on your response, Anthony. The only way one *can* consistently deal with the Hebrews warning passages is from a paedo perspective. Otherwise, all you end up doing is emptying the warning passages of their teeth (and, ironically, Doc ends up arguing like a paedo when he said "well, the same way a minister looks on his congregation and knows that not everyone is saved....") and making their threats imaginary.

But yeah, at some points, they were very heavily missing each other.

I love and respect Doc. He's still my favorite author, although he's slowly getting edged out by John Piper. But I disagree with both of them on this issue.

__________________
K. Joel Gilliard
Theologically Correct dot Com
http://www.theologicallycorrect.com
Sunday School Teacher (Elementary 2), Gaithersburg Community Church (EFCA)
http://www.gchurch.org
The Blog: THINK! - Wrestlin' With Wordz -N- Ideaz
The Upcoming CD: The Definition

BC,
I think this is the key to your response,when you said this;


The response given was you cannot have NC.believer's losing salvation in light of particular redemption.
Dr.White offered the section in Heb.10 saying you cannot be said to be saved and sanctified ,and then in 15 verses later be said to be losing that salvation.
The warning passages were real to the Hebrews before 70AD. They were in danger of going back to the shadows of The OC. worship,after the reality of NC.worship was revealed.
The whole book is geared to the superiority of Jesus, His person and work,as compared with Moses,Joshua, the tabernacle, priesthood,angels,law giving, law keeping, and all the witnesses of Heb 11 looking forward to Christ.
I have to listen again,but I believe I heard this part of Hebrews 6offered by Dr.White;

9But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.
I tried to tape it,so I will listen to it again if I can later on to seek to clarify this.

Bc, I can understand from reading many padeo-posts how you have this split view of being "In Covenant" ie, being [externally in the covenant,and visible church community] but not necessarily in the body of Christ, [ invisible church]. We do not see the Nc. this way. I am still trying to understand how other christans look at these verses without mis-representing their view.
I think that both men tried to do this to a certain extent. Any attempt to try to twist the words of someone shows a flawed arguement.

__________________
Anthony D'Arienzo
Sunday School Teacher
Hope Reformed Baptist Church:
Medford, N.Y.

The show they were on, Covenant Radio at the very least is highly sympathetic to FV and Jeff and Bill were suspended from this forum for that reason. Apparently no non FV Presby will go on there. I did see that the Baptists Schreiner and Dever will soon appear there discussing baptism.

I say why not appear when you are given a chance to air your views?

__________________
Chris
OPC member
Now attending Grace Community Baptist Church
Mandeville, LA

"Faith alone saves, but it is a faith that works." - S. Lewis Johnson

Is it just me, or did Dr. Strawbridge never answer why no one besides infants and small children are effectively included in household baptisms?

__________________
Chris
OPC member
Now attending Grace Community Baptist Church
Mandeville, LA

"Faith alone saves, but it is a faith that works." - S. Lewis Johnson

Hi:

No, it is not you. Dr. Strawbridge never adequately answered the question.

Credo-Baptists miss the idea of representation in Covenant Theology. Because of this they fall into a Dispensational-like view of the Covenants. I think this is where the two views find themselves talking past each other. Covenant. or Federal, Theology is revelation by representation. We call the US government "Federal" because the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court all represent the will of the people.

The Paedo-Baptist understands that when one mentions "Covenant Theology" that representation is presupposed. The Credo-Baptist does not. The members of Abraham's household were circumcized because Abraham was their Covenant (Representative) head. The Baptisims in the Book of Acts followed a similar pattern. The Head of the household was Baptized, and so, the rest of the household.

Now, James White makes a big deal out of the idea that most of the testimonies of these household baptisms had the servants making a form of profession of faith as well. There is a good answer to this as well.

The New Testament Church does not consist of Jews only, but Jews and Gentiles. In the beginning the Church was composed predominately of Jews - the first 3,000 converts to Christianity were mostly Jews (Acts 2). It was the practice of Paul to go into the synagogues "to the Jews first" before preaching to the Gentiles. The "Judaizers" were Jews who brought their ceremonial laws into the Church, and this was a big problem that was causing divisions. Peter would also disseminate from the "unclean" Gentiles, and Paul had to rebuke him for it. If we could transport ourselves back to the first century, then we would see that the complexion of the Church was remarkably Jewish in nature.

What more poignant way could God use to teach the Christian Jews that salvation was for the Gentiles as well? The answer is: Household Baptisms. We see in every single one of these Baptisms that the Head of the Household comes to faith first, and then the rest of the household. Whether the individual members of the household come to faith or not is immaterial. That God (may have) converted all of the members of these households is not the point of the examples. God is showing the First Century Jewish Christians that Salvation is now for the Gentiles as well. He does it by using Covenant, Representative, Theology:

This also militates against James White's citation of Matthew 10:35,36:

If we follow White's reasoning, then we should expect that no member of a household will be converted. Obviously, this is a false citation, and Jesus is not referring to Baptism nor to Covenant Theology.

Acts 2:39b is used by Dr. White as a bar to infant baptism, "...for as many as the Lord our God shall call." To this he adduces that "shall call" refers to Election, but this is contrary to the very sense and context of the passage. Peter is near the end of a semon inspired by the Spirit of God calling the Jews to repentance:

Is this not the outward call to repentance required by God? What do the Scriptures say after Acts 2:39?

How are they to save themselves but by laying hold of the "promise which are given to you, your children, and those who are afar off..." Again, the context of Covenant, Representative, Theology is primarily understood. How could the Jews not consider their children as inheritors of the promises applied here in Acts? If the Credo-Baptist Dispensational-like hermeneutic is applied here, then Peter should never have mentioned the children of believers in this context. We should have heard something like: "All who believe the promises will be saved," or something to that effect. Dr. White's attempts to "edit out" the children here does damage to Holy Scripture.

John Calvin:

Thus, all members of a household are to be baptized.

Blessings,

-CH

__________________
In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.

Robert Paul Wieland
Springs Reformed Presbyterian Church
Colorado Springs, CO RPCNA
Student at Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh PA
B.B. Warfield's definition of Theological Students: "Angels preparing to sound the Trumpets."

Hello,

Can someone please bring me to up speed, because I'm not familiar with this book. I'm knowledgable on the FV issue.

I don't understand, why would a paedobapist be debating another paedobaptist in terms of Baptism, when the issue between Reformed Orthodoxy and Federal Vision Heterodoxy is the latter's inversion of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy and not Baptism?

I don't understand, what am I missing?

__________________
Thomas Weddle
Member, Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church
Evansville, Indiana

James White is a credobaptist.
Strawbridge is a paedobaptist.

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

It's wasn't two paedobaptists debating. It was a credo debating a paedo. The problem was that the paedo being debated was of the FV variety...they have a different view of children, salvation, and the role of baptism...thus feeding into the misunderstanding that the credo has of paedo-baptism.

__________________
JC
URCNA
PA, but homesick for SC

"Who says you can't go back, been all around the world and as a matter of fact. There's only one place left I want to go, who says you can't go home" Bon Jovi

Thanks Rob for a very good presentation.

I have to say that I consider James White a personal friend but almost thought about calling up his show to express my disappointment and inconsistency in the way that he is usually thoroughgoing. He used some tactics and misrepresented Confessional Reformed theology in a way that undermines the credibility of his own arguments.

For one thing, I feel like reaching through the Internet and grabbing anyone by the throat whenever they use the old saw that Calvin was just too dumb or too cowardly or still too Roman Catholic to be Reformed like they are. "If only someone had challenged Calvin on this..." was said a few times. Why not just have the courage to say: "I don't agree with Calvin on this. I think he was wrong." Why do men feel the need to come up with psychological reasons that cannot be supported by anything except their imaginations?

I find it fascinating that Calvin is the fount of so much Systematic Theology but yet, Covenant theology which runs course throughout his systematics, is all dorked up. Can somebody give me the list of the eminent Reformed Baptist Systematic theological texts that are in wide use? Have the courage to stand apart from Calvin and say he was wrong but don't insult our intelligence by claiming the man lacked your exegetical or intellectual acumen. James is smart but he ain't that smart. I believe Dr. White will be apologizing to Calvin in glory for that remark. I also think it's beneath reasonable dialogue.

Next, I think Dr. Strawbridge made a good point that Dr. White simply would not acknowledge. It's sort of the "Rain Man" approach to Hebrews where, because Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant, the ONLY thing Christ is able to mediate to EVERYONE in the New Covenant is forgiveness of sins flowing from Union with Him in His death and resurrection. Challenged on how men can be judged even more severely for neglecting such a great salvation the only reply is a "definitely not in the New Covenant, definitely not in the New Covenant..." because, again, it is read that Christ is the perfect sacrifice of the New Covenant and, therefore, it must mean that anyone in it receives the full benefits of it. James seemed rather shocked that anyone would ever note that Christ would mediate wrath for Covenant breakers but is it not the orthodox teaching that Christ will judge all men on the Last Day? It seems like James wants to hold on to every idea that great judgement will occur for these people who drew near to the means of grace and turned their back on them JUST AS LONG as you don't say they're in or were ever in or part of the New Covenant. This is because New Covenant = Union with Christ.

I agree with Rob that the old saw about using Christ's passage about turning father against son and mother against daughter is a complete perversion of the text in how Christ intended to apply it. No Baptist even lives this way but they find it convenient to argue this way. I could press this very easily into my service and end up making lots of Baptists mad at me whenever I talk this way as if Baptists should consistently live out this line of thinking but I'll spare you all.

Finally, I want you all to note *very carefully* what I've said over and over and over again on this. This is denied over and over again every time I bring this up. Guess what? This wasn't even a debate about baptism. James, not once, created a case for who he would baptize except to fly over it. This was a debate about the Baptist conviction that the New Covenant consists solely of the Elect.

Man, would I love to press James on his "consistency" on this point since that is his favorite word to use. Talk about being blind to a tradition that you don't even realize you haven't even established an argument against the baptism of infants simply by confining the New Covenant to the elect alone. As I've noted, over and over, so much literature a