White vs. Shishko - Page 2

CalvinandHodges · #41 (**permalink**) 11-27-2006, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devin

This is the first formal debate that I have heard on the topic of baptism, though I've read through several online on boards like these. Having listened to debates featuring Dr. White before, I expected that his effort would be Biblically solid and logical. I, as a Baptist, was not disappointed.

Alternatively, I have to say that I found Pastor Shishko's apologetic method and emphasis on the household principle to be intriguing and worthy of further study.

Hi Devin:

Like I said earlier - the convinced will not be unconvinced. Yet, I am curious that you considered Dr. White to be "Biblically solid and logical." Could you expand on this statement concerning two points?

1) "Infants are incapable of faith" - you consider this statement to be Biblical and logical? Where in Scripture do you find such an idea?

2)"because of the rarity of that experience" - How would you say that this is Biblical and logical given the facts of over 2000 years of Covenant history plus the preponderance of evidence of household baptisms in the New Testament? Clearly, the experience of household baptisms is not a "rarity."

In Jesus,

-CH

Devin · #42 (**permalink**) 11-27-2006, 06:37 PM

1) To get to my answer, I'd have to ask you the same question in reverse: Does the Bible give us warrant to believe that infants can have faith? If it doesn't, then I don't think it's safe to go beyond the Word and presume they can.

2) Just to clarify: which 2000 years are you refering to?

Edit: Also, while I am convinced of the credobaptist position thus far, I'd like to make sure everyone knows that it's not an issue I have devoted an incredible amount of time on. So while I came to the debate as a credobaptist, I was very interested in hearing the other side. Thus, please don't expect me to be able to argue every point Dr. White made. This area of my theology is still in development as far as apologizing for it goes.

elnwood · #43 (**permalink**) 11-27-2006, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Bushey

Still listening. Here's a funny quote by White:

Quote:

"How do we know who the elect are today? By their profession of faith"

P.O.F. does not guarantee election. P.O.F. guarantees membership into the visible body solely.

And he also says that elders are to baptize the elect "to the best of their ability" (18:40, Pt. 1). White makes it very clear that a profession of faith does not guarantee election (19:05).

Everybody knows White doesn't teach that a profession guarantees election. So why misrepresent him like that? It may be acceptable in politics to take a quotation and present it such that it appears that a person is saying something that he does not really mean, but I do not think that this is acceptable for a Christian to do.

VanVos · #44 (**permalink**) 11-27-2006, 11:34 PM

Good debate. Of course I believe James White proved the credo-baptist position. Although, I think a more comprehensive overview of the unity of the Covenant of Grace in redemptive history was needed. But other than that the credobaptist position was clearly articulated and defended.

VanVos

polemic_turtle · #45 (**permalink**) 11-27-2006, 11:50 PM

I listened to it today and wasn't completely satisfied with either approach. Debates are simply not long enough to answer every question you wish would be answered. I'm happy to see men acting in a manly fashion and not letting their differences make them emotional. There were times I thought that they both seemed to stumble, like Pastor Shishko at the question of the lack of a sign upon infants from Adam to Abraham and Dr. White when he didn't like what I would call the "prejudicial" nature of the phrase "radical departure" in reference to the abrogation of the household principle. Interesting questions were raised on both sides, though not enough was said. I wish Dr. White would also do 23 lectures on baptism, because it's so unfair to give Pastor Shishko so much time to develop his position without giving Dr. White the chance to do the same. Who can know that I won't be swayed by the mere extra time he has to take a different position??? Ah, well, Lord help us to be civil and manly in our disagreements, if we must have them. I want to love my Presby brothers, even if I can never convince myself to join with them on this.

Dan.... · #46 (**permalink**) 11-28-2006, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JM

Dr. White did bring up the scripture about Grace dividing the household, father against son, etc. I didn’t hear really hear a response by Pastor Shishko.

If I remember correctly, Dr. White brought that passage as a response to Pastor Shishko's challenge for the baptist to prove discontinuity in the household principle.

The burden of proof is on the baptist to prove that there is discontinuity in the inclusion of children (or households) in the administration of the covenant.

Dr. White attempts to use this passage in response as a reason to believe that there is a discontinuity in the New Covenant.

Personally, I think that to use Dr. White's argument from this passage, one must first prove that variance of son against father and daughter against mother is foreign to the Old Testament scriptures.

To find variance in households in the OT, you don't have to look very far. Look at Adam's household, or David's household, or Samuel's household, or Isaac's household.

Where's the discontinuity?

JM · #47 (**permalink**) 11-28-2006, 06:05 AM

Good point Dan.

Scott Bushey · #48 (**permalink**) 11-28-2006, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elnwood

And he also says that elders are to baptize the elect "to the best of their ability" (18:40, Pt. 1). White makes it very clear that a profession of faith does not guarantee election (19:05).

Everybody knows White doesn't teach that a profession guarantees election. So why misrepresent him like that? It may be acceptable in politics to take a quotation and present it such that it appears that a person is saying something that he does not really mean, but I do not think that this is acceptable for a Christian to do.

First of all, I did reiterate the statement w/ more accuracy earlier in the thread after I made it. Did you read the thread in it's entirety before making your judgement?

Here's what I said:

Quote:

Accurately, he says: "How do we know who the elect are today? By their profession of faith. We have no greater means".

I agree w/ White here. We have no greater means.

JM · #49 (**permalink**) 11-28-2006, 06:19 AM

Just wondering, White brought up a rhetorical question about Southern Presbyterians, why didn't they baptize slaves during slavery? [or did they?]

Isn’t the emphasis on the physical seed receiving the promise a tenet of Dispensationalism?

Semper Fidelis · #50 (**permalink**) 11-28-2006, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan....

If I remember correctly, Dr. White brought that passage as a response to Pastor Shishko's challenge for the baptist to prove discontinuity in the household principle.

The burden of proof is on the baptist to prove that there is discontinuity in the inclusion of children (or households) in the administration of the covenant.

Dr. White attempts to use this passage in response as a reason to believe that there is a discontinuity in the New Covenant.

Personally, I think that to use Dr. White's argument from this passage, one must first prove that variance of son against father and daughter against mother is foreign to the Old Testament scriptures.

To find variance in households in the OT, you don't have to look very far. Look at Adam's household, or David's household, or Samuel's household, or Isaac's household.

Where's the discontinuity?

Not to mention that it tortures the meaning of the text. Every time I see a Reformed Baptist distort this passage to support the idea of discontinuity I wince. It's as if God has one hand behind His back through the whole of Proverbs and every other Scripture that speaks of the joy of spiritual blessing at having your children follow you in the faith and seeing your children's children calling upon the name of the Lord. Jesus supposedly comes along with a huge wrecking ball. Where the Old Covenant saints rejoiced in seeing their children grow in faith from the knee, Christ proclaims good(?) news to them: "...in this new, better Covenant I've coming to divide households."

Yippee!!

VanVos · #51 (**permalink**) 11-28-2006, 02:42 PM

I often hear this critique of the credo-baptist position; that we assert too much discontinuity. But again I think the New Testament gives us warrant to do so. How about the messianic psalms, or the prophesies of the church age. We could say Jesus came along and proclaims that typological dimension of the Old covenant are abrogated. i.e. Passages like Jeremiah 31 and Amos 9 are directly applied to the church Heb 8, Acts 15. IOW the New Covenant was prophesied through lenses of the Old covenant era, making the New Covenant legible for the original audience. I think we have the same situation with the children’s children promises. The Old Covenant was hereditary in the sense that it was inclusive of all who were covenantal/ethnic Israel. So when we read prophesies of the New Covenant in the Old Covenant it speaks of all of Israel being saved Deut 30:4-6 Ezek 36 etc. In the New Covenant era we see how that is fulfilled in the salvation of the elect Heb 8 John 3:37, 44 Rom 11:25 etc. Again it's type and antitype.

Btw most credos believe that the principle of child rearing in the admonition of Lord is carried over into the New Testament, we just don’t believe it is covenantal in nature as was in the Old Testament because it has served its purpose in preserving covenant line for the Messiah. But I’m sure you've heard these types of responses before, so I’ll resist from going over old ground with more credo talk. Plus some of the best theologians are paedo-baptist.

VanVos

Semper Fidelis · #52 (**permalink**) 11-28-2006, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanVos

IBtw most credos believe that the principle of child rearing in the admonition of Lord is carried over into the New Testament, we just don’t believe it is covenantal in nature as was in the Old Testament because it has served its purpose in preserving covenant line for the Messiah. But I’m sure you've heard these types of responses before, so I’ll resist from going over old ground with more credo talk. Plus some of the best theologians are paedo-baptist.

VanVos

I don't doubt that but to twist the passage of Scripture where Christ is talking about "...sons against fathers..." to mean that it's talking about Covenant discontinuity is pure eisegesis. It would also fly in the face of any sense of the admonitions about child rearing. I could just as easily twist the passage in a similar fashion when you quote a "child-rearing" passage and say: "Well, that's true of the Old Covenant but in the New Covenant we expect sons to reject their parents given Jesus clear principle here...."

Your position does not stand or fall on the use of the use of this verse and I'm only suggesting that when it is used it does great damage to the credibility of the argument.

Scott Bushey · #53 (**permalink**) 11-28-2006, 09:19 PM

All in all, the debate went as expected. The understanding by both camps in regards to the extremity of what covenant actually means, when the NC began, What the book of Hebrews speaks about and means, are worlds apart from the accuracy of biblical hermeneutics. White was 'consistently' dispensational and rarely utilized any OT references as support for his arguments, whereas Shisko utilized the whole bible. Shisko's approach was feasible, but I believe he would have had a better chance of getting his point across if he approached it from Genesis. They both seemed to be all over the place at times.

Dr. Shisko makes an attempt at driving home the idea that after 2000 years, something as 'radical' as abrogation of the oikos formula would have been clearly drawn out by the HS; and it isn't. The Jew of the day would have been railing against the concept. John and Peter would have had to deal with this, openly. But instead, the hearers of the gospel in Acts are obviously zombified into just disregarding a principle that made Jews, Jewish. No mentioning. No complaint. No questioning. This is ludicrous.

My opinion, debates like this are somewhat profitable. However, as I mentioned, unless one understands the extent of the nature of covenant, you will miss the tree's for the forest. It is fundamentally, without a doubt, impossible to understand God without understanding covenant, and that was never addressed.

Semper Fidelis · #54 (**permalink**) 11-28-2006, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Bushey

All in all, the debate went as expected. The understanding by both camps in regards to the extremity of what covenant actually means, when the NC began, What the book of Hebrews speaks about and means, are worlds apart from the accuracy of biblical hermeneutics. White was 'consistently' dispensational and rarely utilized any OT references as support for his arguments, whereas Shisko utilized the whole bible. Shisko's approach was feasible, but I believe he would have had a better chance of getting his point across if he approached it from Genesis. They both seemed to be all over the place at times.

Dr. Shisko makes an attempt at driving home the idea that after 2000 years, something as 'radical' as abrogation of the oikos formula would have been clearly drawn out by the HS; and it isn't. The Jew of the day would have been railing against the concept. John and Peter would have had to deal with this, openly. But instead, the hearers of the gospel in Acts are obviously zombified into just disregarding a principle that made Jews, Jewish. No mentioning. No complaint. No questioning. This is ludicrous.

My opinion, debates like this are somewhat profitable. However, as I mentioned, unless one understands the extent of the nature of covenant, you will miss the tree's for the forest. It is fundamentally, without a doubt, impossible to understand God without understanding covenant, and that was never addressed.

I've listened to the first half and about 20 minutes of the second. At least in the downloads I got it skipped over a good deal of the second presentation by Shishko unfortunately.

I think Pastor Shishko pointed out that radical departure pretty well to the point that Dr. White has to try to pretend that the land promise is a radical change while Shishko shows its expansion. It's a powerful point - the New Covenant expands everywhere and, without much comment, radically changes in the administration of the COG cutting children completely out.

Honestly the Reformed Baptist weakness in response to that is pretty glaring to me (obviously not so glaring to a Presbyterian). At best, Dr. White could only muster historical narratives as "examples" of the Apostolic practice of believers only baptism. No didactic instruction to radically modify a huge body of didactic teaching on the inclusion of children in God's covenant dealings with men.

Ironically, as well, he keeps referring to a "consistent Reformed hermaneutic...." Folks, Reformed theology is Covenant theology (and by that I mean as historic Reformed theology has understood the term). He employed a consistent "pre-destinarian Baptist" hermeneutic to the Scriptures and not a consistent Reformed hermeneutic. I'll even accept him calling it a consistent "Reformed Baptist" hermaneutic in order to be magnanimous!

I'm sure I'll have more observations when I finish listening to it.

CalvinandHodges · #55 (**permalink**) 11-29-2006, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devin

1) To get to my answer, I'd have to ask you the same question in reverse: Does the Bible give us warrant to believe that infants can have faith? If it doesn't, then I don't think it's safe to go beyond the Word and presume they can.

2) Just to clarify: which 2000 years are you refering to?

Edit: Also, while I am convinced of the credobaptist position thus far, I'd like to make sure everyone knows that it's not an issue I have devoted an incredible amount of time on. So while I came to the debate as a credobaptist, I was very interested in hearing the other side. Thus, please don't expect me to be able to argue every point Dr. White made. This area of my theology is still in development as far as apologizing for it goes.

Hi Devin:

Yes, I believe that the Bible gives us every reason to believe that children of believers are outward members of the Covenant of Grace. The immediate knee-jerk reaction of the Baptists is that "how can we know they are saved?" We cannot know this as an absolute fact. Only God knows who are His Elect. The Bible gives us reason to believe that even non-Elect children of Believers are members of the Covenant of Grace.

The First example is that of Abraham. He was given the sign of the Covenant of Grace in circumcision. This sign, he was told, was to be given to every male infant born to him. Both Ishmael and Isaac received the sign of circumcision - yet we know that "in Isaac shall your seed be called" - and Ishmael was not the child of promise. From Isaac both Jacob and Esau were born - both of whom received the sign of circumcision. We also know, "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated." Consequently, Esau entered into the outward sign of the Covenant of Grace, but, according to all Scripture that I know, was never saved.

The sign of the Covenant of Grace (circumcision) was never denied Esau even though God rejected him from the foundation of the world. Esau did not receive the sign of the Covenant because he made a profession of faith, but because he was under the Federal headship of his father Isaac.

The pattern of paedo/circumcision/baptism is established. Abraham believed God, Gen. 15, then later on was given the sign of circumcision, Gen. 17. This sign was not given to Abraham only, but to every male infant in his household. The requirement for faith in the infants was not necessary because the promises of the Covenant of Grace were given to Abraham and his household - including his male servants, Gen. 17:9-14.

This has been the norm among the people of God for over 2000 years. And it is the way the Jews understood their relationship with God. Pastor Shishko rightly required Dr. White to show that such a concept was abrogated in the New Testament.

If the Baptist position is correct, then we should no more hear of household baptism in the New Testament. Yet, in every instance of household baptism, like Abraham, it was the head of the household that believed first, and then the rest of the household. In some of these households we are told that all of the members believed. But we are not told if this is a true faith, like Issac, or a temporary faith, like Simon the Sorceror. We are also not told if there are any infants or young children in the household.

What we have in the New Testament is the promise that if the head of the household is a believer, then we can reasonably expect the rest of the household to believe as well. When Peter related the conversion of Cornelius and his household to the Jewish believers they realized that the principle was being extended to the Gentiles as well, Acts 11:18.

The Bible gives us every reason to believe that the children of believers are considered members of the Covenant of Grace, Luke 18:15,16; Acts 2:38; John 3:8; Acts 4:12; 1 Cor. 7:14; Luke 1:41; 2 Samuel 12:22,23.

If Jesus tells us that children of believers are members of the Kingdom of Heaven, Luke 18:15,16, then how can we deny them Baptism here on Earth?

Grace and Peace,

-CH

Scott Bushey · #56 (**permalink**) 11-29-2006, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

This has been the norm among the people of God for over 2000 years. And it is the way the Jews understood their relationship with God. Pastor Shishko rightly required Dr. White to show that such a concept was abrogated in the New Testament.

If the Baptist position is correct, then we should no more hear of household baptism in the New Testament. Yet, in every instance of household baptism, like Abraham, it was the head of the household that believed first,

Pastor Shisko had a golden opportunity to explain federal headship on more than one occasion and bypassed it. Covenant and federal headship go hand and hand. This is why I say that sometimes these debates can be fruitful, however, in this case, arguing from the middle out, it probably caused more confusion. You have to have the fundamental idea of what a covenant is to understand why abrogation of the federal head principle would be mindless.

Another item that would have been helpful would be the distinction between the visible and invisible church. White as well believes that the NC began @ the cross instead of being fulfilled at Calvary. White said that 'wretched people were included in the OC.' The OC he refers to is the covenant of works; this is another distinction that needed to be made; this is why I said the book of Hebrews meant something different to both parties; they never resolved this contention or brought to light that they were not both talking of apples. One was talking about apples and the other oranges. The NC has always had 'wretched sinners in her visible side! How can this be denied? If it can be denied, how is it supported in light of people apostisizing every day? Well, White may say, the NC is better, ALL will know the Lord; how is this statement any different for the saint in Genesis?

Here's another thing: Shisko had the opportunity to take White to all the OT passages that were referenced in the book of Acts. Example: Acts 2; Peter quotes Joel. Shisko never even mentions Joel and what Peter was saying here. This was monumental!

Contra_Mundum · #57 (**permalink**) 11-29-2006, 10:14 AM

You know, debaters have to use strategy. Perhaps Shishko wanted to use other arguments than the "old standbys" that he knew White had probably got some quick-fire ammo, some pre-placed ordinance, set up to fire off. I'll bet JW did the same thing.

Also remember, this is all a contest, and you also have to play the game once you get there. You can't play the "gameplan" regardless of what happens.

notgollum · #58 (**permalink**) 11-29-2006, 06:53 PM

I have to agree with Bruce.
Pastor Shishko simply did not have the time to do what Scott has suggested although there were times he did bring up the covenant.
There were many RB's attending and I am certain PS tried his best to communicate his understanding of baptism with them primarily in mind.

Also having attended the debate White seemed at times flustered by Shishko's cross examination especially when the question of what age would you baptize. White's answer was "that is a pastoral matter".
To me it looked like James was in the "principal's office".

JM · #59 (**permalink**) 11-29-2006, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

You know, debaters have to use strategy. Perhaps Shishko wanted to use other arguments than the "old standbys" that he knew White had probably got some quick-fire ammo, some pre-placed ordinance, set up to fire off. I'll bet JW did the same thing.

Also remember, this is all a contest, and you also have to play the game once you get there. You can't play the "gameplan" regardless of what happens.

Good point, lets not forget White and Shishko are friends and have probably done enough discussion on this topic in private to know what each other is going to say.

jm

Scott Bushey · #60 (**permalink**) 11-30-2006, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JM

Good point, lets not forget White and