Gene Cook Vs. Paul Manata Baptism Debate

[terry72]

I know that I am very late in listening to this debate. I am currently listening to Gene's opening argument. He is on point 2. He has just introduced as an argument, John G. Reisinger's "4 seeds of Abraham" as an argument against paedo. I find that very interesting coming from someone that just claimed to not hold to NCT.

By the way, Gene is a good friend og mine. I participated with him in his debate against Bruce Reeves here in Arkansas. I was a credo then. I have since become paedo, as many of you know.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Matthew, now that is one of the best paedo explanations as to an infants spiritual condition that I have ever heard. It doesn't make me a paedo but it is a good explanation.

Bill,

Having acknowledged that, try re-reading these posts:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=299595&postcount=33
http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=299668&postcount=35
http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=299794&postcount=41

This is precisely at the heart of a basic premise about children of believers - whether we presume apostasy or try to train them in hopeful anticipation that God has elected them.

Rich - we're a few days removed from the cause of the all the fireworks in the baptism threads. Having said that I think all of us are in a better frame of mind to consider the arguments presented by those who hold to the opposing position.

I have never had a problem understanding why paedos baptize their children. Looking at it from the paedo hermeneutic, it makes perfect sense. Matthew's statement just seemed to resonate with me. If brevity is the soul of wit, then Matthew is a witty soul! He summarized what many on the paedo side have being trying to say. That does not take away from anything you said in your posts. If anything, Matthew validated your statements.

it makes little sense to wait until they are mature to start training them like Christians.

Even the credo would agree with this. We're coming at from a completely different angel. We would consider the training up of a child as being a means of proclaiming the gospel to this child. If God saves them in childhood then the training does not stop. At the point of conversion the training materially changes from a salvific approach to a discipleship approach. From a practical perspective not much will change. God is able to use for good all the teaching that was imparted prior to conversion. It doesn't go down the proverbial toilet. We're still left with our differences, but sometimes we use common methodologies.

Well, I won't argue with you that Rev. Winzer is extremely concise. I was using the beauty and brevity of it to underline the point I was trying to make because it sums it up and allows me to refer back to it so that it might be read in a new light.

I think, also, if you read the thread again you'll notice that it is this tension of trying to train a kid on the one hand while you're telling him he's unregenerate on the other that is the main problem with the Baptist approach. It's the reason why continuity in the command to train and admonish is only coherent within a paedo schema (at least the way my small, non-Winzer, mind can conceive of it).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I was a credo then. I have since become paedo, as many of you know.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West

Well, I can tell, by your Avatar, that you are a very thoughtful fellow.

 

[Herald]

(at least the way my small, non-Winzer, mind can conceive of it).

Brother Rich, I didn't intend my comments to be a slight to you. I simply meant to say that Matthew's short post shed light on the paedo argument. I was in no way impugning what you had to say. Please forgive me if it came across that way.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

(at least the way my small, non-Winzer, mind can conceive of it).

Brother Rich, I didn't intend my comments to be a slight to you. I simply meant to say that Matthew's short post shed light on the paedo argument. I was in no way impugning what you had to say. Please forgive me if it came across that way.

Of course I know that Bill. It was meant to be self-deprecating humor! I'm in a great mood today. It will take more than someone pointing out the obvious fact that Rev. Winzer is much sharper and wiser than I to make me feel bad.

 

[Herald]

MOD's NOTE:

Rich, Bëël,

You two stop this bickering back and forth NOW, lest you face indefinite suspension.

You're pulling rank on a board owner? Whoa! Dude, you've got power!

 

[44jason]

ATTENTION TO ALL.

Paul, I apologize for all of my comments that were not in the spirit of brotherhood. I was hurt that you challenged my integrity by calling into question my honesty (see comment #'s 229 and 233). This is where everything began, only later did I summarize my conclusions to your argument with "Baptize them all and let God sort them out." This elevated the tension and was my fault. I apologize to Paul and all my brothers.

This issue is too serious in regards to theology for me to be guilty of letting personal offenses muddy the water.

I hope my apology is accepted by all, mostly Paul.
As I said to you the night of the debate, I look forward to us actually working together against those who are more wrong than either of us on issues that are life and death!

 

[Jim Johnston]

All should know that both Jason and I have reconciled in private. Both sides have asked, and granted, forgiveness.

 

[MW]

To see the gospel of forgiveness reconciling brethren is very heartening to this lowly gospel minister. Blessings!

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Gotta love it. Without Gospel Grace it only leads to war. Thanks Jason and Paul for working it out.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!

 

[Jim Johnston]

Paul-you stink. Just kidding...maybe.

Josh, as a moderator, I ask you to ban yourself for that comment!

 

[tartanarmy]

Hey Terry! You are now a Paedo, wow!
When and how did it happen brother? Curious minds want to know.

Mark

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Here is Pt. 3 of my analysis. I know. I know.... Not this again. Oy Vey! Well I am going to finish it. It just depends on how burnt out I get before I listen to the next part. I got pretty burnt out from the discussion last time.

The Gene and Paul Debate... An Analysis... pt. 3

In the second segment Paul starts off with his rebuttal with a cross-examination of Gene’s knowledge and doctrine of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8.

(Heb 8:11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

(Jer 31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Paul asked Gene if this Passage indicates that a New Covenant Member will never need to be evangelized because he is a new Covenant Member. Gene indicates that is true.

Paul then asks Gene a very hypothetical question based upon backsliding and whether or not Gene might be telling a backslider who is a New Covenant Member to Know the LORD.

Paul seems to be accusing Gene of going against his own understanding of scripture by telling a backsliding New Covenant Member to Know the LORD. This line of questioning is very hypothetical and misleading from my standpoint. I would say Paul is reaching here into things that do not apply and he is fishing for a self-contradiction and violation of Gene’s biblical understanding.

I wouldn’t have answered the questions the same way Gene did but I am not analyzing my response. Gene did give good appropriate answers and announced he could not know if anyone was regenerate other than himself.

Then we move to discussing whether a person could draw prescriptions from descriptive statements. It is fallacious to do so. It was a statement Paul quotes of Gene who made it during a debate with an atheist. Paul says it is a move from what is the case to what ought to be the case. And Gene affirms this is true for the Atheist because he has no Morale ground to base anything on. The Christian has this foundation so it is not fallacious for the Christian. It is because the Christian does not base his prescriptions on a material universe. Christians are for Biblical prescriptions.

Paul seems to have been baiting Gene for another fallacy up to this point by taking a question out of one context and trying to apply it to a different context. These contexts are the worldviews between the Christian and the Atheist. I believe Paul is groping and fails at this point also.

So now we are on to the next line of questioning. Paul then associates the phrase ‘they and their children’ to New Covenant Promises and other passages of the Old Testament. He then starts a line of questioning from this thinking. In my understanding Paul flattens out the promises to much assuming that the Children are automatically born new covenant members because of these general promises.

Paul then asks Gene, “Do these passages refer to all of the physical children, half their children, or is there another option?” Gene then says the passages refer to children who are believing children based upon the information given in the New Testament.

Paul then gets into a discussion of how we should interpret ‘all of their children’. I am not sure any of the texts he quotes use the term all. I think he is assuming it. Then Gene asks if Paul is a Calvinist. What does all men mean in this context. Paul then diverts to another question and doesn’t answer Gene. At this point Paul does something beyond understanding. He asks Gene how could his (Paul) position be stated that believers and all of their children are to come into the New Covenant and how can that be prophesied.” In my estimation Paul is asking Gene, if he were God, how would he have breathed out the scripture concerning this fallacy of Paul’s. He asks Gene what way could God have revealed it so Gene could understand and accept it. Gene says he is satisfied with how God revealed his truth already. And that it didn’t mean all of Isreal or all of the parents or all of the children. Then Paul pushes the point even further and asks how could the scripture have been said to mean all of them.


Then Paul’s line of questioning turns to the invisible /visible church as lined out in the confessions. And time is called. I don’t think Paul made his points very well and that he failed at many different levels. Gene wins this part in my estimation.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Hey! Who brought this thread back? Randy, was that you?!? Man, and things were going so smoothly around here...

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Gotta keep the pump primed... We are gonna have an EP debate and we need to be on our best behaviour. Better get some practice.

 

[tellville]

Rich had asked for a legitimate source to the claim that the early Reformers had incentive to keep the doctrine of infant baptism due to pressure to keep a state church. I am currently reading a thesis discussing Karl Barth's views on Baptism. Karl Barth makes this claim in volume 4 of his Church Dogmatics.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich had asked for a legitimate source to the claim that the early Reformers had incentive to keep the doctrine of infant baptism due to pressure to keep a state church. I am currently reading a thesis discussing Karl Barth's views on Baptism. Karl Barth makes this claim in volume 4 of his Church Dogmatics.

But that happened in human history so for Barth to claim it is true would be to engage in pagan theology.

 

[tellville]

Rich had asked for a legitimate source to the claim that the early Reformers had incentive to keep the doctrine of infant baptism due to pressure to keep a state church. I am currently reading a thesis discussing Karl Barth's views on Baptism. Karl Barth makes this claim in volume 4 of his Church Dogmatics.

But that happened in human history so for Barth to claim it is true would be to engage in pagan theology.

I'm not sure what your getting at with that statement. Are you just saying that Barth is being inconsistent in making such a claim given what he says elsewhere about pagan theology? Or are you just joking around (in the good way!)?

 

[Jim Johnston]

Rich had asked for a legitimate source to the claim that the early Reformers had incentive to keep the doctrine of infant baptism due to pressure to keep a state church. I am currently reading a thesis discussing Karl Barth's views on Baptism. Karl Barth makes this claim in volume 4 of his Church Dogmatics.

But that happened in human history so for Barth to claim it is true would be to engage in pagan theology.

I'm not sure what your getting at with that statement. Are you just saying that Barth is being inconsistent in making such a claim given what he says elsewhere about pagan theology? Or are you just joking around (in the good way!)?

even if true, how would this not be an example of the genetic fallacy? I, for one, try to avoid fallacious reasoning in my thinking.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich had asked for a legitimate source to the claim that the early Reformers had incentive to keep the doctrine of infant baptism due to pressure to keep a state church. I am currently reading a thesis discussing Karl Barth's views on Baptism. Karl Barth makes this claim in volume 4 of his Church Dogmatics.

But that happened in human history so for Barth to claim it is true would be to engage in pagan theology.

I'm not sure what your getting at with that statement. Are you just saying that Barth is being inconsistent in making such a claim given what he says elsewhere about pagan theology? Or are you just joking around (in the good way!)?

It's a lame bit of Neo-Orthodox humor. Barth denied that the Resurrection happened in real human history and thought the orthodox insistence on the event being tied to history to be a bit of pagan theology. Hence, when Barth appeals to human history to establish another thing I have to think: how can this really be true.

Either way, I really don't care what Barth thought about the Reformers. He butchered their theology.

 

[Pilgrim]

But that happened in human history so for Barth to claim it is true would be to engage in pagan theology.

I'm not sure what your getting at with that statement. Are you just saying that Barth is being inconsistent in making such a claim given what he says elsewhere about pagan theology? Or are you just joking around (in the good way!)?

even if true, how would this not be an example of the genetic fallacy? I, for one, try to avoid fallacious reasoning in my thinking.

Agreed. One can hold to something that is right for the wrong reasons, or can pervert it to ungodly ends.