# 20th/21st March 2020 Debate on paedo-baptism coming up



## Catechised in Heidelberg (Jan 31, 2020)

Hey guys,

I was just watching the newest DividingLine (30th January) and James White announced that on 20th/21st March this year there will be a debate, mainly on paedo-baptism, between him and Doug Wilson in Moscow, Idaho.
Apparently, it will be a broader discussion, meaning also on paedo-communion. They don't know yet, weather this will be streamed but I thought this might be interesting for some of you.

Blessings


----------



## Tom Hart (Jan 31, 2020)

Doug Wilson? They could have found someone else.

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 8


----------



## Catechised in Heidelberg (Jan 31, 2020)

Both are good friends and I think this is also for guaranteeing a respectful discussion on different opinions.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 31, 2020)

Doug Wilson accurately represent faithful, confessional, covenant household baptism? It will be a good day when the church is done with pop theology.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 8


----------



## Kinghezy (Jan 31, 2020)

And... James White is also taking the position that Wilson's position is more consistent than Presbyterians. I admittedly will watch it to see what is covered, but seeing as NAPARC condemned Federal Vision, I hope no one is thinking Doug Wilson speaks for Presbyterians.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jake (Jan 31, 2020)

Disappointing as it might bring more people into the way of thinking that to embrace paedobaptism you should embrace paedocommunion. I also like listening to White but I don't know that's he's even (LBCF) confessional on covenant theology.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 31, 2020)

Seriously?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## B.L. (Jan 31, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Doug Wilson accurately represent faithful, confessional, covenant household baptism? It will be a good day when the church is done with pop theology.



Do you own a copy of "The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism" edited by Gregg Strawbridge? Take a look at the list of contributors in the index. I find the list of authors fascinating.

[Edit: just so there is no confusion I don't believe D. Wilson represents the Presbyterian position...moreover, I don't believe he thinks he does either. The book above is from 2003...I imagine if a similar book was published today several of those listed in the index wouldn't even be asked to contribute to it. Certainly not a book published by P&R I would hope.]


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 31, 2020)

BLM said:


> Do you own a copy of "The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism" edited by Gregg Strawbridge? Take a look at the list of contributors in the index. I find the list of authors fascinating.
> 
> [Edit: just so there is no confusion I don't believe D. Wilson represents the Presbyterian position...moreover, I don't believe he thinks he does either. The book above is from 2003...I imagine if a similar book was published today a third of those listed in the index wouldn't even be approached by P&R.]


I don’t have that book, want to share the list of contributors?


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 31, 2020)

I just can't get interested in anything these two do anymore.

Reactions: Like 10 | Amen 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 31, 2020)

On James White's 'Dividing Line' January 28, he made some brief comments about the "Doug Wilson derangement syndrome material from Facebook and Twitter." Perhaps some have gone overboard in their criticisms but I for one have serious concerns about Doug Wilson's theology. I came away quite disappointed in how James White handled this on his Dividing Line.

Further, James White could find someone better (and someone more faithful to the Westminster Standards) with which to debate Baptism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 31, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I don’t have that book, want to share the list of contributors?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 31, 2020)

I now have the answer. Let James White debate the Puritan Board expert @BayouHuguenot


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 31, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I now have the answer. Let James White debate the Puritan Board expert @BayouHuguenot



I actually don't engage him on twitter when I see him defending Wilsonism. I just....don't go there. Too much respect for White on issues like KJVonlism and Mormons. I don't want to find myself blocked.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 31, 2020)

This has kind of been the direction White has been going since he hitched his wagon to Durbin.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 31, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I actually don't engage him on twitter when I see him defending Wilsonism. I just....don't go there. Too much respect for White on issues like KJVonlism and Mormons. I don't want to find myself blocked.



Actually I’ve never been that impressed with him on KJV onlyism. Sure, he attacks the low hanging fruit well, but rarely engages with more serious proponents of the KJV/TR.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 31, 2020)

Bill The Baptist said:


> This has kind of been the direction White has been going since he hitched his wagon to Durbin.


I'm interested in your comment. Could you expand it please?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 31, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I actually don't engage him on twitter when I see him defending Wilsonism. I just....don't go there.


As I am sure you know my comment was 'tongue in cheek'. I am a little unsure though what he defends about 'Wilsonism'. Does he defend the idea that Wilson belongs in the Reformed camp, or is he simply defending Wilson against some of the more extreme comments on twitter?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 31, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I'm interested in your comment. Could you expand it please?



Well, Durbin is a post-millennial theonomist-lite, kind of like Wilson, so I suppose it’s natural for White to move in the direction of his co-elder.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 31, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Does he defend the idea that Wilson belongs in the Reformed camp



That would be my impression.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 31, 2020)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Well, Durbin is a post-millennial theonomist-lite, kind of like Wilson, so I suppose it’s natural for White to move in the direction of his co-elder.


Dr White has just created a Blog post on this https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2020/01/31/theonomy/


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 31, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> On James White's 'Dividing Line' January 28, he made some brief comments about the "Doug Wilson derangement syndrome material from Facebook and Twitter." Perhaps some have gone overboard in their criticisms but I for one have serious concerns about Doug Wilson's theology. I came away quite disappointed in how James White handled this on his Dividing Line.
> 
> Further, James White could find someone better (and someone more faithful to the Westminster Standards) with which to debate Baptism.



Maybe he doesn't want anyone better because some say he has gotten trounced in past debates already on the topic. I say this as a baptist.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 31, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Dr White has just created a Blog post on this https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2020/01/31/theonomy/



He didn’t seem to really answer the question. Everyone understands there are degrees and nuance, but a theonomist in the way that most would understand the term is one who believes that at least some parts of the civil law are still applicable and thus should be established and enforced.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 31, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I actually don't engage him on twitter when I see him defending Wilsonism. I just....don't go there. Too much respect for White on issues like KJVonlism and Mormons. I don't want to find myself blocked.



Any defense of the TR = "King James Onlyism" to White. 

That is when I really stopped liking him, watching him attack many brothers who assert that the Scripture have been kept pure through the ages. 

I am with Milne on this one.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 31, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Any defense of the TR = "King James Onlyism" to White.



And yet he would never dream of debating someone like Maurice Robinson. Now that would be fun to watch.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 31, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Any defense of the TR = "King James Onlyism" to White.
> 
> That is when I really stopped liking him, watching him attack many brothers who assert that the Scripture have been kept pure through the ages.
> 
> I am with Milne on this one.



My take on it is this: the KJV is a near-perfect moment of the English language. That said, language changes and new translations are needed and there are variants within the Masoretic Text which the DSS shed light on.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 31, 2020)

You lost me at Doug Wilson. I have no time for him.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 31, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> View attachment 6583
> View attachment 6584



Doug Wilson and R. C. Sproul, Jr. Now there's a pair. . .


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 31, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> My take on it is this: the KJV is a near-perfect moment of the English language. That said, language changes and new translations are needed and there are variants within the Masoretic Text which the DSS shed light on.



That sounds reasonable. 

Do you have any book recommendations or blogs to point me to for further research? 

I want to avoid James White because I don't think he has treated the TR advocates fairly, but there are also Ruckmanites and crazies out there as well. I do like Maurice Robinson and Dean Burgon.


----------



## Andrew35 (Jan 31, 2020)

I recall White saying, more than once, I believe, that he never seeks out debates on paedobaptism.

Did he suspend that practice, or did Wilson initiate this?


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 1, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Do you have any book recommendations or blogs to point me to for further research?



Any conservative book on the Dead Sea Scrolls or OT textual criticism. Start with Ellis and Brockman.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 1, 2020)

bookslover said:


> Doug Wilson and R. C. Sproul, Jr. Now there's a pair. . .



Actually makes sense. RCjr has long promoted Peter Leithart and Wilson


----------



## Catechised in Heidelberg (Feb 1, 2020)

Oh dear, what did I do creating this thread?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## timfost (Feb 1, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Further, James White could find someone better (and someone more faithful to the Westminster Standards) with which to debate Baptism.



He already debated Bill Shishko on baptism in 2006 (I think). Honestly, debating someone consistent with Westminster Standards may be redundant after the three hour debate he already had with one...

(BTW, that debate is worth watching if you haven't already!)


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 1, 2020)

DamienEdwards1689 said:


> Oh dear, what did I do creating this thread?



Gandalf: Things are now set in motion that cannot be undone.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## timfost (Feb 1, 2020)

DamienEdwards1689 said:


> Oh dear, what did I do creating this thread?



As they say, put three Reformed people in a room and you'll get four opinions. 

(Or something along those lines.)


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 1, 2020)

timfost said:


> He already debated Bill Shishko on baptism in 2006 (I think). Honestly, debating someone consistent with Westminster Standards may be redundant after the three hour debate he already had with one...
> 
> (BTW, that debate is worth watching if you haven't already!)




Regarding the White/Shisko debate:

When it comes to debates we all root for "our" guy and think that he won no matter the true outcome.

I thought White won this debate when I first listened to it. Now I realize that this could be merely because White is more practiced in debate tactics. Never argue with a professional arguer. Professional debaters often become sophistic and resort to rhetorical tricks instead of acknowledging any nuances or weaknesses or ambiguity in their positions. This seems like a good strategy, but it is not really honest.

Re-listening to Shisko and reading his articles, I now realize how full his theology is. Shisko's position better takes into account the total unity of the Scriptures.

Shisko presented his viewpoint very well, but I am sure he is not as verbally practiced in arguing with people. This is a bad trait for debates, but a good trait in real-life and as a pastor. This is why debaters ought not to be pastors sometimes, and why some pastors should not debate even though they preach well.

Re-listening to the debates, I was shocked to hear White say this:

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

And I don't remember if Shisko jumped on this terrible reply or not. A professional debater would have. I completely missed this the first time because I, too, assumed this. But re-listening now, this JUMPED right out at me.

Most all baptists believe this, but this reply is not true. And White actually stated this as fact during the debates if I have noted it correctly. An outward profession of faith gets you into the Visible Church only; true faith means you are part of the Invisible Church. 

Shisko has a good article here: https://opc.org/nh.html?article_id=545

So: short term, I thought White won (barely). But long term, Shisko's more systematic view of the subject seems to have a greater lasting appeal even if he is not as good of a professional arguer.

The debate covered the Book of Acts a lot. This gave the Baptists the advantage. Acts seems to favor a credobaptist position. But of course, something entirely new was happening there as folks came to faith all across the world. Aside from the Book of Acts, we see that everywhere else there is a Oikos or Household Principle at work. 

I am STILL totally not settled on this subject, but lean credo. BUT, believe there is ambiguity. These are simply my thoughts on this debate.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 3


----------



## timfost (Feb 1, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Regarding the White/Shisko debate:
> 
> When it comes to debates we all root for "our" guy and think that he won no matter the true outcome.
> 
> ...



Almost there, Perg, almost there.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 1, 2020)

timfost said:


> I hear you. I sincerely hope that your head and heart can agree soon.





timfost said:


> Almost there, Perg, almost there.


Sounds like it is a matter of getting the head and heart to agree

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew35 (Feb 1, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Regarding the White/Shisko debate:
> 
> When it comes to debates we all root for "our" guy and think that he won no matter the true outcome.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I thought White won the Shisko debate as an RB and still think he won it as an OPC-leaning Presbyterian.

I thought Gregg Strawbridge (is he a FV guy?), however, won the debate with White, even though I disagreed with him as an RB--and still do, as a Westminster-confessing Presbyterian. Did anyone else listen to that one and think the same?


----------



## timfost (Feb 1, 2020)

Andrew35 said:


> Yeah, I thought White won the Shisko debate as an RB and still think he won it as an OPC-leaning Presbyterian.



That's so funny, I thought Shishko won hands down. White started to talk in circles.

It's interesting how our biases play in hearing a debate!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 1, 2020)

timfost said:


> That's so funny, I thought Shishko won hands down. White started to talk in circles.
> 
> It's interesting how our biases play in hearing a debate!



A problem for me is that I have trouble separating my personal feelings for a minister from his doctrine. I sometimes judge a debate by who I like more rather than the punches landed. You can win an argument and lose a person, after all. And in Jesus the Person and the Doctrine are inseparable. 

I think Shisko was more irenic and likeable. 

This is a danger for me because I want people to like my doctrine even though I am sometimes deficient as a person. I do many works of mercy and charity and yet remain a bit rough and with many faults. As my dad says, "You can't polish a turd." But thank God that in Jesus there is hope for us all.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 1, 2020)

timfost said:


> That's so funny, I thought Shishko won hands down. White started to talk in circles.
> 
> It's interesting how our biases play in hearing a debate!


It is funny - I heard the debate some years ago. I was a convinced Reformed Baptist at the time. I thought Shishko won much of the debate. There were one or two places where White struggled to respond and Shishko said "that's begging the question". At the time however, I thought White won the argument on the nature of the new covenant. But as I have said on other posts I am not now convinced the argument for the new covenant is now advantageous for the Baptist position.


----------



## Andrew35 (Feb 1, 2020)

timfost said:


> That's so funny, I thought Shishko won hands down. White started to talk in circles.
> 
> It's interesting how our biases play in hearing a debate!


I might have to go back and listen again. But I recall the argument about the New Covenant being particularly persuasive to me. You're correct that a lot goes into this whole thing. Some arguments that just don't connect at one point in our lives might connect later.


----------



## Andrew35 (Feb 1, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> A problem for me is that I have trouble separating my personal feelings for a minister from his doctrine. I sometimes judge a debate by who I like more rather than the punches landed. You can win an argument and lose a person, after all. And in Jesus the Person and the Doctrine are inseparable.
> 
> I think Shisko was more irenic and likeable.
> 
> This is a danger for me because I want people to like my doctrine even though I am sometimes deficient as a person. I do many works of mercy and charity and yet remain a bit rough and with many faults. As my dad says, "You can't polish a turd." But thank God that in Jesus there is hope for us all.


That's all of us.

I remember a few years ago listening to William Lane Craig debate Sam Harris. I thought Craig so obnoxious, by the end I found myself nearly rooting for Harris.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 1, 2020)

I think that I would largely agree with Perg's assessment of debates, which is one of the reasons why I spend very little time debating with people either here or on Facebook. By and large, people are just engaging in #ConfirmationBias and have largely made up their minds before a ball has been kicked. These events are good at attracting a crowd, as people like to watch a fight. But if you want to get people to understand a position, it is usually better to recommend reading material or have a discussion in a less combative venue than a debate forum.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 1, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> By and large, people are just engaging in #ConfirmationBias and have largely made up their minds before a ball has been kicked.


That is why it is important to have a "cross examination" in the debate. It may not get rid of a Confirmation Bias, but a person who aims to be open minded can learn a lot from cross examination. That is, bad arguments cannot survive a robust cross examination

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## David Taylor (Feb 2, 2020)

Eh....why not just listen to the Sproul/MacArthur debate on the subject? https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/baptism_debate/


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 2, 2020)

I would prefer trial by combat with some of my opponents. 

Two men enter, one man leaves!

Reactions: Amen 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 2, 2020)

David Taylor said:


> Eh....why not just listen to the Sproul/MacArthur debate on the subject? https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/baptism_debate/


I disagree. MacArthur is a dispensationalist. A dispensational approach to Baptism hinders the debate. Dispensational views are unacceptable on the Puritan Board. It is best to use a Covenantal Baptist if you want to debate a Paedobaptist.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Feb 2, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> It is best to use a Covenantal Baptist if you want to debate a Paedobaptist.



This is precisely why I think this White/Wilson debate will be essentially useless. I don't think Dr. White holds to the "1689 Federalist" position of the covenants, in the first place. And Wilson—well, he's Wilson. This will literally be a pointless debate.

What would be helpful for me is to have someone like Jim Renihan or Rich Barcellos debate someone like, I don't know, Lane Tipton or Ryan McGraw (who would be excellent because of his Owen expertise).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 3, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> What would be helpful for me is to have someone like Jim Renihan or Rich Barcellos debate someone like, I don't know, Lane Tipton or Ryan McGraw (who would be excellent because of his Owen expertise).


Rich Barcellos has written on Baptist hermeneutics, and a book on Vos' and Owen's Biblical Theology. He would be ideal on the Baptist side. I agree a Owen scholar would be ideal on the Paedobaptist side. Perhaps someone who has also read a lot of Vos' historic-redemptive method, because I think a solid historic-redemptive hermeneutic is key to this type of debate.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 3, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> This is precisely why I think this White/Wilson debate will be essentially useless. I don't think Dr. White holds to the "1689 Federalist" position of the covenants, in the first place. And Wilson—well, he's Wilson. This will literally be a pointless debate.
> 
> What would be helpful for me is to have someone like Jim Renihan or Rich Barcellos debate someone like, I don't know, Lane Tipton or Ryan McGraw (who would be excellent because of his Owen expertise).



Public service announcement:
The "1689 Federalist" position is not the official position of the Reformed Baptists on the covenants. There has been quite a degree of variety among them. One need not be an advocate of this new position to represent the baptists on baptism.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 3, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Rich Barcellos has written on Baptist hermeneutics, and a book on Vos' and Owen's Biblical Theology. He would be ideal on the Baptist side. I agree a Owen scholar would be ideal on the Paedobaptist side. Perhaps someone who has also read a lot of Vos' historic-redemptive method, because I think a solid historic-redemptive hermeneutic is key to this type of debate.



I think Pastors Shisko and Strawbridge would represent the paedobaptist position rather well. And have already.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 3, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Public service announcement:
> The "1689 Federalist" position is not the official position of the Reformed Baptists on the covenants. There has been quite a degree of variety among them. One need not be an advocate of this new position to represent the baptists on baptism.



I fully realize this. I spent literal years agonizing over this debate. Besides, I never said there wasn’t variety. I’m just saying that the most helpful debate would be a Baptist who holds to the “1689 Federalist” position, since that is 1) the position that is most in accord with LBCF ch. 7, 2) the position that, in my opinion, is the most weighty and least-dealt-with argument against Westminster, and 3) the position that is fundamentally different to Westminster in its view of the covenant of grace. I want to see the merits of _that_ position. Having a Baptist who holds to a one covenant/two administrations position, and is thus no different than Westminster, would not help me.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jake (Feb 3, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Actually makes sense. RCjr has long promoted Peter Leithart and Wilson


Although RC jr. is now a charismatic.


----------



## David Taylor (Feb 3, 2020)

Jake said:


> Although RC jr. is now a charismatic.


Wait, really??


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 3, 2020)

Jake said:


> Although RC jr. is now a charismatic.



Really? To be fair, that is like the least of the problematic positions he has held to in his life.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Jake (Feb 3, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Really? To be fair, that is like the least of the problematic positions he has held to in his life.



"Bob, I am a member in good standing at Pine Hills Church here in Fort Wayne. It is a part of the Federation of Evangelical Churches. You can read their statement of faith online. I am grateful you asked, but it sounds like someone has been talking about me." https://twitter.com/rcsprouljr/status/1111019924510724096

On second guess, based on their website, they look like a generic Evangelical church.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 3, 2020)

Jake said:


> "Bob, I am a member in good standing at Pine Hills Church here in Fort Wayne. It is a part of the Federation of Evangelical Churches. You can read their statement of faith online. I am grateful you asked, but it sounds like someone has been talking about me." https://twitter.com/rcsprouljr/status/1111019924510724096
> 
> On second guess, based on their website, they look like a generic Evangelical church.



Oh yeah, I remember that. Still, with the numerous misdemeanors and court appearances, that's the least of his problems.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Susan777 (Feb 3, 2020)

Jake said:


> "Bob, I am a member in good standing at Pine Hills Church here in Fort Wayne. It is a part of the Federation of Evangelical Churches. You can read their statement of faith online. I am grateful you asked, but it sounds like someone has been talking about me." https://twitter.com/rcsprouljr/status/1111019924510724096
> 
> On second guess, based on their website, they look like a generic Evangelical church.


Yeah, they offer a “75 min. _authentic worship experience.”. _It looks like a rock concert venue with strobes and dimmed blue light but I guess that’s what makes it authentic.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 3, 2020)

Jake said:


> "Bob, I am a member in good standing at Pine Hills Church here in Fort Wayne. It is a part of the Federation of Evangelical Churches. You can read their statement of faith online. I am grateful you asked, but it sounds like someone has been talking about me." https://twitter.com/rcsprouljr/status/1111019924510724096
> 
> On second guess, based on their website, they look like a generic Evangelical church.


They're a very broad Mennonite church. This is just weird.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellowship_of_Evangelical_Churches

They used to be known as the Egly Amish and the Defenseless Mennonites. Not making that up.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Susan777 (Feb 3, 2020)

TylerRay said:


> They're a very broad Mennonite church. This is just weird.



Not really. Anabaptists are known to get weird.


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 3, 2020)

Susan777 said:


> Not really. Anabaptists are known to get weird.


I just mean that Sproul has found a strange church to call home.


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 3, 2020)

TylerRay said:


> They're a very broad Mennonite church. This is just weird.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellowship_of_Evangelical_Churches
> 
> They used to be known as the Egly Amish and the Defenseless Mennonites. Not making that up.


I can't help but add that 'The Defenseless Mennonites' sounds like a teenage punk band that will never see a record deal.

So does 'The Egly Amish,' now that I think of it.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Feb 3, 2020)

TylerRay said:


> I just mean that Sproul has found a strange church to call home.



Based on what I've read it looks like he's been defrocked and discipled out of almost every reformed denomination.


----------



## Susan777 (Feb 3, 2020)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Based on what I've read it looks like he's been defrocked and discipled out of almost every reformed denomination.


I have some pity for him. Hard to be the son of a great one. He has had his share of suffering with the loss of his wife. Then there’s the alcoholism. But many are guilty of more egregious sins than he. If he finds peace where he is then I’m happy for him. Just hope he stays out of the pulpit and lays off the booze.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 4, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> the position that, in my opinion, is the most weighty and least-dealt-with argument against Westminster,


To my mind the jury is still out on this. Have you seen Lane's blog responding to a 1689 Federalist. He sees some of the arguments as semi dispensational. So I struggle to see how a 1689 Federalist can give 'weighty' arguments in this regard. When I first read Pascal Denault's "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology" my first reaction was 'this is a semi dispensational' work. Part of that was a misunderstanding on my part. Part of it may have been I was aware of the Covenant structure of Witsius.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Username3000 (Feb 4, 2020)

Woah nelly!


----------



## Taylor (Feb 4, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> ...I struggle to see how a 1689 Federalist can give 'weighty' arguments...



I wasn’t saying that this argument is in and of itself weighty. I was just saying that of all the Reformed Baptist positions, that one is the _most_ weighty, in my mind.

Perhaps you even disagree with that, though. If so, what do you think? I’m just super interested in this because Denault's book had me wrestling with this for years.


----------



## MSH (Feb 4, 2020)

I highly recommend Shishko’s 23 part lecture series on Baptism located on Sermon Audio. It also covers some teaching on the Lord’s Supper. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Feb 4, 2020)

James White is my former Elder and a personal friend, but I don't think this is the debate that needs to happen.

The REAL debate needs to happen between a solid 1689 Federalism guy (James is not) and a solid Westminster CT guy (Wilson is not). Until that happens, any debate on infant sprinkling is a waste of time.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Feb 4, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Public service announcement:
> The "1689 Federalist" position is not the official position of the Reformed Baptists on the covenants. There has been quite a degree of variety among them.



True statement.



> One need not be an advocate of this new position to represent the baptists on baptism.



Mostly true statement, except that 1689 Federalism is not a "new" position, and to the best of my knowledge and observations of discussions on this board, you should really know better than to say that.


----------



## Username3000 (Feb 4, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> James White is my former Elder and a personal friend, but I don't think this is the debate that needs to happen.
> 
> The REAL debate needs to happen between a solid 1689 Federalism guy (James is not) and a solid Westminster CT guy (Wilson is not). Until that happens, any debate on infant sprinkling is a waste of time.


Why is he restricted to doing what you want him to do? Why is another’s assessment of debates that need to happen binding upon him?

Why don’t you debate a solid Westminster CT guy?


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 4, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I wasn’t saying that this argument is in and of itself weighty. I was just saying that of all the Reformed Baptist positions, that one is the _most_ weighty, in my mind.


Yes I can see that. My concern is that 1689 Federalism appears to argue for more discontinuities between the OC and the NC, more so that how Reformed Baptists would argue for say 20 years ago. In other words if a solid Reformed paedobaptist was to debate a 1689 Federalist they would struggle to find as much Reformed common ground as they would with someone who rejects 1689 Federalism (such as Sam Waldron). 

I acknowledge it is a difficult subject. I would be interested to see how 1689 Federalism works to development better communication with its Reformed paedobaptist brethren in the future.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 5, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Yes I can see that. My concern is that 1689 Federalism appears to argue for more discontinuities between the OC and the NC, more so that how Reformed Baptists would argue for say 20 years ago. In other words if a solid Reformed paedobaptist was to debate a 1689 Federalist they would struggle to find as much Reformed common ground as they would with someone who rejects 1689 Federalism (such as Sam Waldron).
> 
> I acknowledge it is a difficult subject. I would be interested to see how 1689 Federalism works to development better communication with its Reformed paedobaptist brethren in the future.



I wholeheartedly agree.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Feb 5, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Why is he restricted to doing what you want him to do? Why is another’s assessment of debates that need to happen binding upon him?
> 
> Why don’t you debate a solid Westminster CT guy?



That was a bit of an overreaction to my comment, don't you think?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 5, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> True statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Mostly true statement, except that 1689 Federalism is not a "new" position, and to the best of my knowledge and observations of discussions on this board, you should really know better than to say that.



Yes, it is a new position. The name is new, as well as the insistence that Reformed Baptists have always possessed one unitary and well-developed doctrine of the covenants.

The truth is that baptists of the past were not even very consistent on their doctrine of baptism, let alone their covenant theology. We see a lot of variation. Some early baptists even allowed sprinkling or pouring. Their beliefs evolved and became more solidified later on.

The same has happened regarding their view of the covenants.

These baptist forefathers often wrote and struggled to formulate their own version of covenant theology in reaction to the more uniform covenant theology of the reformed. While some common features emerged among a great deal of variety we cannot say that they had one well-developed view. It was far from monolithic. It would be more accurate to describe, "Various attempts by Baptists to form an answer to Reformed covenant theology" rather than, "THE Reformed Baptist position on covenant theology."

But modern Reformed Baptists want their own identity. There is an attempt to bring all Reformed Baptists into a single position whereas great variety has occurred in the past. And they've fought for the semantic high ground by dubbing this new position "1689 Federalism" (meaning they've got the CONFESSIONAL position, and all others do not). So they have re-interpreted these older baptist forefathers to be teaching one unitary doctrine, which they dubbed 1689 Federalism when, in fact, there has always been a great deal of variety. The most we can do is to give some broad principles whereby baptists have always disagreed with the reformed on this issue.

If Reformed Baptists were truly "rediscovering" the baptist doctrine of the past then they'd be more descriptive of the variety in past belief. But many Reformed Baptists writers now write with an agenda to focus on the unity of these past beliefs to show that there is one "confessional" view of the covenants for baptists. The reality is that modern Reformed Baptists have largely been slowly evolving and creating this doctrine, instead of merely rediscovering what was already written previously. Some of these writers have found common ground with older baptist writers, but several are not doing well to acknowledge the variety of the past.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Feb 5, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Yes, it is a new position.



No, it most certainly is not new.



> The name is new



That is true.



> as well as the insistence that Reformed Baptists have always possessed one unitary and well-developed doctrine of the covenants.



Literally no one insists this.

You've got some serious lenses on. At this point I think you're only seeing what you want to see due to some kind of bias. So be it. You do you.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 5, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Yes, it is a new position.





SeanPatrickCornell said:


> No, it most certainly is not new.


Pergy I have to agree with Sean here. If you read Dr Sam Renihan's thesis - now a book - (that means more *reading *for you   ) "From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)" he shows that the framers had a covenant theology similar to the 1689 Federalists, though he also acknowledges some variation, especially among the later Baptists. But I think you are right to acknowledge that later Baptists (especially Spurgeon) were not 1689 Federalists. So yes there has been variation.

It is possible that the framers of the 1689 Baptist Confession worded 7:2 and 7:3 in such a way as to allow for variation.


SeanPatrickCornell said:


> You've got some serious lenses on. At this point I think you're only seeing what you want to see due to some kind of bias.


You are a Baptist. So you see with a particular type of lens on


----------



## Username3000 (Feb 5, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> That was a bit of an overreaction to my comment, don't you think?


No, I do not.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 6, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Pergy I have to agree with Sean here. If you read Dr Sam Renihan's thesis - now a book - (that means more *reading *for you   ) "From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)" he shows that the framers had a covenant theology similar to the 1689 Federalists, though he also acknowledges some variation, especially among the later Baptists. But I think you are right to acknowledge that later Baptists (especially Spurgeon) were not 1689 Federalists. So yes there has been variation.
> 
> It is possible that the framers of the 1689 Baptist Confession worded 7:2 and 7:3 in such a way as to allow for variation.
> 
> You are a Baptist. So you see with a particular type of lens on



I would say there is a great deal of variation. Almost as much as any unity displayed (most of the unity being centered around the starting point that, "We are not Presbyterian"). 

The newer 1689 writers are downplaying these variations. 

If we count in the tendency towards Dispensationalism among the baptists, it really cannot be said that there is any ONE dominant position among the baptists for the last 300 years, even the Reformed Baptists. 

FIGHT ME! 

We had a cluster of framers (copy and pasters) who "wrote" the 1689 (adopting most of it from the WCF) who had held to some similarities in their covenantal views. It was hardly uniform, however. 

The fact that they altered the portion of the 1689 Baptist Confession on the covenants is, indeed, evidence that they rejected Reformed Covenant Theology. This does not mean, however, that they themselves had a fully-formed or even uniform alternative covenant theology to set forth against the Reformed view. They only could affirm a few outline points in the positive, but even these men varied.

Then we have later baptists like Spurgeon, and then most baptists forgot these doctrines entirely and threw them aside to adopt a more dispensational view. 

In the 20th Century there was a revival of reformed baptists who also had a good deal of variation in their covenant theology, and then, in the last 10-20 years there was a rediscovery, and a lot of rebranding, and modifications into what many now refer to as 1689 Federalism. And there is even variation among those authors now.

Perhaps these things will solidify and there will emerge ONE mainstream covenantal position. 

I know that I have been hounded to read a lot of boring books on the covenants that were only partly convincing and which accused Presbyterians of basically forming all of covenant theology around a defense of their pet doctrine of baby-sprinkling. 

I know there's been a lot of energy put into these 2ndary doctrines, but MEH.....I just can't get really interested with much of anything the Reformed Baptists are focusing on lately, whether it be impassibility or 1689 Federalism. Maybe I'm just jaded against the group and want out. I admit my biases. But I do think there are true weaknesses among them.

So, yes, I have a lens. Maybe even an ax to grind (but not a lens to grind, because I don't make eyeglasses...though I do sometimes make a spectable of myself). And I suppose now I might have to read another boring book or two to go deeper into this issue.

p.s. I did read Shadow to Substance, I believe, already. But it sure wasn't memorable nor earthshaking for me like O' Palmer Robertson's Christ of the Covenants was. Nehemiah Coxe was also very boring. I've read a whole list of books. My assumption is the basic unity of the Scripture and the People of God, so maybe I've already given up the boat to Presbyterians, even as a baptist. Those OT folks who believed participated in the Covenant of Grace. You cannot participate in something that does not yet exist.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 6, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> On James White's 'Dividing Line' January 28, he made some brief comments about the "Doug Wilson derangement syndrome material from Facebook and Twitter." Perhaps some have gone overboard in their criticisms but I for one have serious concerns about Doug Wilson's theology. I came away quite disappointed in how James White handled this on his Dividing Line.
> 
> Further, James White could find someone better (and someone more faithful to the Westminster Standards) with which to debate Baptism.



And yet on almost every show White dredges up some KJV Only guy to ridicule. It is endlessly frustrating how he can be so good and indeed brave on the CRT stuff infecting the church and then spiral into these pathologies of his.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 6, 2020)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Well, Durbin is a post-millennial theonomist-lite, kind of like Wilson, so I suppose it’s natural for White to move in the direction of his co-elder.



Honestly I don't think that is the problem. The problem is in Durbin himself and his entourage. The idea that someone who looks and dresses and behaves the way Durbin does is a theonomist in the "classical" sense seems bizarre to me. I see a lot of Driscoll in Durbin. Which is a real shame because Durbin has done excellent work interacting with sects but there's a lot that's problematic there.

And to bring this back to the OP I think that does suggest why there is this link with Wilson as Bill suggests. Wilson and his guys are very vocal (and good) on social/cultural issues and White is willing to excuse a lot because of that. I'm not saying we should be listening to the Moscow people (I don't) but what they say on these issues is right. The problem is that the orthodox denominations are not taking a stand. Instead they are being compromised.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 6, 2020)

timfost said:


> That's so funny, I thought Shishko won hands down. White started to talk in circles.
> 
> It's interesting how our biases play in hearing a debate!



Is this the one where White gets offended because the Presbyterian brings up the very legitimate pastoral dimension to baptism? Whichever debate it was White got very annoyed. Maybe because he had no response.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 6, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> The idea that someone who looks and dresses and behaves the way Durbin does is a theonomist in the "classical" sense seems bizarre to me.



He might not be a "classical theonomist," but he is a normal one. Guys like Gentry and Bahnsen were classical theonomists. Unfortunately, there really was no norm for how a theonomist should be.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Feb 6, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> No, I do not.



Ok. Rest assured, it was quite inappropriate and out of proportion.

Edit to add: Let's not clutter up with thread with this side conversation. If you think my criticism is in error, feel free to send me a message and we can talk about it as brothers in Christ.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 6, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> FIGHT ME!


Good idea. I will be David, you can be Goliath 


Pergamum said:


> The fact that they altered the portion of the 1689 Baptist Confession on the covenants is, indeed, evidence that they rejected Reformed Covenant Theology. This does not mean, however, that they themselves had a fully-formed or even uniform alternative covenant theology to set forth against the Reformed view. They only could affirm a few outline points in the positive, but even these men varied.


I get the impression you are following me to a Reformed paedobaptist position 


Pergamum said:


> In the 20th Century there was a revival of reformed baptists who also had a good deal of variation in their covenant theology, and then, in the last 10-20 years there was a rediscovery, and a lot of rebranding, and modifications into what many now refer to as 1689 Federalism. And there is even variation among those authors now.


Have you read Pink's Divine Covenants? This is one of the most sane Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology books I have read. I find him more balanced than many.


----------



## Andrew35 (Feb 6, 2020)

To be perfectly frank, I always felt (now and as an RB) that much of the activity of Reformed Baptists over the past several decades has seemed like a massive effort to identify themselves over and against Presbyterians (even more specifically, in the model of the OPC).

The formation of ARBCA, the eagerness with which 1689 Federalism was embraced, even the sustained focus on the doctrines of God (which has produced some excellent fruit, I readily admit)... all appear like the outworking of a project, part theological, but perhaps a greater part psychological, to form a distinct identity. Even the now-defunct "Confessing Baptist Podcast" felt a little like it could be re-titled the "We're not Presbyterians and here's why" podcast.

I'm not saying any of these things are bad, necessarily. Only that was the impression I couldn't escape as an RB layman.

I may take some heat for saying this; and please, I'm not trying to cast aspersions on any, some of whom I greatly love and respect. But this impression always nagged at me a bit.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 6, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Good idea. I will be David, you can be Goliath
> 
> I get the impression you are following me to a Reformed paedobaptist position
> 
> Have you read Pink's Divine Covenants? This is one of the most sane Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology books I have read. I find him more balanced than many.



Yes, I've also read that and thought the same. 

You are also failing as a credobaptist? We are like the chick-flick movie Thelma and Louise, heading off the cliff together in a car?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 6, 2020)

Andrew35 said:


> To be perfectly frank, I always felt (now and as an RB) that much of the activity of Reformed Baptists over the past several decades has seemed like a massive effort to identify themselves over and against Presbyterians (even more specifically, in the model of the OPC).
> 
> The formation of ARBCA, the eagerness with which 1689 Federalism was embraced, even the sustained focus on the doctrines of God (which has produced some excellent fruit, I readily admit)... all appear like the outworking of a project, part theological, but perhaps a greater part psychological, to form a distinct identity. Even the now-defunct "Confessing Baptist Podcast" felt a little like it could be re-titled the "We're not Presbyterians and here's why" podcast.
> 
> ...



You wrote:

"To be perfectly frank, I always felt (now and as an RB) that much of the activity of Reformed Baptists over the past several decades has seemed like a massive effort to identify themselves over and against Presbyterians (even more specifically, in the model of the OPC)."

Bingo. I have been thinking exactly the same thing, especially in regards to covenant theology. 

I just read that the OPC would allow credobaptists as church members (but not as teaching officers), but I don't think most RB churches would allow a paedobaptist into membership (I've seen some require their members to sign off on the 1689 and also a separate church covenant, which seems entirely too strict).

Part of my frustration has also been that I've been overseas working broadly for the Church (that is, the Universal Body of Christ from all denominations) and we focus on broad gospel issues that all true Christians can affirm. Then I return to the US and hear phrases such as, "that is not Reformed Baptist enough" and I see 2ndary doctrines emphasized instead of those broad Gospel themes and missions/evangelism. While I am trying to simply explain the gospel and recruit more workers, churches in the US are holding multiple conferences on very narrow and specific areas of doctrine such as impassibility. I see this as a misplaced priority.

I think many Reformed Baptist Churches are "inward focused" (on its own identity and doctrines and confessional boundaries) instead of being outward-focused (on the dying world).

Reactions: Amen 1


----------

