# Who wants a paedobaptism debate?



## Kaalvenist (Apr 5, 2008)

The idea of a moderated debate on the subject of infant baptism got mentioned recently... and I had been thinking about the same thing. We have this wonderful Debate Forum, and it seems to be collecting dust...


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 5, 2008)

joshua said:


> I voted _yes_; however, there have been valid concerns discussed amongst we Admins and Mods as to why we should yet hold off on it. So ultimately, I defer to those folks' better judgment.



I think such a debate might be useful at some point - and thus I too voted yes - but... I think we need to hold off for multiple reasons (not least of which is that we have the EP debate starting up, and I dont' think two simultaneously is good, at least as we get the hang of doing this kind of thing here).


----------



## blhowes (Apr 5, 2008)

joshua said:


> I voted _yes_; however, there have been valid concerns discussed amongst we Admins and Mods as to why we should yet hold off on it.


Maybe if it were moderated it wouldn't be a too one-sided (I assume that's the concern). I think the paedos would do just fine. Nothing to worry about.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 5, 2008)

I say "no" for now. Since the design is for a long term resource once such debates are done, we want to chose the participants very carefully. And believe me, this is a hard thing to set up since you cannot really predict how things will go; and since it is a written debate requiring essay level submissions, it is asking for a good bit of commitment from the participants.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Apr 5, 2008)

blhowes said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> > I voted _yes_; however, there have been valid concerns discussed amongst we Admins and Mods as to why we should yet hold off on it.
> ...


----------



## reformedcop (Apr 5, 2008)

I voted "Yes" ... I would like to see one when the time is appropriate.


----------



## Ivan (Apr 5, 2008)

I voted no. I believe it to be a fruitless effort. Have at it, but I won't participate.


----------



## Herald (Apr 5, 2008)

Ivan said:


> I voted no. I believe it to be a fruitless effort. Have at it, but I won't participate.



Personally I'm not interested, but I suppose it is worthwhile for those who've not heard the argument before. Who would be the PB'er that would represent the credos? I think the paedos have plenty of candidates.


----------



## Ivan (Apr 5, 2008)

joshua said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > I voted no. I believe it to be a fruitless effort. Have at it, but I won't participate.
> ...



Ah, yes, of course. Well, in the sense that I won't read the thread I won't participate. I've read plenty of threads on the subject.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 5, 2008)

joshua said:


> 1. It wouldn't _necessarily_ be a PBer.
> 2. It ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
> 3. It will be a formal debate, so in other words:a. Excepting moderators, only 2 people will be involved.
> b. No shot gun approaches; rather, well-formed and articulated arguments pertaining to the points at hand
> ...


It's going to happen soon, right?


----------



## Herald (Apr 5, 2008)

joshua said:


> 1. It wouldn't _necessarily_ be a PBer.
> 2. It ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
> 3. It will be a formal debate, so in other words:
> a. Excepting moderators, only 2 people will be involved.
> ...



So Josh, do you see this debate happening soon? You weren't clear on that.


----------



## Ivan (Apr 5, 2008)

joshua said:


> 1. It wouldn't _necessarily_ be a PBer.



I like that is a great idea. It would be really great if we had two individuals from the "outside". I don't have anyone in mind. 

I might be interested in reading something like that.


----------



## blhowes (Apr 5, 2008)

joshua said:


> 2. It ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
> 4. It ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
> 5. It ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
> 
> P.S.-It ain't gonna happen anytime soon.


What are you trying to tell us?


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Apr 5, 2008)

joshua said:


> Oh yeah, Folks, lest I forget to mention it:
> 
> _It ain't gonna happen anytime soon_.



So, next week then! Okay. Got it!


----------



## Herald (Apr 5, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yeah, Folks, lest I forget to mention it:
> ...



Great. What time next week. I want to TIVO it.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 5, 2008)

In light of recent events, it would not be prudent.


----------



## blhowes (Apr 5, 2008)

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Presbyterian Deacon said:
> 
> 
> > joshua said:
> ...



Excellent! I can hardly wait!


----------



## Barnpreacher (Apr 5, 2008)

joshua said:


> Oh yeah, Folks, lest I forget to mention it:
> 
> _It ain't gonna happen anytime soon_.



Doesn't sound like too many want it too, anyway. I know I joined this board over three years ago and I've seen more than my share of baptism debates. Granted, they usually involved more than two people and they haven't been in the format that we're talking about, but the topic still gets ad nauseam at times. And yet I have learned much about the paedo side from the PB for which I am thankful for.

So in light of all this, what time is the debate going to start tonight?


----------



## JBaldwin (Apr 5, 2008)

I voted no, and I realize "it ain't gonna to happen anytime soon". 

I think that this topic can be more thoroughly explored with open discussion.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Apr 5, 2008)

Barnpreacher said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yeah, Folks, lest I forget to mention it:
> ...


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 5, 2008)

I voted yes but agree with Chris, Josh, etc. that it has to be done right. Probably best to bring in people from the outside or maybe those who haven't been heavily involved in those debates in the past here on the PB.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Apr 5, 2008)

I do not.

If you cannot call someone to repentance on a matter concerning a sacrament of the Church, then all you are going to have are two people disagreeing with each other.

Isn't that how the debate always goes on here?

In Jesus,

-CH


----------



## Grymir (Apr 5, 2008)

Bring it on!! I love debates! :sharpening sword smile:

Lets Roll - some of us love debates! It's very educational and good training for the real world.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 5, 2008)

joshua said:


> Daniel: Recent events that would render it imprudent?



In light of the April fools prank, we should leave it for a while, In my humble opinion.


----------



## AV1611 (Apr 5, 2008)

I would prefer a debate about the recipients of the sacrament of Holy Baptism rather than a debate about paedobaptism.


----------



## Poimen (Apr 5, 2008)

To be fair to the Baptists on the board, if this is going to be done, we should have a credobaptism debate afterwards.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 5, 2008)

I voted yes for the reasons most of you others did. In addition, while I am fully convinced of my own position, it is still a rather unexamined one for me. In other words,, it has been decades since I even read a book on the subject. Because of my current desire to reconsider the arguments on several of the shelves of my library, it would be welcome for me. 

However, given some of the tendencies of many of us to become pig-headed, obnoxious, and even insulting to each other on some of these topics, I think we need a bit more time before initiating such a discussion. 

So, I STRONGLY disagree with Joshua in that he does not clearly enough lay down the fact that it "ain't gonna happen anytime soon." Given the shocking lack of clarity in our Arkansan moderator's words, I would say in the strongest possible terms . . . er . . . ahm . . . what he said.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 5, 2008)

Poimen said:


> To be fair to the Baptists on the board, if this is going to be done, we should have a credobaptism debate afterwards.


----------



## Blue Tick (Apr 5, 2008)

To make it more organized why don't the (Moderators and Admins) ask two parties to participate in the debate. One paedo one credo?

Make it formal and structured allowing for a moderator to govern the debate.

I voted yes.


----------



## Poimen (Apr 5, 2008)

joshua said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > Poimen said:
> ...



I - HAVE - THE POWER!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 5, 2008)

joshua said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > joshua said:
> ...



That is true, but Eph. 4:1-6 means that we should make every effort not to unnecessarily antagonize differing brethren.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 5, 2008)

1. If it does happen, it won't happen until after July.
2. If it happens then the proposition is going to be something I've never seen debated before that I want debated.


----------



## blhowes (Apr 5, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> > Daniel Ritchie said:
> ...


I would think by now the April fools prank is ancient history. Its too bad the joke wasn't received by all in the spirit that it was given, but that shouldn't be a reason to delay hearing the biblical reasons (ie., debate) for each position. But hey, that's just me.


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 5, 2008)

Poimen said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> > DMcFadden said:
> ...


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 5, 2008)

Harrumph, harrumph. This is silly; folks, see the debate forum for the rules that will govern any debates there. When we can, we will have the EP debate. If that didn't burn the place down, we'll try baptism, if we can get the same caliber folks involved. Really, I think this debate about debate is done.
Debate Forum - The PuritanBoard


----------

