# (Yet Another) Baptism Debate



## Jen (Nov 21, 2008)

As the start of my church's Unity and Diversity Conference, there will be a debate between Tom Schreiner and Dr. VanDrunen on the subject of baptism tonight. I've been looking forward to this for months now, and, judging by the comments fellow students have given me, really, really glad that it's at home so that I can actually attend. Out of curiosity, is anyone planning on being there?

At this point, I'm planning on taking notes and then posting them later, but I'll have to see how it goes, since I don't know what the format will be like. We're recording it, though, and the audio will be posted online.

In the past, have you guys found such debates to be helpful? How helpful do you think such a thing can be in an area full of people who're predominantly dispensational and have never even heard of covenant theology? Given those circumstances, do you think it likely that it will stimulate conversation in the community (which is the main goal of the conference)? Personal experience suggests that people are more likely to move from dispensationalism to covenantal paedobaptism than they are covenantal credo-alone-baptism. Have you found this to be generally true, as well? Do you think debates like this serve to reinforce that? And, finally, of the recorded baptism debates available, are there many covenantal Baptists involved, or are they primarily dispensational vs. covenant paedobaptism?


----------



## eqdj (Nov 21, 2008)

Hey Jen,

I noticed from the flyer that Barry Horner will be there. From what He's said on his Iron Sharpens Iron interview he clearly confuses Covenant Theology with Replacement Theology. See his interview here; Sam Walron's reaction on ISI here; and Sam Waldron's reaction on his blog here.

In March 1999 Dr. Fred Malone debated Dr. Robert Strimple at Westminster Seminary California see here.

In 2006 Dr. James White debated Bill Shishko (OPC) see here.

In 2007 Dr. James White debated Dr. Gregg Strawbridge see here.
Dr. Strawbridge is a member of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches. 
I do not know Mr. Strawbridge's belief on NPP/FV/Auburn but I do know he is a proponent of paedocommunion.

In May of 2008 Stefan Lindblad discussed baptism with the Ordinary Means guys, see here.

You may be familiar with Dr. Malone's book Baptism of Disciples Alone and Five Views on Baptism with Dr. Tom Nettles writing for the Credobaptists; but the best book i believe is Believer's Baptism edited by Tom Schreiner and Shawn Wright

[In May of 2006 Stephen Wellum spoke at the Sovereign Grace Fellowship Pastor's Conference. The lecture was "Christian Baptism: A Biblical Theological Examination" which is based on his chapter of 'Believer's Baptism' entitled "Baptism and the Relationship between the Covenants"

In May of 2008 Dr. Schreiner spoke at Oak Hill College (Anglicans) on "The Biblical Basis for Believer's Baptism" which included a Q&A Session with the students.]

My experience with non-CT's becoming CT's is the same as yours - that is, they go straight to paedobaptism without examining the issue.

The paedo's i know who have come to CT from Arminian/Dispensationalism can't tell me why they believe what they believe. It saddens me. I wish they would have examined the issue first and have the matter settled with themselves.

I'm not saying i'm disappointed in paedopaptists - i am saying i'm disappointed in paedobaptists who have not honestly examined the issue.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 21, 2008)

Tom Schreiner was one of the men I went to for counsel during the period of time in which I struggled with the issue of paedobaptism. I found him to be thoughtful and intelligent... as well as pastoral. But his extremely nasally voice grated on me after about 30 minutes.


----------



## eqdj (Nov 21, 2008)

Oh, and i think this should be openly discussed rather than debated - as if one side will win and the other side should accept defeat and either immediately be dunked or sprinkled. 

I think the purpose of these discussions should be to expose and correct misconceptions on both sides. 

Not only should we know what we believe and why we believe it, but we should also know what the other side believes, why they accept it, and why we reject it.


----------



## Jen (Nov 22, 2008)

eqdj said:


> Hey Jen,
> 
> I noticed from the flyer that Barry Horner will be there. From what He's said on his Iron Sharpens Iron interview he clearly confuses Covenant Theology with Replacement Theology. See his interview here; Sam Walron's reaction on ISI here; and Sam Waldron's reaction on his blog here.



I share your concerns. This portion of the conference will be interesting, to say the least. Also interesting is that Dr. Schreiner's message on "Now"s and "Not Yet"s this morning was a distinctly amillennial message with the basic conclusion that *both* of the speakers following him are wrong. Unfortunately, he's not to take part in the forum discussions, but that would have made life really interesting.

Thanks for all the links; I didn't realise there'd been so many baptism debates! The links from Waldron's blog I've passed on to my dad (who was glad to have them) and kept for further reference as well.



eqdj said:


> Oh, and i think this should be openly discussed rather than debated - as if one side will win and the other side should accept defeat and either immediately be dunked or sprinkled.
> 
> I think the purpose of these discussions should be to expose and correct misconceptions on both sides.
> 
> Not only should we know what we believe and why we believe it, but we should also know what the other side believes, why they accept it, and why we reject it.



I agree; I think that that is the way to ensure that these sorts of events are genuinely helpful. I think that last night's format allowed that to happen -- I know I found it a profitable evening, as it cleared up some questions I'd had.

During the Q&A, someone asked if not baptising our infants would be considered a sin, and both men were very gracious in this answer. Dr. VanDrunen said yes it would be (naturally), and Dr. Schreiner pointed out that the opposite is true as well, but he highlighted that this is not a sin of open defiance because it is based on differing convictions about what the Bible teaches; it is a sign based on being mistaken and is not like adultery.



SolaScriptura said:


> Tom Schreiner was one of the men I went to for counsel during the period of time in which I struggled with the issue of paedobaptism. I found him to be thoughtful and intelligent... as well as pastoral. But his extremely nasally voice grated on me after about 30 minutes.



 I've never heard him speak before, but he was all of what you described.

I've posted my notes from their opening statements -- Dr. Schreiner's here and Dr. VanDrunen's here. My dad went ahead and posted the complete, raw (as in unedited) audio file here, for those who really, really can't wait to get it. The moderator's microphone kept cutting out during the Q&A, and that, I think, is really what he wants to try to edit to fix up a bit. (The moderator, BTW, was Pastor Jeff Oliver from the ARBCA church in Placerville, an IRBS/WSCAL graduate.)

I think it went very well, both men did a really good job, and the table discussion was as good as one could've hoped for. I know I walked away understanding both positions better, and I think that that's probably the best thing we can hope for from a night like this.


----------



## Jen (Nov 22, 2008)

Joshua said:


> Will there be audio available for this debate?



Yes, someone will eventually (sooner rather than later, I'm sure -- probably by the end of the week) get around to editing all of the conference and it will be posted on our church's website. The raw version of last night is available here (My dad is in charge of recording, so he posted the raw version this morning.).


----------



## Jen (Nov 22, 2008)

Joshua said:


> Was last night's the Debate?



Well, yes and no. Last night, we had the baptism debate between Dr. Schreiner and Dr. VanDrunen. This morning, we had the eschatology debate between Gary DeMar and Barry Horner (which I confess to skipping out on because I have papers to write). The audio file I linked to above is the raw audio file from last night's baptism debate.

It's all one conference, though, because my pastor somehow spontaneously invited Gary DeMar to speak, which ended up changing the focus of things a lot -- it became a conference to discuss secondary, though important, issues. But since eschatology is my pastor's pet theology (he's a preterist postmillennialist), eschatology became the focus and is why there is such an extended time given to eschatology instead of delving into a discussion of covenant theology.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 22, 2008)

Will the audio of DeMar debate be available? I hope so.


----------



## Jen (Nov 22, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Will the audio of DeMar debate be available? I hope so.



Yes, it will all be available. They're also doing video recordings of the whole thing (including, I believe, Dr. Schreiner's sermon in church tomorrow morning -- on gender roles). The final, edited audio files should be available by the end of next week, I think (heavy emphasis on the "I think" bit), while the video will be a few weeks or so.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 22, 2008)

Will it all be downloadable or for sale?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 22, 2008)

Jen said:


> In the past, have you guys found such debates to be helpful? How helpful do you think such a thing can be in an area full of people who're predominantly dispensational and have never even heard of covenant theology? Given those circumstances, do you think it likely that it will stimulate conversation in the community (which is the main goal of the conference)? Personal experience suggests that people are more likely to move from dispensationalism to covenantal paedobaptism than they are covenantal credo-alone-baptism. Have you found this to be generally true, as well? Do you think debates like this serve to reinforce that? And, finally, of the recorded baptism debates available, are there many covenantal Baptists involved, or are they primarily dispensational vs. covenant paedobaptism?



As many Christians are basically ignorant of why they hold to a particular view of the issue, I think many are ripe to be blown away when somebody starts using Scripture and making a lucid presentation. Even James White notes that Catholic Answers impresses many fundamentalists who have very little understanding of the Scriptures and this accounts for many of their inroads therein.

People tend to not take much time to understand other views on an issue so the canned presentations they get for their view remain unchallenged. If anything, I'm sure Dr. Van Drunnen demonstrated that a man can really love the Word and give solid Biblical grounds for CT. It certainly makes the Biblical "universe" a lot clearer than Dispensationalism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 22, 2008)

eqdj said:


> The paedo's i know who have come to CT from Arminian/Dispensationalism can't tell me why they believe what they believe. It saddens me. I wish they would have examined the issue first and have the matter settled with themselves.
> 
> I'm not saying i'm disappointed in paedopaptists - i am saying i'm disappointed in paedobaptists who have not honestly examined the issue.



Well, you'll certainly find many here that have examined the issue.


----------



## Ronnie (Nov 23, 2008)

Thanks for posting the debate. Dr Schreiner makes a big point about Hebrews 10:11

No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.( Heb 10:11 )​
This he believes is one of the main differences between the New Covenant and all other covenants. So my question is this, who are the New Covenant people that we do not teach to “Know the Lord”, because they already know Him? How would he fulfill this prophecy? Also why was this not true under the Old Covenant for the elect? Did they have to be taught to, “Know the Lord” even if they were of the elect under the Old Covenant?


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 23, 2008)

Ronnie said:


> Thanks for posting the debate. Dr Schreiner makes a big point about Hebrews 10:11
> No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.( Heb 10:11 )​This he believes is one of the main differences between the New Covenant and all other covenants. So my question is this, who are the New Covenant people that we do not teach to “Know the Lord”, because they already know Him? How would he fulfill this prophecy? Also why was this not true under the Old Covenant for the elect? Did they have to be taught to, “Know the Lord” even if they were of the elect under the Old Covenant?



Ronnie,

This is another way of stating the Baptist belief in regenerate church membership, that the only proper members of the New Covenant community are regenerate. Here are some passages from the introduction to _Believer's Baptism_ edited by Tom Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright that you may find helpful in explaining this position. 



> In addition, believer's baptism also demonstrates that the church is a new covenant community--all those within it know the Lord (Heb. 8:11). The church of Jesus Christ is not a mixed community of believers and unbelievers. It consists of those who have confessed Jesus Chist as Savior and Lord. Paedobaptists often say that Baptists do not escape from the charge of a mixed community since some of those who claim to be converted do not truly belong to the people of God. It is true, of course, that some of those who claim to believe are subsequently revealed to be inauthentic (e.g., 1 John 2:19). Nevertheless, a profound difference still exists between Baptists and paedobaptists, for Baptists do not allow anyone into the church without trying to discern whether the person is truly saved, whereas paedobaptists knowingly include some who do not believe into the covenant community. _Believer's Baptism, _p.3



You may be familiar with Richard Pratt's writings on Jer. 31:31-34 that can be found on the Thirdmill site as well as in _The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism._ Schreiner and Wright answer this in a footnote on page 4-5: 



> Pratt argues that Baptists fail to see that the new covenant is not fulfilled completely until the Lord returns. Currently the new covenant is inaugurated but not consummated, Hence, some in the new covenant community are not truly believers ("Infant Baptism," 156-74). This is an intriguing argument, but it misapplies the categories of inaugurated and consummated. We agree that the new covenant is inaugurated and not yet consummated. But such a truth does not mean that some of those who know the Lord, have the law written on their heart, and are forgiven of thier sins may not be truly believers. The not-yet element of the eschatology of Hebrews means that those who are now partakers of the Holy Spirit (Heb 6:4) are not yet perfected, but they will truly be perfected on the last day. The point of the not-yet in Hebrews is not to cast doubt on whether believers will be saved on the last day. Rather, the not-yet urges God's people to continue to believe until the last day with the firm assurance that God will complete what he has started (Heb 6:13-20).


----------



## eqdj (Nov 23, 2008)

SolaScriptura said:


> Tom Schreiner was one of the men I went to for counsel during the period of time in which I struggled with the issue of paedobaptism. I found him to be thoughtful and intelligent... as well as pastoral. But his extremely nasally voice grated on me after about 30 minutes.



He sounds like Jeff Goldblum


----------



## Ronnie (Nov 24, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> Ronnie,
> 
> This is another way of stating the Baptist belief in regenerate church membership, that the only proper members of the New Covenant community are regenerate. Here are some passages from the introduction to _Believer's Baptism_ edited by Tom Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright that you may find helpful in explaining this position.



Hi Chris,

OK, I understand the belief in regenerate church membership, but I'm asking do Baptists follow Heb. 8:11 which says:


*No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me*, from the least of them to the greatest.( Heb 10:11 )​
Since the passage says, "No longer will a man teach his neighbor..." do Baptists still teach each other to "know the Lord"? 

I think what Pratt is getting at is that that passage is referring to the consummated or not yet aspect of the New Covenant. It is then, and only then that "No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord'".


----------



## JoshBrisby (Nov 25, 2008)

This is indeed is one of the problems I think there is with the Reformed Baptist view. They want to take Jer. 31:31-34 literally when it says "all will know Me" and apply it to *now*. However, when we look in Jer. 32, it says that our children will be with us (the verse escapes me but I know it's in Jer. 32), and they usually spiritualize this. 

The problem is, nowhere in the NT is Jer 31, in both places it's spoken of in Hebrews, exegeted to mean "the NC is better b/c you can't fall from it." Instead, when it's exegeted in Scripture, it is said it is better b/c we have a Great High Priest, One Who doesn't die, who makes perfect forever those who belong to Him--those who draw near to Him. 

The RB view is unworkable at best as well b/c of course Baptists *do* tell each other to "know the Lord"--especially elect and regenerate people who have fallen away. But what were these people who fell away or were excommunicated (ex = out of; commune = fellowship) kicked out from? I'm not sure I see the dichotomy between church and covenant that many Baptists want to make.

I respectfully think it is incumbent upon RBs to demonstrate from Scripture where the Bible dichotomizes "church" and "covenant." Surely the local church is the covenant people of God. Surely the sacraments are covenantal signs. 

Still there are other RBs who do not really believe in a local church, but say it is all spiritual. Of course we must ask them why then we are given specific directions for order in the household of God, which is called the church in Scripture.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 25, 2008)

Josh Brisby.....



> (Joh 17:3) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.



Just because someone is a member of a Church does that make them members of Christ's body? Paul says....


> (Rom 8:9) But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.



You should take this on into the book of Galatians also. Who are the children of Abraham according to Galatians?

Paul does challenge believers to examine whether or not they are in Christ? He understood that church membership didn't necessarily mean that one was Christ's nor a child of Abraham by faith.

The New Covenant is a better covenant. Unlike the old one, which could be broken as Jeremiah 31 states.



> (Jer 31:31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
> 
> (Jer 31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
> 
> ...



Do you know the Lord Josh and have Eternal life? If so then you are a New Covenant member.



> (1Jn 5:11) And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
> 
> (1Jn 5:12) He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
> 
> (1Jn 5:13) These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.



What can you do to break this Covenant?
-----Added 11/25/2008 at 11:01:51 EST-----
SGCB | Book Search






Here is a good booklet on Covenant Children from a Credo perspective. We still are CT holding to Covenant Theology. Not New Covenant Theology.


----------

