# James White vs Bill Shishko on Baptism



## Osage Bluestem

This was posted on CARM. It is very interesting. Both made good points. I am still on the fence. I have a Sproul vs Macarthur debate to watch when I get time as well.

[video=youtube;a7-JcAIWJuQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7-JcAIWJuQ&feature=player_embedded[/video]

[video=youtube;k4yuYSqwpdo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4yuYSqwpdo&feature=player_embedded[/video]


----------



## MLCOPE2

Do you have a link to the Sproul v. Macarthur debate? I have wanted to listen to that for awhile but haven't been able to find it without purchasing it.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

MLCOPE2 said:


> Do you have a link to the Sproul v. Macarthur debate? I have wanted to listen to that for awhile but haven't been able to find it without purchasing it.


 
A friend of mine sent it to me via email. If you want it pm me and I'll forward it along.


----------



## KSon

Also profitable is the Schreiner-VanDrunen debate, found here (among other places):

Credo-Paedo Baptism Debate: Dr. Thomas Schreiner and Dr. David VanDrunen 

---------- Post added at 11:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 AM ----------




MLCOPE2 said:


> Do you have a link to the Sproul v. Macarthur debate? I have wanted to listen to that for awhile but haven't been able to find it without purchasing it.


 
I have listened to it. Not RC's finest hour by any means, and I say that as one who has a great respect for him.


----------



## DMcFadden

I greatly enjoyed the one with White and found myself drawn to the paedo position as a result of listening to Shisko. And, I say that as a Baptist.


----------



## Herald

DMcFadden said:


> I greatly enjoyed the one with White and found myself drawn to the paedo position as a result of listening to Shisko. And, I say that as a Baptist.


 
I concur, I enjoyed the White-Shishko debate. Unlike you, I found myself swayed by White's argument. Still, it was a good exchange. Objectivity is lost in these debates. I tried to listen while squelching my presupposition. Didn't work.


----------



## jason d

Here is one of the best debates (not formal) that I've heard on this issue: A Discussion on the Eschatology of Baptism

Another really good one is: Paedo-Credo Baptism Debate: Dr. Robert Strimple and Dr. Fred Malone: Paedo-Credo Baptism Debate: Dr. Robert Strimple and Dr. Fred Malone


----------



## KSon

Herald said:


> I tried to listen while squelching my presupposition. Didn't work.


 
Very well put, having experienced the same thing.


----------



## eqdj

MacArthur is a Dispensationalist
Tom Schreiner is either NCT or Dispensational (What's the difference between and a NCT and Calvinist Dispensational?)

The only covenantal debates I'm aware of are Malone-Strimple at WCS, White-Shishko, and a very interesting debate between James White and Federal Vision-ish Gregg Strawbridge.


----------



## DMcFadden

Malone-Strimple was characterized by an abundance of fraternal good will and comity. Much briefer than White-Shishko, it was quite well done at WSC. Bill I said that it "drew" me towards the paedo position. I'm still a Baptist, however. So far.


----------



## Herald

Dennis, I understood what you were saying. I concur that the White-Shisko debate was a good one. I simply added that I wasn't swayed by Shishko's argumentation. Part of that is based on my existing presupposition, and part of it is my assessment of how Shishko performed during the debate. 

Debates don't settle issues. I've found that all they do is define those issues better. A debater can be on the right side of the issue but lose the debate because of their personal performance. That happens all the time. The value I find in debates is how each side frames their argument. If I can figure out their belief system I can pretty much understand their position. It's then up to me to accept or reject their premise and conclusion.


----------



## T.A.G.

I am interested in hearing the JMAC and Sproul debate, I like most of you enjoyed the White debate as well. His closing argument was great in my opinion.


----------



## Marrow Man

The thing I remember most about the White/Shisko debate was a question from the audience: in response to White's insistence that an infant should not be baptized because an infant cannot have faith, someone asked about Psalm 22:9-10 -- "Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb; You made me trust when upon my mother's breasts. Upon You I was cast from birth; You have been my God from my mother's womb." White seemed upset by the question.


----------



## CharlieJ

eqdj said:


> MacArthur is a Dispensationalist
> Tom Schreiner is either NCT or Dispensational (What's the difference between and a NCT and Calvinist Dispensational?)



Schreiner is most certainly not Dispensational. His NT Theology is based heavily on inaugurated eschatology, which no Dispensationalist would embrace to the extent that he does. He was a-millennial for most of his career but made a shift to pre-millennialism about a year ago when he was preaching through Revelation. Still, he's far from Dispensational.


----------



## eqdj

CharlieJ said:


> eqdj said:
> 
> 
> 
> MacArthur is a Dispensationalist
> Tom Schreiner is either NCT or Dispensational (What's the difference between and a NCT and Calvinist Dispensational?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schreiner is most certainly not Dispensational. His NT Theology is based heavily on inaugurated eschatology, which no Dispensationalist would embrace to the extent that he does. He was a-millennial for most of his career but made a shift to pre-millennialism about a year ago when he was preaching through Revelation. Still, he's far from Dispensational.
Click to expand...

 
Dr. Schreiner wrote the ESVSB Notes for Romans. This is his note on Romans 14:5 ESV Online Study Bible | Crossway


> What is remarkable is that the Sabbath is no longer a binding commitment for Paul but a matter of one's personal conviction. Unlike the other nine commandments in Ex. 20:1–17, the Sabbath commandment seems to have been part of the “ceremonial laws” of the Mosaic covenant, like the dietary laws and the laws about sacrifices, all of which are no longer binding on new covenant believers (see also Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:16–17).


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Marrow Man said:


> The thing I remember most about the White/Shisko debate was a question from the audience: in response to White's insistence that an infant should not be baptized because an infant cannot have faith, someone asked about Psalm 22:9-10 -- "Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb; You made me trust when upon my mother's breasts. Upon You I was cast from birth; You have been my God from my mother's womb." White seemed upset by the question.


 
If a person has come to saving faith from the womb, wouldn't it be more appropriate to wait until they are old enough to tell us they have come to saving faith to baptize them as opposed to baptizing them without their profession? If they died baptized or not the end result would be that they were with the Lord forever. The only difference seems to me that we gave them the oppourtunity to respond to the Lord in obedience by following his example in baptism where if we baptize them as an infant we take this choice away from them forever. It seems to me that baptism may be nothing more than a public display of a christians faith by signifying that they died with Christ and are risen with him to walk in a newness of life in union with him. If they are baptized as an infant they can never do this. Perhaps what baptism really is and why it is significant is that it is a witness to others of our faith?


----------



## Marrow Man

One could likewise say that it would have therefore been more appropriate to make David wait until he was a professing adult before he received the covenant sign of circumcision. This is the problem with these matters; in all our well-intentioned musings on these matters, we think we know better than God.

The quotation from Psalm 22 in no way meant to be a proof text for infant baptism, but is an indication of how different the Lord's way in these matters is different than man's. If Jeremiah was set apart before he was born, or John had the Holy Spirit from birth, or David was made to trust from the knee of his nursing mother, then we need to at least consider that the Lord deals with infants (at least some infants) differently than our modern manmade views that too often insist on man's actions rather than God's grace in these matters.


----------



## CharlieJ

eqdj said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eqdj said:
> 
> 
> 
> MacArthur is a Dispensationalist
> Tom Schreiner is either NCT or Dispensational (What's the difference between and a NCT and Calvinist Dispensational?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schreiner is most certainly not Dispensational. His NT Theology is based heavily on inaugurated eschatology, which no Dispensationalist would embrace to the extent that he does. He was a-millennial for most of his career but made a shift to pre-millennialism about a year ago when he was preaching through Revelation. Still, he's far from Dispensational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dr. Schreiner wrote the ESVSB Notes for Romans. This is his note on Romans 14:5 ESV Online Study Bible | Crossway
> 
> 
> 
> What is remarkable is that the Sabbath is no longer a binding commitment for Paul but a matter of one's personal conviction. Unlike the other nine commandments in Ex. 20:1–17, the Sabbath commandment seems to have been part of the “ceremonial laws” of the Mosaic covenant, like the dietary laws and the laws about sacrifices, all of which are no longer binding on new covenant believers (see also Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:16–17).
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
This is irrelevant. Christian groups, such as Lutherans, have held views like this long before Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is a specific theological system that should not be equated with "everything that differs from how I view the relationship between the old and new testaments."


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Marrow Man said:


> One could likewise say that it would have therefore been more appropriate to make David wait until he was a professing adult before he received the covenant sign of circumcision. This is the problem with these matters; in all our well-intentioned musings on these matters, we think we know better than God.
> 
> The quotation from Psalm 22 in no way meant to be a proof text for infant baptism, but is an indication of how different the Lord's way in these matters is different than man's. If Jeremiah was set apart before he was born, or John had the Holy Spirit from birth, or David was made to trust from the knee of his nursing mother, then we need to at least consider that the Lord deals with infants (at least some infants) differently than our modern manmade views that too often insist on man's actions rather than God's grace in these matters.


 
We know that Jesus was circumcised. Why did he give us an example of baptism as an adult? Then God said he was pleased.


----------



## Herald

Marrow Man said:


> One could likewise say that it would have therefore been more appropriate to make David wait until he was a professing adult before he received the covenant sign of circumcision. This is the problem with these matters; in all our well-intentioned musings on these matters, we think we know better than God.
> 
> The quotation from Psalm 22 in no way meant to be a proof text for infant baptism, but is an indication of how different the Lord's way in these matters is different than man's. If Jeremiah was set apart before he was born, or John had the Holy Spirit from birth, or David was made to trust from the knee of his nursing mother, then we need to at least consider that the Lord deals with infants (at least some infants) differently than our modern manmade views that too often insist on man's actions rather than God's grace in these matters.


 
Tim, you make a reasonable request. We certainly should take pre-natal references about David, Jeremiah, and John the Baptist into consideration. It would be theologically and intellectually dishonest not to. Are we able to draw any definitive conclusions from these texts re: pre-natal or infant salvation? In the absence of clear didactic teaching, I think not. The paedobaptist may draw an inference in support of their view, whereas the credobaptist can do the same. That God does something does not necessarily make it normative.


----------



## Marrow Man

The clear reference is that we have at least 3 examples of Scripture (make that 4 if we include Jacob) where the grace of God is upon infants, that is all. Likewise, we have clear teaching that the covenant sign under the old administration was to be applied to infant males ("pre-profession"). Of this there can be no dispute. It just strikes me at how humbling this is when we consider the covenant of grace, and how often it runs counter to conventional human thinking.

I agree that we cannot take everything in an historical narrative (e.g., the book of Acts) as "normative." I don't know of anyone who thinks the Holy Spirit's transportation of Philip, for instance, is a normative mode of transportation for someone who is functioning as an evangelist. There are adult baptisms that take place in a missionary context in Acts, but there are likewise household baptisms as well. And credos and paedos draw different inferences from each of those examples, and often from within a particular theological rubric (or with certain presuppositions brought to the text, as you stated above, Bill). Perhaps that needs to be our starting point in these discussions. For instance, it has come to my attention recently that in this discussion, it is not so much the sacraments/ordinances that are the issue as it is the nature of the church. Baptists and Presbyterians view the nature of the church differently (and define it different), and the view of the sacraments/ordinances is a fruit of that difference. 

David, with regard to Jesus' baptism, remember that John was administering a baptism "of repentance." Obviously Jesus did not need to "repent" since He was without sin. So there is obviously more going on that a simple public profession, even in this "adult baptism."


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Interesting and insightful. This is such a difficult issue to get a grasp of. 

Could you elaborate of the differences of how Baptists and Presbyterians view the Church? I thought they looked at it the same way, that only the elect are the church.


----------



## Marrow Man

David, take a look at the statements on the church in documents such as the London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession. There are distinctions drawn when it comes to "the visible church." There are other differences as well.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Marrow Man said:


> David, take a look at the statements on the church in documents such as the London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession. There are distinctions drawn when it comes to "the visible church." There are other differences as well.


 
LBCF 1689 
Chp 26
Paragraph 2. All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints;2 and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.3
2 1 Cor. 1:2; Acts 11:26
3 Rom. 1:7; Eph. 1:20-22
Link: http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html

WCF 1646
Chapter 25
II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6]
Link: Westminster Confession of Faith

Is this the difference that you are referencing? The LBCF states that only professing believers are in the Church. The WCF states that professing believers and their children are in the Church.

My question in regards to this that has been on my mind is this. We know that God's regenerated elect are indwelt by the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of truth. God has used these people to preserve his word and uphold the gospel throughout the history of the Church. God inspired Paul (1 Tim 3:15) to call them "the pillar and ground of the truth." In the very next passage (3:16) Paul references the truth they hold up which is the gospel of Christ. How can the Church be the pillar and ground of the truth if many of it's members are not professing believers?

1 Timothy 3:15-16 KJV
[15] But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
[16] And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

It is interesting that he calls the Church the pillar and ground of the truth instead of the bible. It is indeed God's people he uses to preserve and pass on the bible and preach the gospel contained within. Why would God refer to non elect children that haven't professed belief as the pillar and ground of the truth?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Who said this:?Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings, thou hast ordained praise."​Does the Bible mean what it says or not?


Further, is the "church" (the pillar and ground of truth)_ essentially _all the members collected into some body? Is that how the Bible invariably speaks of it? Or, does it speak of it also under a variety of perspectives: from the thing considered as a whole, to the government alone, to the membership, etc?


----------



## Herald

Tim, inference certainly does abound. Does David's statement in Psalm 22:9 qualify as a proof text of infant salvation? Could that verse have all to do with God's providential hand on David's life, and David confessing that fact? We know that Jeremiah was called to be a prophet (Jer. 1:5), but we are not told he was regenerate pre-natal. John the Baptist lept at the presence of Jesus, but only Elizabeth is said to be filled with the Holy Spirit. John 18:6 displays the reaction to Christ's glory, even in the presence of unbelievers. Household baptisms are seen in the book of Acts, but we do not see evidence of baptism administered apart from faith. Tim, but as we both noted, our presuppositions taint our objectivity.

I agree that the nature of the church is the central point of disagreement. The substance and administration of the New Covenant is at the heart of each baptism debate whether or not is said so. The nature and application of the sacraments are a consequence of our view of the New Covenant, not a material cause.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Contra_Mundum said:


> Who said this:?Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings, thou hast ordained praise."​Does the Bible mean what it says or not?



God said this through David:

Psalm 8:1:2 KJV
[1] O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.
[2] Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.

Jesus said this as recorded under inspiration by Matthew:

Matthew 21:15-16 KJV
[15] And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased,
[16] And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

It appears that Jesus fulfilled an Old Testament prophecy and he was making the chief priests and scribes aware of that.



> Further, is the "church" (the pillar and ground of truth)_ essentially _all the members collected into some body? Is that how the Bible invariably speaks of it? Or, does it speak of it also under a variety of perspectives: from the thing considered as a whole, to the government alone, to the membership, etc?



Matthew 16:18 KJV: _The Church will prevail._
[18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matthew 18:17 KJV: _The Church has authority_.
[17] And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Acts 2:47 KJV: _People God selects to be saved are added to the Church._
[47] Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Acts 8:3 KJV: _The Church is made havoc of, men and women are thorown into prison. No mention of children_.
[3] As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.

Acts 9:31 KJV: _Church is spoken of in plural to indicate that church fellowships are local and under the central rule of God_.
[31] Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.

Acts 14:23 KJV: _Elders are ordained in each local Church_.
[23] And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

1 Corinthians 12:27-31 KJV: _The Church has members with different gifts yet all are of the body of Christ_.
[27] Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
[28] And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
[29] Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
[30] Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
[31] But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

Revelation 22:16 KJV: _Jesus works in all of the local Churches_.
[16] I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Galatians 3:24-29 KJV: _Once we have come to faith we are no longer under the law, then we are children of God. All who have been baptized have put on Christ, yet we weren't children of God until we came to faith. This appears that baptism happens after one has come to faith and that all in the Church are baptized because all in the Church have faith_.
[24] Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
[25] But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
[26] For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
[27] For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
[28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
[29] And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

John 3:36 KJV: _The Church is believers in Christ._
[36] He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.


----------



## Marrow Man

Actually, Bill, Luke 1:15 does say John would be filled with the Holy Spirit while in his mother's womb. The texts say what they say; David trusted from his nursing mother's knee, Jeremiah was set apart before he was even born, John was filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb. Perhaps one might argue figurative language is in use in some cases, but it should be indisputable that God's grace was upon these men while they were infants.

With regard to household baptisms, what is often missed is that there aren't that many instances of baptism actually recorded in the book of Acts. If you remove the obvious "male only" references (e.g, the men gathered at Pentecost, the Ethiopian eunuch, Saul/Paul), a significant portion of the baptisms recorded are of the household variety. The ages of the members are not mentioned, but neither is the faith of each member (rather, the faith of the head of household). Just as a side note, one interesting case in the book of Acts is Timothy. He is never mentioned as being baptized (we would have to infer that), but he is mentioned as being circumcised (post-conversion and post-Jerusalem council)!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I am always afraid to watch these videos as I am sure I will turn Credo...


----------



## Herald

Tim,

You're right on John the Baptist. That was a huge miss on my part. Not good practice to be Puritan Boarding via iPhone during lunch. Thank you for the correction.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I am always afraid to watch these videos as I am sure I will turn Credo...


 
Never Fear if you are in God's stead. Just look at my blog on the PB. I am still credo. I still hold to may Presbyterian holds. Don't think I ever left them. But on this matter I have always remained what I know to be true. I hate videos and debates because they depend on the presenters. What doth the Scripture and inference say? I think I have remained true to the scripture as many peado's do.


----------



## JML

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I am always afraid to watch these videos as I am sure I will turn Credo...


 
It's not so bad. Come on over to the other side.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always afraid to watch these videos as I am sure I will turn Credo...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never Fear if you are in God's stead. Just look at my blog on the PB. I am still credo. I still hold to may Presbyterian holds. Don't think I ever left them. But on this matter I have always remained what I know to be true. I hate videos and debates because they depend on the presenters. What doth the Scripture and inference say? I think I have remained true to the scripture as many peado's do.
Click to expand...


----------



## Herald

Tim,

Well, if I was being generous, I would say that Acts is not the best place to establish a case for paedobaptism. Most of the paedo arguments I've read center on the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant, independent of any positive commands in Acts. If anything, Acts seems to emphasize faith before baptism (2:38; 8:12-13; 9:18 (regeneration assumed in Saul's case); 16:31-33 (c.f. 16:15*); 18:8; 19:4-5). 

*The story of Lydia and the Philippian jailer have striking similarities. Whereas Lydia and the jailer clearly believed; belief is assumed of their family. Not a strong proof text, but one worth mentioning.

Even though Acts is a transitionary book, for the credobaptist it provides a positive model for baptism that is not countermanded anywhere else in the N.T. But as I said earlier, it seems that the strongest paedo argument is based on the continuity of the covenant, which does not depend strongly on a positive command given in the N.T.

Back to David, Jeremiah, and John the Baptist for a moment. I don't know what worth we place in determining a baptismal position regarding these three characters. Did the Holy Spirit come upon John in the womb? Certainly. Was it salvific in nature? I don't know. Was it normative? Based on the perspicuity of scripture, I'm not convinced. Jeremiah? I believe he was simply writing that God had ordained him for his work from eternity past. David? Was his trusting upon his mother's breast sign of regeneration? Possibly. I just don't see where there is a strong case to be made for pre-natal or infant salvation being normative. 

Brother Tim, but of course, my presuppositions are pretty thick.


----------



## py3ak

DD2009 said:


> It seems to me that baptism may be nothing more than a public display of a christians faith by signifying that they died with Christ and are risen with him to walk in a newness of life in union with him. If they are baptized as an infant they can never do this. Perhaps what baptism really is and why it is significant is that it is a witness to others of our faith?


 
David, I don't mean to enter this debate in any way, but I really think that if you look at the way that Paul speaks of baptism you will find it impossible to think that baptism is merely a human display of faith. I think that would tragically reduce the significance of this ordinance that God has given us as a means of grace.


----------



## Herald

I concur with Ruben.

David, since you are evaluating your baptismal stand, consider what the 1689 LBC says about baptism:



> 1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.



Baptism is just a sign, but it's the significance of the sign that makes it important. Fellowship, His death burial and resurrection, remission of sins, and our engrafting into Him that makes possible
our walking in newness of life. Baptism is a permanent reminder of who you once were and who you now are, in Christ. Baptism becomes a means of grace because it causes us to be strengthened in our faith through remembrance of what Christ did for us.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Marrow Man said:


> Actually, Bill, Luke 1:15 does say John would be filled with the Holy Spirit while in his mother's womb. The texts say what they say; David trusted from his nursing mother's knee, Jeremiah was set apart before he was even born, John was filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb. Perhaps one might argue figurative language is in use in some cases, but it should be indisputable that God's grace was upon these men while they were infants.



What I notice that all of these men have in common other than God's grace in their lives from infancy is that God inspired the authors of scripture to know that. Without the inspiration of God to know the facts would it have ever been possible to determine this? So, giventhe fact that we are neither prophets nor apostles under divine inspiration wouldn't it be prudent to wait and see what the child says about his relationship with the Lord before we decide to give him the sign of being in union with him?



> Just as a side note, one interesting case in the book of Acts is Timothy. He is never mentioned as being baptized (we would have to infer that), but he is mentioned as being circumcised (post-conversion and post-Jerusalem council)!


 
Acts 16:3 KJV
[3] Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him *because* of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

Paul did this so that the Jews would listen to Timothy apparently. He basically made him socially acceptable.

---------- Post added at 08:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:28 AM ----------




Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I am always afraid to watch these videos as I am sure I will turn Credo...


 
 Your fear is warrented brother! You never know what might happen.

It would seem that we all have to deal with these issues at one point or another or we couldn't really be said to worship in truth. I am having a tough time with this. I know that it doesn't effect salvation, but baptism is indeed an expression of worship. If I am to go before God in worship with a clear conscience that I am worshipping him in truth I must deal with these things discerning from the word and considering the discernment of Godly men who have more years in the word than I through dialog and study.


----------



## Marrow Man

Herald said:


> Tim,
> 
> Well, if I was being generous, I would say that Acts is not the best place to establish a case for paedobaptism. Most of the paedo arguments I've read center on the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant, independent of any positive commands in Acts. If anything, Acts seems to emphasize faith before baptism (2:38; 8:12-13; 9:18 (regeneration assumed in Saul's case); 16:31-33 (c.f. 16:15*); 18:8; 19:4-5).
> 
> *The story of Lydia and the Philippian jailer have striking similarities. Whereas Lydia and the jailer clearly believed; belief is assumed of their family. Not a strong proof text, but one worth mentioning.
> 
> Even though Acts is a transitionary book, for the credobaptist it provides a positive model for baptism that is not countermanded anywhere else in the N.T. But as I said earlier, it seems that the strongest paedo argument is based on the continuity of the covenant, which does not depend strongly on a positive command given in the N.T.
> 
> Back to David, Jeremiah, and John the Baptist for a moment. I don't know what worth we place in determining a baptismal position regarding these three characters. Did the Holy Spirit come upon John in the womb? Certainly. Was it salvific in nature? I don't know. Was it normative? Based on the perspicuity of scripture, I'm not convinced. Jeremiah? I believe he was simply writing that God had ordained him for his work from eternity past. David? Was his trusting upon his mother's breast sign of regeneration? Possibly. I just don't see where there is a strong case to be made for pre-natal or infant salvation being normative.
> 
> Brother Tim, but of course, my presuppositions are pretty thick.


 
Bill, the point about the examples of David, et al, is simply that they run counter to the presuppositions of certain credos (in this case, White). They must be considered, not simply dismissed. If we were dealing with logic, we would term these as counterexamples to show that the premise is false. Do they prove the paedo position outright? Of course not. But they do draw into question some of the assumptions that credos sometimes put forward.

With regard to Lydia and the Philippian jailer, the faith of their households (despite certain poor translations in the case of the jailer) is not mentioned, but must be assumed or inferred by the credobaptist. You are correct in that the continuity of the Abrahamic covenant is probably the strongest argument in favor of the paedo position. The point of mentioning the household baptisms in Acts is to show that this practice is consistent with with mode of the Abrahamic covenant, not a radical departure from it in terms of continuity.


----------



## R Harris

> Bill, the point about the examples of David, et al, is simply that they run counter to the presuppositions of certain credos (in this case, White). They must be considered, not simply dismissed. If we were dealing with logic, we would term these as counterexamples to show that the premise is false. Do they prove the paedo position outright? Of course not. But they do draw into question some of the assumptions that credos sometimes put forward.
> 
> With regard to Lydia and the Philippian jailer, the faith of their households (despite certain poor translations in the case of the jailer) is not mentioned, but must be assumed or inferred by the credobaptist. You are correct in that the continuity of the Abrahamic covenant is probably the strongest argument in favor of the paedo position. The point of mentioning the household baptisms in Acts is to show that this practice is consistent with with mode of the Abrahamic covenant, not a radical departure from it in terms of continuity.



Tim, you are exactly right about the household baptisms. They say MUCH more about the situation than credos want to admit to.

So, look at the example of Lydia. The text clearly states that the Lord opened HER heart to the things being spoken. It then states "and when she and her HOUSEHOLD were baptized." The text says nothing about the other members making a profession of faith; the credos assume this by inference because of their existing presuppositions.

But further in the passage, she says something interesting: "if you have judged ME to have been faithful, then come and stay at my house." Note carefully she does not say US, but rather ME.

This is very peculiar. Why would she emphasize only herself? Did not the professions of the other members of her household matter? What if Paul or Silas had said "well, Lydia, we have judged you to be faithful, but I'm not sure about the other members of your household." Wouldn't that have mattered? These are not inconsequential considerations.

The case of the jailer is very clear. In the greek, the participial phrase "having believed in God," is masculine singular, and refers to the jailer based on the grammatical context. In fact, I have even seen credo commentaries that interpret the passage "and his household rejoiced with him in that HE believed in God."

In his 1978 book "infant baptism and the covenant of grace," which promotes the credo position, Paul Jewitt readily admits this is what the text says. But being backed into a corner, Jewitt then says "well, how is it then that the household rejoiced? How could an infant do that?"

But one can easily refer to a household generically without necessarily referencing every single member of the household. One could refer to several members without including every single member and still say "household." This is commonly done in everyday language.

If I come home and announce to my family that I got a raise (I know, rare these days), they can REJOICE with me, while my infant may not know what is going on. The younger children rejoice because they see my wife and I rejoicing while not really understanding what a raise is. But the fact is I ALONE received the raise; I can tell others that my household rejoiced with me without meaning that the infant provided a rejoicing cackle as acknowledgement. So Dr. Jewitt's argument is simply a red herring.

Hope this is helpful.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

DD2009 said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said this:?Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings, thou hast ordained praise."​Does the Bible mean what it says or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God said this through David:
> 
> Psalm 8:1:2 KJV
> [1] O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.
> [2] Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.
> 
> Jesus said this as recorded under inspiration by Matthew:
> 
> Matthew 21:15-16 KJV
> [15] And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased,
> [16] And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?
> 
> It appears that Jesus fulfilled an Old Testament prophecy and he was making the chief priests and scribes aware of that.
Click to expand...

Is Jesus proclaiming a "fulfillment" of a prophecy? I think not. He's applying a text of Scripture, and silencing his opposition. If God calls forth his praise from the mouths of infants, then a fortiori, these youngsters in the crowd are well within their rights.

The point of my reference to the text was to answer the prior assertion that in a wrong view of the church there are all these non-elect children (how does anyone know that?) who--not having professed belief--are nontheless declared to be a part of the church, declaring the truth. Well, Ps.8 tells us (without informing us as to the elect status of the persons at all) that God calls forth his praise (truth) from the mouths of babes and sucklings! What babes are these? They are covenant-babes, possessors of the promises.

And under what biblical expectation are we to hold those children? (even just assuming the OT context; forget for a moment about whether the text has any present day application). Does not God promise to be God to Abraham and to his children? So, is our default stance that the children are elect, or not? Please do not intrude a question of presumptive regeneration here. The question has to do with whether or not we are going to believe and act upon God's promises from the outset, or only after we have held those promises in abeyance for a while, and corroborated his Word with an outside source of authority that can "validate" the Word.

The point is, that it IS the praise of the elect (!) that God is calling forth from the mouths of infants. There may be non-elect who also praise, however, there are non-elect adults in the church who also join in singing, etc. So what?


Your references to the church appear to be a cut-and-paste from a baptist set of definitions, whereby they carefully exclude anything that will challenge both individualism and independency. I've no use or time to turn this thread into a debate on ecclesiology. Either you do or do not accept the proposition that the NT speaks of the church under a variety of expressions, and that what it says about the church under one expression may not in every case be accurately expressed under another. That is to say, the church as "pillar and ground of truth" is not predicable of "the church" under any and every consideration whatsoever.


----------



## Herald

Marrow Man said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tim,
> 
> Well, if I was being generous, I would say that Acts is not the best place to establish a case for paedobaptism. Most of the paedo arguments I've read center on the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant, independent of any positive commands in Acts. If anything, Acts seems to emphasize faith before baptism (2:38; 8:12-13; 9:18 (regeneration assumed in Saul's case); 16:31-33 (c.f. 16:15*); 18:8; 19:4-5).
> 
> *The story of Lydia and the Philippian jailer have striking similarities. Whereas Lydia and the jailer clearly believed; belief is assumed of their family. Not a strong proof text, but one worth mentioning.
> 
> Even though Acts is a transitionary book, for the credobaptist it provides a positive model for baptism that is not countermanded anywhere else in the N.T. But as I said earlier, it seems that the strongest paedo argument is based on the continuity of the covenant, which does not depend strongly on a positive command given in the N.T.
> 
> Back to David, Jeremiah, and John the Baptist for a moment. I don't know what worth we place in determining a baptismal position regarding these three characters. Did the Holy Spirit come upon John in the womb? Certainly. Was it salvific in nature? I don't know. Was it normative? Based on the perspicuity of scripture, I'm not convinced. Jeremiah? I believe he was simply writing that God had ordained him for his work from eternity past. David? Was his trusting upon his mother's breast sign of regeneration? Possibly. I just don't see where there is a strong case to be made for pre-natal or infant salvation being normative.
> 
> Brother Tim, but of course, my presuppositions are pretty thick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, the point about the examples of David, et al, is simply that they run counter to the presuppositions of certain credos (in this case, White). They must be considered, not simply dismissed. If we were dealing with logic, we would term these as counterexamples to show that the premise is false. Do they prove the paedo position outright? Of course not. But they do draw into question some of the assumptions that credos sometimes put forward.
> 
> With regard to Lydia and the Philippian jailer, the faith of their households (despite certain poor translations in the case of the jailer) is not mentioned, but must be assumed or inferred by the credobaptist. You are correct in that the continuity of the Abrahamic covenant is probably the strongest argument in favor of the paedo position. The point of mentioning the household baptisms in Acts is to show that this practice is consistent with with mode of the Abrahamic covenant, not a radical departure from it in terms of continuity.
Click to expand...


Tim, well-reasoned response. Thank you.

Personally, I believe the root issue is the New Covenant. As we've already discussed, household baptisms don't establish a positive command for paedobaptism, mostly because there is a strong attachment to faith preceding baptism in the book of Acts. I understand your point; that household baptisms seem to compliment the paedobaptist view of the continuation of the Abrahamic Covenant. It's for that reason I view the covenantal argument as the determining factor on baptism. I'm certainly not the first person to recognize that. How Baptists and Presbyterians view the visible/invisible church distinction is a consequence of our view of the temporal administration of the New Covenant. I'd like to say that one begets the other, but it seems the two are so inexorably linked that separating them is difficult. I suppose we could now answer the old question of, "What came first, the chicken or the age?" The answer: both.  

Seriously though, there is the crux of the matter; the covenants. Now, if we could reconcile on that issue.... (I'm not holding my breath!)


----------



## Herald

R Harris said:


> Bill, the point about the examples of David, et al, is simply that they run counter to the presuppositions of certain credos (in this case, White). They must be considered, not simply dismissed. If we were dealing with logic, we would term these as counterexamples to show that the premise is false. Do they prove the paedo position outright? Of course not. But they do draw into question some of the assumptions that credos sometimes put forward.
> 
> With regard to Lydia and the Philippian jailer, the faith of their households (despite certain poor translations in the case of the jailer) is not mentioned, but must be assumed or inferred by the credobaptist. You are correct in that the continuity of the Abrahamic covenant is probably the strongest argument in favor of the paedo position. The point of mentioning the household baptisms in Acts is to show that this practice is consistent with with mode of the Abrahamic covenant, not a radical departure from it in terms of continuity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim, you are exactly right about the household baptisms. They say MUCH more about the situation than credos want to admit to.
> 
> So, look at the example of Lydia. The text clearly states that the Lord opened HER heart to the things being spoken. It then states "and when she and her HOUSEHOLD were baptized." The text says nothing about the other members making a profession of faith; the credos assume this by inference because of their existing presuppositions.
> 
> But further in the passage, she says something interesting: "if you have judged ME to have been faithful, then come and stay at my house." Note carefully she does not say US, but rather ME.
> 
> This is very peculiar. Why would she emphasis only herself? Did not the professions of the other members of her household matter? What if Paul or Silas had said "well, Lydia, we have judged you to be faithful, but I'm not sure about the other members of your household." Wouldn't that have mattered? These are not inconsequential considerations.
> 
> The case of the jailer is very clear. In the greek, the participial phrase "having believed in God," is masculine singular, and refers to the jailer based on the grammatical context. In fact, I have even seen credo commentaries that interpret the passage "and his household rejoiced with him in that HE believed in God."
> 
> In his 1978 book "infant baptism and the covenant of grace," which promotes the credo position, Paul Jewitt readily admits this is what the text says. But being backed into a corner, Jewitt then says "well, how is it then that the household rejoiced? How could an infant do that?"
> 
> But one can easily refer to a household generically without necessarily referencing every single member of the household. One could refer to several members without including every single member and still say "household." This is commonly done in everyday language.
> 
> If I come home and announce to my family that I got a raise (I know, rare these days), they can REJOICE with me, while my infant may not know what is going on. The younger children rejoice because they see my wife and I rejoicing while not really understanding what a raise is. But the fact is I ALONE received the raise; I can tell others that my household rejoiced with me without meaning that the infant provided a rejoicing cackle as acknowledgement. So Dr. Jewitt's argument is simply a red herring.
> 
> Hope this is helpful.
Click to expand...

 
Randy,

You're making a very predictable partisan leap. First, no matter how hard you look you can't make an exegetical case for infant baptism in Acts. You can infer it based on your view of the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant, but that is far different than being able to show evidence of a positive command. I believe my brother Tim would agree. I was honest enough to state that my view of Lydia and the Philippian jailer was built on inference from other instances of baptism in Acts. Whereas there is no positive command to baptize infants in Acts, there is a positive command to baptize believers. Does that establish credo baptism alone? No. But I think that's the point Tim and I were making. The book of Acts is full of inference for both sides of the debate. What it lacks is a nail in the coffin that determines the issue. As I wrote in my last post, the determining factor is found in the covenantal argument, not household baptisms.


----------



## R Harris

Herald said:


> You're making a very predictable partisan leap. First, no matter how hard you look you can't make an exegetical case for infant baptism in Acts. You can infer it based on your view of the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant, but that is far different than being able to show evidence of a positive command. I believe my brother Tim would agree. I was honest enough to state that my view of Lydia and the Philippian jailer was built on inference from other instances of baptism in Acts. Whereas there is no positive command to baptize infants in Acts, there is a positive command to baptize believers. Does that establish credo baptism alone? No. But I think that's the point Tim and I were making. The book of Acts is full of inference for both sides of the debate. What it lacks is a nail in the coffin that determines the issue. As I wrote in my last post, the determining factor is found in the covenantal argument, not household baptisms.



The issue with the household baptisms is not whether their were infants in the household; rather, it is whether the other members of the household made a profession of faith or not, which is the credo requirement. I believe these examples are clear, crisp evidences that the other members of the household did not.

I don't think this is a "partisan leap," but rather allowing the text to speak for itself and _then_ making sense of it from the covenantal perspective. So, with Abraham (Genesis 17) and throughout the OT, we see household circumcisions; in the NT, we see household baptisms. So, if one proves that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant, then the correspondence immediately follows.


----------



## Herald

R Harris said:


> I don't think this is a "partisan leap," but rather allowing the text to speak for itself and _then_ making sense of it from the covenantal perspective. So, with Abraham (Genesis 17) and throughout the OT, we see household circumcisions; in the NT, we see household baptisms. So, if one proves that baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant, then the correspondence immediately follows.



You're actually making my point. The argument _*is *_covenantally based. Our conclusion of the continuity-discontinuity issue determines how we look at the rest of scripture on this topic.


----------



## Marrow Man

For the first time on this subject, I think Baptists and Presbyterians are in agreement.


----------



## Herald

Marrow Man said:


> For the first time on this subject, I think Baptists and Presbyterians are in agreement.


 
You mean we agree that we disagree in an agreeable fashion!


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Contra_Mundum said:


> Is Jesus proclaiming a "fulfillment" of a prophecy? I think not. He's applying a text of Scripture, and silencing his opposition. If God calls forth his praise from the mouths of infants, then a fortiori, these youngsters in the crowd are well within their rights.



I don't know. It could be both actually. How often did they see children at the temple following a man around praising God? The scriprues testify to Christ so I believe that in most situations he uses them to verify the reality that he is the one they speak of. 



> The point of my reference to the text was to answer the prior assertion that in a wrong view of the church there are all these non-elect children (how does anyone know that?) who--not having professed belief--are nontheless declared to be a part of the church, declaring the truth. Well, Ps.8 tells us (without informing us as to the elect status of the persons at all) that God calls forth his praise (truth) from the mouths of babes and sucklings! What babes are these? They are covenant-babes, possessors of the promises.



That's the problem. We don't know that. They haven't professed anything. We do, however, through empirical evidence see MANY baptized children grow up to live like the devil claiming they are baptized "christian" when it is obvious to even the unbeliever that they might be baptized but certainly not christian. What is the problem with waiting until they are old enough to actually exhibit faith before we tell them they are christians?



> And under what biblical expectation are we to hold those children? (even just assuming the OT context; forget for a moment about whether the text has any present day application). Does not God promise to be God to Abraham and to his children? So, is our default stance that the children are elect, or not?



This is key. The default stance cannot be that they are elect because they are born into iniquity. They are depraved people who deserve hell by right of a wicked birth. 

Psalm 51:5 KJV
[5] Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

So the default position should be that they are reprobates until they exhibit the sign God gave us to know if we ae saved or not; faith.

John 3:36 KJV
[36] He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.



> Please do not intrude a question of presumptive regeneration here. The question has to do with whether or not we are going to believe and act upon God's promises from the outset, or only after we have held those promises in abeyance for a while, and corroborated his Word with an outside source of authority that can "validate" the Word.
> 
> The point is, that it IS the praise of the elect (!) that God is calling forth from the mouths of infants. There may be non-elect who also praise, however, there are non-elect adults in the church who also join in singing, etc. So what?



Jesus referred to those who actually do the will of God as his family members:

Mark 3:35 KJV
[35] For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

Why did he do that if they were all supposedly elect in the Abrahamic covenant? Also why did Paul tell us clearly that those of faith are the children of Abraham?

Galatians 3:7 KJV
[7] Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

If only those of faith are the children of abraham then our default position must be that we see evidence of faith before we declare they have put on Christ.

Galatians 3:27 KJV
[27] For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

If not what am I missing here?




> Your references to the church appear to be a cut-and-paste from a baptist set of definitions, whereby they carefully exclude anything that will challenge both individualism and independency.



I don't know if that was meant as a jab or if it just shows reveals your personal opinion of me and my work ethic but I actually used this on-line bible Bible: King James Version and carefully looked at the passages and wrote the italic commentary next to the passages so you would know how I think in order to answer your post well. The only thing that I didn't write is the text of scripture. I'm sorry it sounded too Baptist? That does give me something to think about though.



> I've no use or time to turn this thread into a debate on ecclesiology. Either you do or do not accept the proposition that the NT speaks of the church under a variety of expressions, and that what it says about the church under one expression may not in every case be accurately expressed under another. That is to say, the church as "pillar and ground of truth" is not predicable of "the church" under any and every consideration whatsoever.



Ok. I understand that you are a busy man and don't have time for this. If I am ever a pastor then I imagine I'll be a lot busier as well. I am trying to figure out if God is calling me in that regard. However, I do disagree with you about your view on the Church. I do believe we are the pillar and ground of the truth as Paul recorded because we are indwelt by God himself and he guides us to truth.

Jeremiah 31:33-34 KJV
[33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
[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.

I believe that the above prophecy is talking about the Church.


----------



## Marrow Man

Herald said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the first time on this subject, I think Baptists and Presbyterians are in agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean we agree that we disagree in an agreeable fashion!
Click to expand...


----------



## Osage Bluestem

I listened to the Macarthur vs Sproul debate.

I think John Macarthur did a very good job. That's the first time I've ever seen RC Sproul defeated in a debate.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

DD2009 said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your references to the church appear to be a cut-and-paste from a baptist set of definitions, whereby they carefully exclude anything that will challenge both individualism and independency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if that was meant as a jab or if it just shows reveals your personal opinion of me...
> 
> Ok. I understand that you are a busy man...
Click to expand...

Let me just say, I apologize for my tone. You deserved better.



DD2009 said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either you do or do not accept the proposition that the NT speaks of the church under a variety of expressions, and that what it says about the church under one expression may not in every case be accurately expressed under another. That is to say, the church as "pillar and ground of truth" is not predicable of "the church" under any and every consideration whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> I do disagree with you about your view on the Church. I do believe we are the pillar and ground of the truth as Paul recorded because we are indwelt by God himself and he guides us to truth.
Click to expand...

I would just say that something that can be said of a group is not necessarily something that can be said of each particular part of the group. A car can be "the ideal road machine," but the same fact cannot be said for the headlight alone. The Bible talks of the church as a body, made up of particulars. That church has visible and invisible qualities.

I had written a lot more, but God saw fit to wipe that work out. Perhaps I will return at some point and respond to some of your other points or questions.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Contra_Mundum said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your references to the church appear to be a cut-and-paste from a baptist set of definitions, whereby they carefully exclude anything that will challenge both individualism and independency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if that was meant as a jab or if it just shows reveals your personal opinion of me...
> 
> Ok. I understand that you are a busy man...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me just say, I apologize for my tone. You deserved better.
> 
> 
> 
> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either you do or do not accept the proposition that the NT speaks of the church under a variety of expressions, and that what it says about the church under one expression may not in every case be accurately expressed under another. That is to say, the church as "pillar and ground of truth" is not predicable of "the church" under any and every consideration whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do disagree with you about your view on the Church. I do believe we are the pillar and ground of the truth as Paul recorded because we are indwelt by God himself and he guides us to truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would just say that something that can be said of a group is not necessarily something that can be said of each particular part of the group. A car can be "the ideal road machine," but the same fact cannot be said for the headlight alone. The Bible talks of the church as a body, made up of particulars. That church has visible and invisible qualities.
> 
> I had written a lot more, but God saw fit to wipe that work out. Perhaps I will return at some point and respond to some of your other points or questions.
Click to expand...

 
Thanks, but it may be too late anyway. I've been talking to my wife this afternoon about all of the study I've been doing the last month or so. I think I might be a credo.


----------



## Herald

DD2009 said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your references to the church appear to be a cut-and-paste from a baptist set of definitions, whereby they carefully exclude anything that will challenge both individualism and independency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if that was meant as a jab or if it just shows reveals your personal opinion of me...
> 
> Ok. I understand that you are a busy man...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me just say, I apologize for my tone. You deserved better.
> 
> 
> 
> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either you do or do not accept the proposition that the NT speaks of the church under a variety of expressions, and that what it says about the church under one expression may not in every case be accurately expressed under another. That is to say, the church as "pillar and ground of truth" is not predicable of "the church" under any and every consideration whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do disagree with you about your view on the Church. I do believe we are the pillar and ground of the truth as Paul recorded because we are indwelt by God himself and he guides us to truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would just say that something that can be said of a group is not necessarily something that can be said of each particular part of the group. A car can be "the ideal road machine," but the same fact cannot be said for the headlight alone. The Bible talks of the church as a body, made up of particulars. That church has visible and invisible qualities.
> 
> I had written a lot more, but God saw fit to wipe that work out. Perhaps I will return at some point and respond to some of your other points or questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks, but it may be too late anyway. I've been talking to my wife this afternoon about all of the study I've been doing the last month or so. I think I might be a credo.
Click to expand...


David,

Give God the glory no matter which side of the baptism issue you are convinced of. But remember, baptism is not an end in itself. Credobaptism carries with it a number of other doctrinal distinctives, just like paedobaptism. Proceed deliberately in evaluating the Baptist hermeneutic. Ideally you're looking at the Reformed Baptist hermeneutic, not that of mainline Baptists. I recommended to you some good books to add to your library. Hopefully you've acted on those recommendations. If you do make the change to the Baptist position, please have a respectful and frank discussion with your elders. If they attempt to keep you from making this change, hear them out. You may find that strange advice coming from a Baptist. The reason I offer this advice (and I believe it is sound) is to make sure that you're not just enamored with the credobaptist position; infatuated with it. I don't want to see you changing once only to change back. Take your time and make sure you are convinced by scripture alone. If you are convinced about the credobaptist position, let me know. I may be able to recommend some other resources to aid you in your study.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

DD2009 said:


> Thanks, but it may be too late anyway. I've been talking to my wife this afternoon about all of the study I've been doing the last month or so. I think I might be a credo.


David,
Actually, I more or less thought, from the stance and bearing of most of your recent comments, that you were already pretty thoroughly convinced of the baptist position. And that estimate led to the dismissive tone of my other post. In other words, I was very much drawn to try to persuade you winsomely of the Reformed position, when I thought you were adrift and hoping to find convincing answers.

However, _*I am not willing to spend any time trying to persuade a baptist to become a presbyterian*_. And so, the resistance of your heart to hear what I had to say was a bit frustrating. But I think that it had more to do with the fact that on the one hand you were asking for answers, yet on the other hand my answers would have to meet criteria that were *arresting* (of your progress toward credo-ism) in nature, and not simply *thought-provoking*. Probably, if your pastor was unpersuasive, someone over the internet isn't going to be any better.

I think that my "lost post" could have ended up sounding too condescending, despite the fact that I meant to edit it significantly before posting it. Too much frustration there for it to be profitable. Frustration, because of finding resistance, rather than openness to explanation.

So, bottom line, I believe you have read your own Baptist-convictions truly. And due to your frank admission/self-assessment, I think I will leave off from going back and addressing other issues you raised. No doubt, the same things will come up in other discussions, and you can glean from there, if the subjects still interest you.

Blessings,


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Contra_Mundum said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, but it may be too late anyway. I've been talking to my wife this afternoon about all of the study I've been doing the last month or so. I think I might be a credo.
> 
> 
> 
> David,
> Actually, I more or less thought, from the stance and bearing of most of your recent comments, that you were already pretty thoroughly convinced of the baptist position. And that estimate led to the dismissive tone of my other post. In other words, I was very much drawn to try to persuade you winsomely of the Reformed position, when I thought you were adrift and hoping to find convincing answers.
> 
> However, _*I am not willing to spend any time trying to persuade a baptist to become a presbyterian*_. And so, the resistance of your heart to hear what I had to say was a bit frustrating. But I think that it had more to do with the fact that on the one hand you were asking for answers, yet on the other hand my answers would have to meet criteria that were *arresting* (of your progress toward credo-ism) in nature, and not simply *thought-provoking*. Probably, if your pastor was unpersuasive, someone over the internet isn't going to be any better.
> 
> I think that my "lost post" could have ended up sounding too condescending, despite the fact that I meant to edit it significantly before posting it. Too much frustration there for it to be profitable. Frustration, because of finding resistance, rather than openness to explanation.
> 
> So, bottom line, I believe you have read your own Baptist-convictions truly. And due to your frank admission/self-assessment, I think I will leave off from going back and addressing other issues you raised. No doubt, the same things will come up in other discussions, and you can glean from there, if the subjects still interest you.
> 
> Blessings,
Click to expand...

 

You are indeed correct Pastor Buchanan. I am a credo. Thank you very much for taking the time to dialog with me. I look forward to fellowshiping with you about many Christ centered topics in the future.

Best Regards and I pray that God blesses your ministry.


----------

