# White vs. Shishko



## Founded on the Rock

Did anyone hear about how this debate went? I am just curious how it went... I am sure it was an interesting debate just wanted to get some feedback.


----------



## sam

*Wonderfully*



Founded on the Rock said:


> Did anyone hear about how this debate went? I am just curious how it went... I am sure it was an interesting debate just wanted to get some feedback.



I've heard that it went very well and am, myself, eagerly waiting for the mp3s to come out. You can also log into Dr. White's chat channel and find a few other who where there, though they tend to be rare. 

Sam


----------



## austinbrown2

*Where can one obtain the MP3?*

I would very much enjoy listening to the debate. Do you know where I can obtain it?

Thanks,
Austin


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*Shishko vs. White*



austinbrown2 said:


> I would very much enjoy listening to the debate. Do you know where I can obtain it?
> 
> Thanks,
> Austin



Hi:

You can find ordering info here: http://www.opcli.org/index.php

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Davidius

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> You can find ordering info here: http://www.opcli.org/index.php
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> -CH




Thanks! I benefited greatly from Pastor Shishko's lectures on baptism and am looking forward to listening to this debate.


----------



## Devin

http://www.opcli.org/display.php?id=15

You can download the debate for free here.


----------



## Pilgrim

Devin said:


> http://www.opcli.org/display.php?id=15
> 
> You can download the debate for free here.



At 60MB+ apiece, these files are huge. Well, I'm thinking the sound quality will be good. Downloading these on dial-up would probably take over an hour apiece. 

They are also available via streaming audio. I wonder how long they will be available on the site, or if they will eventually post them to Sermon Audio.


----------



## Devin

Yes, the sound quality is excellent (their mics cut out from time to time, but never for more than a second). If you don't have time to download and they take it down, then I could probably find a way to send it to you. I could even lessen the quality to make it a bit smaller.


----------



## Pilgrim

Devin said:


> Yes, the sound quality is excellent (their mics cut out from time to time, but never for more than a second). If you don't have time to download and they take it down, then I could probably find a way to send it to you. I could even lessen the quality to make it a bit smaller.



Thanks for the offer, brother. I downloaded them but haven't listened to them yet.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

I listened to both parts yesterday. I thought both men presented thier positions very well. I tried as much as possible to listen from an objective postion to both sides. As one who has spent a good bit of the last year (after attending an ARP church for a while) examing the doctrine of infant baptism I really enjoyed it. I can see problem and difficulties in both postions.
However, to me it seems that the infant baptism side has more Biblical difficulties than the believers postion in my opinion. 
The Lord has greatly modified my position on this issue in recent time though. It may anger some here but it is a secondary issue with me. I appreciate the spirit that both men had in the debate. We have too much in common doctrinally to let this issue divide us forever. I will still retain my postion by concience and I will RESPECT my Prebyterian brethen and ask only the same from them.
God bless and keep you all.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Blueridge reformer said:


> I listened to both parts yesterday. I thought both men presented thier positions very well. I tried as much as possible to listen from an objective postion to both sides. As one who has spent a good bit of the last year (after attending an ARP church for a while) examing the doctrine of infant baptism I really enjoyed it. I can see problem and difficulties in both postions.
> However, to me it seems that the infant baptism side has more Biblical difficulties than the believers postion in my opinion.
> The Lord has greatly modified my position on this issue in recent time though. It may anger some here but it is a secondary issue with me. I appreciate the spirit that both men had in the debate. We have too much in common doctrinally to let this issue divide us forever. I will still retain my postion by concience and I will RESPECT my Prebyterian brethen and ask only the same from them.
> God bless and keep you all.



I have yet to listen to the debate; I have downloaded it. Tina and I will listen to it this evening; MY guess, if Shisko did not hammer the point of covenant, then he went and fought on credo soil. If he did do this and let White lead the dialogue, he shot himself in the foot. CT and paedobaptism is cleary mapped out in scripture using the whole of Gods scriptures, starting in Genesis and ending in the book of revelation. One cannot find it properly using a dispensational approach, i.e. using the NT to try and define the principle. I assume Shisko did this; I will see tonight.


----------



## Scott Bushey

To me, abrogation is secondary. God making a eternal covenant in blood, swearing against Himself, is the primary point. It is the epicenter of everything that God is. To deny this fact is akin to building another golden calf and saying that God WILL again destroy the Earth w/ water again, when He has specifically promised not to. 

Hebrews 6:13-19 13 For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, 14 saying, "I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply you." 15 And thus, having patiently waited, he obtained the promise. 16 For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute. 17 In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath, 18 in order that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have strong encouragement, we who have fled for refuge in laying hold of the hope set before us. 19 This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure Hebrews 6:19 and steadfast and one which enters within the veil,


----------



## JM

Dr. White did bring up the scripture about Grace dividing the household, father against son, etc. I didn’t hear really hear a response by Pastor Shishko. The examination of the texts - - that Pastor Shishko presented for household baptism - - Dr. White did an excellent job. I believe White did in fact show a pattern of repentance and faith before baptism especially in the early portions of Acts. To require repentance and faith for every text is an unfair demand especially since the pattern had been established early on. 

That said, Dr. White [in my opinion] won by a hair, and Pastor Shishko was able to raise some doubt about credo only baptism. With all due respect I don’t think I can agree with Blueridge, I don’t think this is a secondary issue but a central issue, although I have a growing respect for paedobaptism, I’ll remain credo…for now.


----------



## Scott Bushey

JM said:


> Dr. White did bring up the scripture about Grace dividing the household, father against son, etc. I didn’t hear really hear a response by Pastor Shishko. The examination of the texts - - that Pastor Shishko presented for household baptism - - Dr. White did an excellent job. I believe White did in fact show a pattern of repentance and faith before baptism especially in the early portions of Acts. To require repentance and faith for every text is an unfair demand especially since the pattern had been established early on.
> 
> That said, Dr. White [in my opinion] won by a hair, and Pastor Shishko was able to raise some doubt about credo only baptism. With all due respect I don’t think I can agree with Blueridge, I don’t think this is a secondary issue but a central issue, although I have a growing respect for paedobaptism, I’ll remain credo…for now.



Still listening. Here's a funny quote by White:



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



P.O.F. does not guarantee election. P.O.F. guarantees membership into the _visible_ body solely.


----------



## Pilgrim

Scott Bushey said:


> Still listening. Here's a funny quote by White:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "How do we know who the elect are today? By their profession of faith"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.O.F. does not guarantee election. P.O.F. guarantees membership into the _visible_ body solely.
Click to expand...


That's pretty bad and I'm thinking he'd want to restate that now.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Pilgrim said:


> That's pretty bad and I'm thinking he'd want to restate that now.



I never heard him say that p.o.f. meant they were true believers.


----------



## JM

I didn't hear White say that either [but I could've missed it].


----------



## Scott Bushey

JM said:


> I didn't hear White say that either [but I could've missed it].



It's on part 1.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*Convincing the Unconvinced*

Hay:

Neither Dr. White nor Pastor Shishko made a killing blow. Those who are convinced of their position will not be convinced otherwise (except by the Spirit of God). Those who are unconvinced concerning this matter have an excellent source of information for either side in order to make an informed decision.

As a paedo-baptist I found Dr. White's argumentation to be very strong indeed. I very much admired his graciousness as well as the way he restrained himself from baiting his opponent. With that in mind I have counted at least three presuppositions he makes that are unbiblical in nature.

The first is his statement that "infants are incapable of faith." I do not know any passage in Scripture that says that infants are incapable of faith. There are an abundance of passages in Scripture that state just the opposite. Surely, if God Himself, the Second Person of the Trinity, God of God, Light of Lights could be incarnated into a fetus - an infant - it would not be more difficult for an infant to receive Grace? Is that not so? We also have a Scriptural example of such happening to John the Baptist in Luke 1:41.

Infants are very capable of receiving Grace. In fact, we should expect children of believers to be converted at a very early age even in infancy.

The Second unbiblical precept that Dr. White uses is in reference to the household baptism of Cornelius. When asked why the preponderance of conversions in the book of Acts were performed by the Spirit of God on the heads of households, and then on the households Dr. White replies:

"because of the rarity of that experience in that God's grace has been poured out on entire households have been saved because the majority of early believers didn't have their families." Part 1 around 1:16:20.

This is a logical fallacy called False Precision. This fallacy occurs when an argument treats information as more precise than it really is. This happens when imprecise information contained in the premisse(s) must be taken as precise in order to adequately support the conclusion.

Why is Dr. White involved in this logical fallacy? Because he is making a precise statement, "the rarity of that experience" where no precise information is given in the Scriptures. Pentecost, for example, was the celebration of the Jewish festival of the feast of weeks, Ex. 23:14-17. All males were required to attend. Now, it may be that the majority of these males were heads of households. Then, again, it may not. We are not given precise information. For Dr. White to claim that he does have precise information concerning this event would be akin to new revelation.

The facts are just the opposite: When the Bible does mention specific conversions the preponderance of the evidence points to household conversions. The conversions of individuals (outside of the household) such as the Ethiopian or Paul are the exceptions rather than the rule.

A third point that Dr. White makes, which is more of a matter of exegesis rather than being unbiblical, is his understanding of the conversion of Cornelius and his household as an "apostolic example." Dr. White does not comment on the following verse:

*When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life,* Acts 11:18.

Cornelius (a Gentile) and his household were treated to the same Covenant of Grace that Abraham and his household were treated. The Gentiles were outside of the Covenant. Consequently, baptism would not be given to adult members of the household unless they repent and believe. If there were infant members of the household we are not told. What is important is that the Jewish believers to whom Peter is relating this incident recognized that Gentile converts and their families are now included in the Covenant.

The example of Cornelius, then, is that we should expect that if the (gentile) head of the household is converted that the rest of the family will be as well. We understand this as a promise in the same fashion that the promise was given to Abraham, and he circumcised his infants eight days old.

The Bible gives us every reason to believe that the children of believers are considered members of the Covenant of Grace, Luke 18:15,16; Acts 2:38; John 3:8; Acts 4:12; 1 Cor. 7:14; Luke 1:41; 2 Samuel 12:22,23.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## ChristianTrader

Scott Bushey said:


> It's on part 1.



I remember something akin to the comment but it seems that you misunderstand the context. White has never made a comment that profession is an infallible guide to regeneration/membership in the COG etc. He says that it is all that we have to go on and determine.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader

I think one of the most interesting places in the debate was the discussion of the OT promises concerning the NT. It seems that James White wishes to understand them in light of his Understanding of what the NT says about itself. It looks to me that such a position would absolutely destroy Bereanism. How can you search the scriptures to check if what one says is so, under his model. If all one has to look to is the OT to check out what Paul was saying, then what James White seems to be advocating is just saying, "Well you are Paul/or another Apostle, I must just be wrong".

Was Paul being hypothetical about searching to see if it was so, like the hypothetical about covenant members falling away? 

CT


----------



## Scott Bushey

Here's another interesting statement: "In the OT, the demand to have the faith of one person to then baptise the whole household was not how circumcision was run".


----------



## Scott Bushey

ChristianTrader said:


> I remember something akin to the comment but it seems that you misunderstand the context. White has never made a comment that profession is an infallible guide to regeneration/membership in the COG etc. He says that it is all that we have to go on and determine.
> 
> CT



That may be true, but thats not what he said. I'll recheck it.

It's at the 25.00 minute mark.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Scott Bushey said:


> That may be true, but thats not what he said. I'll recheck it.
> 
> It's at the 25.00 minute mark.



Accurately, he says: "How do we know who the elect are today? By their profession of faith. We have no greater means".


----------



## ChristianTrader

Scott Bushey said:


> Here's another interesting statement: "In the OT, the demand to have the faith of one person to then baptise the whole household was not how circumcision was run".



Now I do remember that one. That is just crazy.

CT


----------



## JM

ChristianTrader said:


> I think one of the most interesting places in the debate was the discussion of the OT promises concerning the NT. It seems that James White wishes to understand them in light of his Understanding of what the NT says about itself. It looks to me that such a position would absolutely destroy Bereanism. How can you search the scriptures to check if what one says is so, under his model. If all one has to look to is the OT to check out what Paul was saying, then what James White seems to be advocating is just saying, "Well you are Paul/or another Apostle, I must just be wrong".
> 
> Was Paul being hypothetical about searching to see if it was so, like the hypothetical about covenant members falling away?
> 
> CT



Wouldn't it also destroy Bereanism if one was unable to search the scriptures?


----------



## Devin

This is the first formal debate that I have heard on the topic of baptism, though I've read through several online on boards like these. Having listened to debates featuring Dr. White before, I expected that his effort would be Biblically solid and logical. I, as a Baptist, was not disappointed.

Alternatively, I have to say that I found Pastor Shishko's apologetic method and emphasis on the household principle to be intriguing and worthy of further study.


----------



## Scott Bushey

ChristianTrader said:


> Now I do remember that one. That is just crazy.
> 
> CT



Blowing this one totally shows his ignorance of _covenant_ and the extent of it.

Here are a few others: 

In regards to Abraham's faith: "it came first, then the sign. (The Baptist) gives the sign, not in hopes of faith, but because THERE IS FAITH". *My emphasis added.


The promise in the OT for the children that had the sign placed, "was related only to land".

White many times mentions NT, NT, NT. He sounds very dispensational in my opinion.

Disc one; I was not impressed by the credo argument. Shisko's argument would have been better if he initially dealt w/ covenant.


----------



## satz

ChristianTrader said:


> I think one of the most interesting places in the debate was the discussion of the OT promises concerning the NT. It seems that James White wishes to understand them in light of his Understanding of what the NT says about itself. It looks to me that such a position would absolutely destroy Bereanism. How can you search the scriptures to check if what one says is so, under his model. If all one has to look to is the OT to check out what Paul was saying, then what James White seems to be advocating is just saying, "Well you are Paul/or another Apostle, I must just be wrong".
> 
> Was Paul being hypothetical about searching to see if it was so, like the hypothetical about covenant members falling away?
> 
> CT



CT,

I find your point intriguing but have difficulty understanding quite what you mean. Could you elaborate a little?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Circumcision and the "land promise." I have heard that before. And it is inexplicable to me. On what basis is this made? How on earth can anyone take Gen12:1-3 and chop it up into bits, and then say "circumcision related to the land promise"? Where is this ever stated in the Bible?--and I'll even accept a NT reference (b/c I already know its noplace in the OT). Find me one place where we read that Israel believed they would stay safe in the land, if they just remembered to circumcize. Prophets do not inveigh against this view, nor do they support it. Instead, we have a people who as far as we can tell anything regarding circumcision, practiced it with a fair degree of consistency down to the day they were expelled from the land en mass.

We're told they thought they'd be rescued from the Babylonians because God wouldn't let the Temple be destroyed. How come we don't read about all the confidence they were placing in circumcision? (and they certainly were practicing it). Being expelled from the land doesn't seem to have caused them to skip a beat as far as circumcision goes--we don't read of any prophets encouraging the exiles to "keep circumcising, because God will bring us back to the land." If circumcision was all about the land promise, and that's what the Israelites were taught, I would expect that to be a prominent theme of the prophets, pre, mid, and post exile. And there is _nothing_ at all there.

Grab your e-sword, and look up "circumcis" and "uncircumcis" and check the box marked "any words" and "partial match". The results are instructive. See where, how used, context. Where is the connection?

Here is a sign given in the middle of the most important chapter on the promise to Abraham respecting his SEED (Gen17), a sign being given in the MALE MEMBER (make the connection!), and its supposed to be primarily (or even exclusively) about land inheritance?

Please.


----------



## Arch2k

Contra_Mundum said:


> Circumcision and the "land promise." I have heard that before. And it is inexplicable to me. On what basis is this made? How on earth can anyone take Gen12:1-3 and chop it up into bits, and then say "circumcision related to the land promise"? Where is this ever stated in the Bible?--and I'll even accept a NT reference (b/c I already know its noplace in the OT). Find me one place where we read that Israel believed they would stay safe in the land, if they just remembered to circumcize. Prophets do not inveigh against this view, nor do they support it. Instead, we have a people who as far as we can tell anything regarding circumcision, practiced it with a fair degree of consistency down to the day they were expelled from the land en mass.


 My wife and I were talking about this exact thing after listening to the 1st half this afternoon. On to the 2nd...


----------



## Pilgrim

Scott Bushey said:


> Shisko's argument would have been better if he initially dealt w/ covenant.



What is the difference between dealing with the covenant and arguing the household (_oikos_) formula as Shishko does? Isn't the basis for household baptism the covenant promise to believers and their children?


----------



## ChristianTrader

satz said:


> CT,
> 
> I find your point intriguing but have difficulty understanding quite what you mean. Could you elaborate a little?



Okay I'll try but no promises as to understandability.

James White and others basically balk when it comes to what the OT says concerning the NT and how there will be continuity concerning children being included. He states that we should let the NT tell us what it is about and who is included. A big problem occurs when you attempt to use this hermeneutic in more than this one occasion.

For example, Paul commends the Bereans for searching to see if his words were so (by checking him by the OT). If the dispensational hermeneutic that White expresses, was to be used in the case of Paul and his interaction with the Bereans, then what he would have meant was something like this: "Yeah go ahead and look at the OT, but if you do not come to the conclusion that I am correct, then suck it up because I am Paul and I am an apostle of Jesus and I was chosen to write a large chunk of the NT.

CT


----------



## Scott Bushey

Pilgrim said:


> What is the difference between dealing with the covenant and arguing the household (_oikos_) formula as Shishko does? Isn't the basis for household baptism the covenant promise to believers and their children?



Covenant and promise are not the same things. The depth of what occurs at the level of covenant is what makes the promise so binding. God swearing by none greater than himself. Understanding what covenant means exactly, how they work, that they are eternal and have always included families would have in my opinion helped White understand the basis for the Oikos formula. In fact, it really should be called the 'bayith' formula, not the oikos formula; it originated in the garden after all.

I'll add: Arguing a perspective and trying to show it from a NT argument when it is established in the book of Genesis is putting the cart in front of the horse. I know time is a factor in these things, but hitting this idea first and how White understands covenant would have been helpful. For instance, I am sure you have heard me ask the credo believer, "Will the Earth ever again be destroyed by water"? Why not?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pilgrim said:


> At 60MB+ apiece, these files are huge. Well, I'm thinking the sound quality will be good. Downloading these on dial-up would probably take over an hour apiece.
> 
> They are also available via streaming audio. I wonder how long they will be available on the site, or if they will eventually post them to Sermon Audio.



Finally downloading these. Will start listening tomorrow. I'm surprised they encoded these at such high quality. I hope my 100Mbps fiber connection to the Internet is not taxed.


----------



## satz

ChristianTrader said:


> Okay I'll try but no promises as to understandability.
> 
> James White and others basically balk when it comes to what the OT says concerning the NT and how there will be continuity concerning children being included. He states that we should let the NT tell us what it is about and who is included. A big problem occurs when you attempt to use this hermeneutic in more than this one occasion.
> 
> For example, Paul commends the Bereans for searching to see if his words were so (by checking him by the OT). If the dispensational hermeneutic that White expresses, was to be used in the case of Paul and his interaction with the Bereans, then what he would have meant was something like this: "Yeah go ahead and look at the OT, but if you do not come to the conclusion that I am correct, then suck it up because I am Paul and I am an apostle of Jesus and I was chosen to write a large chunk of the NT.
> 
> CT



Thanks CT.

That was crystal clear 

I don't think though, that we can draw a solid one size fits all rule for this kind of thing. Paul and the other inspired apostles, by virtue of being divinely inspired obviously thought many things that could not be inferred nor checked against the OT scriptures. I don't think it is unreasonable to infer that the specific situation described in Acts refers to Paul preaching something that could be checked against the OT, prehaps akin to Stephen's sermon earlier in the book, one that drew heavily on the promises and happenings of the OT. But that does not mean that in principle there is not a lot of new revelation in the NT that must be understood _primarily_ from the NT because it is the final revelation of God before the closing of the canon and did involve the revelation of new truths not previously seen in the OT.

I am inclined to believe that the Berean passage in Acts was recorded for us believers who have the complete bible to encourage us to search the scriptures to ensure the things thought to us are true. The historical bereans were operating in a special time in history when the bible was still coming togeather and inspired apostles walked the earth. The 'conflict' that they faced (ie apostle vs the scriptures), if it can be called such, would not apply to us.

I do believe that the NT is of primary importance (primary, not sole) in determining church doctrine and practice. After the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, there was a great change, a 'shaking of the heaven and earth' regarding how God was worshipped. And it is primarily though the apostles that Jesus Christ sent out that this new way is revealed.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

ChristianTrader said:


> I think one of the most interesting places in the debate was the discussion of the OT promises concerning the NT. It seems that James White wishes to understand them in light of his Understanding of what the NT says about itself. It looks to me that such a position would absolutely destroy Bereanism. How can you search the scriptures to check if what one says is so, under his model. If all one has to look to is the OT to check out what Paul was saying, then what James White seems to be advocating is just saying, "Well you are Paul/or another Apostle, I must just be wrong".
> 
> Was Paul being hypothetical about searching to see if it was so, like the hypothetical about covenant members falling away?
> 
> CT




This is a great point, I never considered this in relation to the Berean acclamation.


----------



## JM

satz said:


> I am inclined to believe that the Berean passage in Acts was recorded for us believers who have the complete bible to encourage us to search the scriptures to ensure the things thought to us are true. The historical bereans were operating in a special time in history when the bible was still coming togeather and inspired apostles walked the earth. The 'conflict' that they faced (ie apostle vs the scriptures), if it can be called such, would not apply to us.
> 
> I do believe that the NT is of primary importance (primary, not sole) in determining church doctrine and practice. After the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, there was a great change, a 'shaking of the heaven and earth' regarding how God was worshipped. And it is primarily though the apostles that Jesus Christ sent out that this new way is revealed.



Agreed.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*Unconvinced*



Devin said:


> This is the first formal debate that I have heard on the topic of baptism, though I've read through several online on boards like these. Having listened to debates featuring Dr. White before, I expected that his effort would be Biblically solid and logical. I, as a Baptist, was not disappointed.
> 
> Alternatively, I have to say that I found Pastor Shishko's apologetic method and emphasis on the household principle to be intriguing and worthy of further study.



Hi Devin:

Like I said earlier - the convinced will not be unconvinced. Yet, I am curious that you considered Dr. White to be "Biblically solid and logical." Could you expand on this statement concerning two points?

1) "Infants are incapable of faith" - you consider this statement to be Biblical and logical? Where in Scripture do you find such an idea? 

2)"because of the rarity of that experience" - How would you say that this is Biblical and logical given the facts of over 2000 years of Covenant history *plus* the preponderance of evidence of household baptisms in the New Testament? Clearly, the experience of household baptisms is not a "rarity."

In Jesus,

-CH


----------



## Devin

1) To get to my answer, I'd have to ask you the same question in reverse: Does the Bible give us warrant to believe that _infants_ can have faith? If it doesn't, then I don't think it's safe to go beyond the Word and presume they can. 

2) Just to clarify: which 2000 years are you refering to?

Edit: Also, while I am convinced of the credobaptist position _thus far_, I'd like to make sure everyone knows that it's not an issue I have devoted an incredible amount of time on. So while I came to the debate as a credobaptist, I was very interested in hearing the other side. Thus, please don't expect me to be able to argue every point Dr. White made. This area of my theology is still in development as far as apologizing for it goes.


----------



## elnwood

Scott Bushey said:


> Still listening. Here's a funny quote by White:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "How do we know who the elect are today? By their profession of faith"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.O.F. does not guarantee election. P.O.F. guarantees membership into the _visible_ body solely.
Click to expand...


And he also says that elders are to baptize the elect "to the best of their ability" (18:40, Pt. 1). White makes it very clear that a profession of faith does not guarantee election (19:05).

Everybody knows White doesn't teach that a profession guarantees election. So why misrepresent him like that? It may be acceptable in politics to take a quotation and present it such that it appears that a person is saying something that he does not really mean, but I do not think that this is acceptable for a Christian to do.


----------



## VanVos

Good debate. Of course I believe James White proved the credo-baptist position. Although, I think a more comprehensive overview of the unity of the Covenant of Grace in redemptive history was needed. But other than that the credobaptist position was clearly articulated and defended.

VanVos


----------



## polemic_turtle

I listened to it today and wasn't completely satisfied with either approach. Debates are simply not long enough to answer every question you wish would be answered. I'm happy to see men acting in a manly fashion and not letting their differences make them emotional. There were times I thought that they both seemed to stumble, like Pastor Shishko at the question of the lack of a sign upon infants from Adam to Abraham and Dr. White when he didn't like what I would call the "prejudicial" nature of the phrase "radical departure" in reference to the abrogation of the household principle. Interesting questions were raised on both sides, though not enough was said. I wish Dr. White would also do 23 lectures on baptism, because it's so unfair to give Pastor Shishko so much time to develop his position without giving Dr. White the chance to do the same. Who can know that I won't be swayed by the mere extra time he has to take a different position??? Ah, well, Lord help us to be civil and manly in our disagreements, if we must have them. I want to love my Presbyterian brothers, even if I can never convince myself to join with them on this.


----------



## Dan....

JM said:


> Dr. White did bring up the scripture about Grace dividing the household, father against son, etc. I didn’t hear really hear a response by Pastor Shishko.



If I remember correctly, Dr. White brought that passage as a response to Pastor Shishko's challenge for the baptist to prove discontinuity in the household principle.

The burden of proof is on the baptist to prove that there is discontinuity in the inclusion of children (or households) in the administration of the covenant.

Dr. White attempts to use this passage in response as a reason to believe that there is a discontinuity in the New Covenant.

Personally, I think that to use Dr. White's argument from this passage, one must first prove that variance of son against father and daughter against mother is foreign to the Old Testament scriptures.

To find variance in households in the OT, you don't have to look very far. Look at Adam's household, or David's household, or Samuel's household, or Isaac's household. 

Where's the discontinuity?


----------



## JM

Good point Dan.


----------



## Scott Bushey

elnwood said:


> And he also says that elders are to baptize the elect "to the best of their ability" (18:40, Pt. 1). White makes it very clear that a profession of faith does not guarantee election (19:05).
> 
> Everybody knows White doesn't teach that a profession guarantees election. So why misrepresent him like that? It may be acceptable in politics to take a quotation and present it such that it appears that a person is saying something that he does not really mean, but I do not think that this is acceptable for a Christian to do.



First of all, I did reiterate the statement w/ more accuracy earlier in the thread after I made it. Did you read the thread in it's entirety before making your judgment?

Here's what I said:



> *Accurately*, he says: "How do we know who the elect are today? By their profession of faith. We have no greater means".



I agree w/ White here. We have no greater means.


----------



## JM

Just wondering, White brought up a rhetorical question about Southern Presbyterians, why didn't they baptize slaves during slavery? [or did they?] 

Isn’t the emphasis on the physical seed receiving the promise a tenet of Dispensationalism?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Dan.... said:


> If I remember correctly, Dr. White brought that passage as a response to Pastor Shishko's challenge for the baptist to prove discontinuity in the household principle.
> 
> The burden of proof is on the baptist to prove that there is discontinuity in the inclusion of children (or households) in the administration of the covenant.
> 
> Dr. White attempts to use this passage in response as a reason to believe that there is a discontinuity in the New Covenant.
> 
> Personally, I think that to use Dr. White's argument from this passage, one must first prove that variance of son against father and daughter against mother is foreign to the Old Testament scriptures.
> 
> To find variance in households in the OT, you don't have to look very far. Look at Adam's household, or David's household, or Samuel's household, or Isaac's household.
> 
> Where's the discontinuity?



Not to mention that it tortures the meaning of the text. Every time I see a Reformed Baptist distort this passage to support the idea of discontinuity I wince. It's as if God has one hand behind His back through the whole of Proverbs and every other Scripture that speaks of the joy of spiritual blessing at having your children follow you in the faith and seeing your children's children calling upon the name of the Lord. Jesus supposedly comes along with a huge wrecking ball. Where the Old Covenant saints rejoiced in seeing their children grow in faith from the knee, Christ proclaims good(?) news to them: "...in this new, _better_ Covenant I've coming to _divide_ households."

Yippee!!


----------



## VanVos

I often hear this critique of the credo-baptist position; that we assert too much discontinuity. But again I think the New Testament gives us warrant to do so. How about the messianic psalms, or the prophesies of the church age. We could say Jesus came along and proclaims that typological dimension of the Old covenant are abrogated. i.e. Passages like Jeremiah 31 and Amos 9 are directly applied to the church Heb 8, Acts 15. In other words, the New Covenant was prophesied through lenses of the Old covenant era, making the New Covenant legible for the original audience. I think we have the same situation with the children’s children promises. The Old Covenant was hereditary in the sense that it was inclusive of all who were covenantal/ethnic Israel. So when we read prophesies of the New Covenant in the Old Covenant it speaks of all of Israel being saved Deut 30:4-6 Ezek 36 etc. In the New Covenant era we see how that is fulfilled in the salvation of the elect Heb 8 John 3:37, 44 Rom 11:25 etc. Again it's type and antitype. 

Btw most credos believe that the principle of child rearing in the admonition of Lord is carried over into the New Testament, we just don’t believe it is covenantal in nature as was in the Old Testament because it has served its purpose in preserving covenant line for the Messiah. But I’m sure you've heard these types of responses before, so I’ll resist from going over old ground with more credo talk. Plus some of the best theologians are paedo-baptist.

VanVos


----------



## Semper Fidelis

VanVos said:


> IBtw most credos believe that the principle of child rearing in the admonition of Lord is carried over into the New Testament, we just don’t believe it is covenantal in nature as was in the Old Testament because it has served its purpose in preserving covenant line for the Messiah. But I’m sure you've heard these types of responses before, so I’ll resist from going over old ground with more credo talk. Plus some of the best theologians are paedo-baptist.
> 
> VanVos



I don't doubt that but to twist the passage of Scripture where Christ is talking about "...sons against fathers..." to mean that it's talking about Covenant discontinuity is pure eisegesis. It would also fly in the face of any sense of the admonitions about child rearing. I could just as easily twist the passage in a similar fashion when you quote a "child-rearing" passage and say: "Well, that's true of the Old Covenant but in the New Covenant we expect sons to reject their parents given Jesus clear principle here...."

Your position does not stand or fall on the use of the use of this verse and I'm only suggesting that when it is used it does great damage to the credibility of the argument.


----------



## Scott Bushey

All in all, the debate went as expected. The understanding by both camps in regards to the extremity of what _covenant_ actually means, when the NC began, What the book of Hebrews speaks about and means, are worlds apart from the accuracy of biblical hermeneutics. White was 'consistently' dispensational and rarely utilized any OT references as support for his arguments, whereas Shisko utilized the whole bible. Shisko's approach was feasible, but I believe he would have had a better chance of getting his point across if he approached it from Genesis. They both seemed to be all over the place at times.

Dr. Shisko makes an attempt at driving home the idea that after 2000 years, something as 'radical' as abrogation of the oikos formula would have been clearly drawn out by the HS; and it isn't. The Jew of the day would have been railing against the concept. John and Peter would have had to deal with this, openly. But instead, the hearers of the gospel in Acts are obviously zombified into just disregarding a principle that made Jews, Jewish. No mentioning. No complaint. No questioning. This is ludicrous. 

My opinion, debates like this are somewhat profitable. However, as I mentioned, unless one understands the extent of the nature of covenant, you will miss the tree's for the forest. It is fundamentally, without a doubt, impossible to understand God without understanding covenant, and that was never addressed.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Scott Bushey said:


> All in all, the debate went as expected. The understanding by both camps in regards to the extremity of what _covenant_ actually means, when the NC began, What the book of Hebrews speaks about and means, are worlds apart from the accuracy of biblical hermeneutics. White was 'consistently' dispensational and rarely utilized any OT references as support for his arguments, whereas Shisko utilized the whole bible. Shisko's approach was feasible, but I believe he would have had a better chance of getting his point across if he approached it from Genesis. They both seemed to be all over the place at times.
> 
> Dr. Shisko makes an attempt at driving home the idea that after 2000 years, something as 'radical' as abrogation of the oikos formula would have been clearly drawn out by the HS; and it isn't. The Jew of the day would have been railing against the concept. John and Peter would have had to deal with this, openly. But instead, the hearers of the gospel in Acts are obviously zombified into just disregarding a principle that made Jews, Jewish. No mentioning. No complaint. No questioning. This is ludicrous.
> 
> My opinion, debates like this are somewhat profitable. However, as I mentioned, unless one understands the extent of the nature of covenant, you will miss the tree's for the forest. It is fundamentally, without a doubt, impossible to understand God without understanding covenant, and that was never addressed.



I've listened to the first half and about 20 minutes of the second. At least in the downloads I got it skipped over a good deal of the second presentation by Shishko unfortunately.

I think Pastor Shishko pointed out that radical departure pretty well to the point that Dr. White has to try to pretend that the land promise is a radical change while Shishko shows its expansion. It's a powerful point - the New Covenant expands everywhere and, without much comment, radically changes in the administration of the COG cutting children completely out.

Honestly the Reformed Baptist weakness in response to that is pretty glaring to me (obviously not so glaring to a Presbyterian). At best, Dr. White could only muster historical narratives as "examples" of the Apostolic practice of believers only baptism. No didactic instruction to radically modify a huge body of didactic teaching on the inclusion of children in God's covenant dealings with men.

Ironically, as well, he keeps referring to a "consistent Reformed hermaneutic...." Folks, Reformed theology is _Covenant_ theology (and by that I mean as historic Reformed theology has understood the term). He employed a consistent "pre-destinarian Baptist" hermeneutic to the Scriptures and _not_ a consistent Reformed hermeneutic. I'll even accept him calling it a consistent "Reformed Baptist" hermaneutic in order to be magnanimous!

I'm sure I'll have more observations when I finish listening to it.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*Infants are capable*



Devin said:


> 1) To get to my answer, I'd have to ask you the same question in reverse: Does the Bible give us warrant to believe that _infants_ can have faith? If it doesn't, then I don't think it's safe to go beyond the Word and presume they can.
> 
> 2) Just to clarify: which 2000 years are you refering to?
> 
> Edit: Also, while I am convinced of the credobaptist position _thus far_, I'd like to make sure everyone knows that it's not an issue I have devoted an incredible amount of time on. So while I came to the debate as a credobaptist, I was very interested in hearing the other side. Thus, please don't expect me to be able to argue every point Dr. White made. This area of my theology is still in development as far as apologizing for it goes.



Hi Devin:

Yes, I believe that the Bible gives us every reason to believe that children of believers are outward members of the Covenant of Grace. The immediate knee-jerk reaction of the Baptists is that "how can we know they are saved?" We cannot know this as an absolute fact. Only God knows who are His Elect. The Bible gives us reason to believe that even non-Elect children of Believers are members of the Covenant of Grace.

The First example is that of Abraham. He was given the sign of the Covenant of Grace in circumcision. This sign, he was told, was to be given to every male infant born to him. Both Ishmael and Isaac received the sign of circumcision - yet we know that "in Isaac shall your seed be called" - and Ishmael was not the child of promise. From Isaac both Jacob and Esau were born - both of whom received the sign of circumcision. We also know, "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated." Consequently, Esau entered into the outward sign of the Covenant of Grace, but, according to all Scripture that I know, was never saved.

The sign of the Covenant of Grace (circumcision) was never denied Esau even though God rejected him from the foundation of the world. Esau did not receive the sign of the Covenant because he made a profession of faith, but because he was under the Federal headship of his father Isaac.

The pattern of paedo/circumcision/baptism is established. Abraham believed God, Gen. 15, then later on was given the sign of circumcision, Gen. 17. This sign was not given to Abraham only, but to every male infant in his household. The requirement for faith in the infants was not necessary because the promises of the Covenant of Grace were given to Abraham and his household - including his male servants, Gen. 17:9-14.

This has been the norm among the people of God for over 2000 years. And it is the way the Jews understood their relationship with God. Pastor Shishko rightly required Dr. White to show that such a concept was abrogated in the New Testament.

If the Baptist position is correct, then we should no more hear of household baptism in the New Testament. Yet, in every instance of household baptism, like Abraham, it was the head of the household that believed first, and then the rest of the household. In some of these households we are told that all of the members believed. But we are not told if this is a true faith, like Issac, or a temporary faith, like Simon the Sorceror. We are also not told if there are any infants or young children in the household.

What we have in the New Testament is the promise that if the head of the household is a believer, then we can reasonably expect the rest of the household to believe as well. When Peter related the conversion of Cornelius and his household to the Jewish believers they realized that the principle was being extended to the Gentiles as well, Acts 11:18.

The Bible gives us every reason to believe that the children of believers are considered members of the Covenant of Grace, Luke 18:15,16; Acts 2:38; John 3:8; Acts 4:12; 1 Cor. 7:14; Luke 1:41; 2 Samuel 12:22,23.

If Jesus tells us that children of believers are members of the Kingdom of Heaven, Luke 18:15,16, then how can we deny them Baptism here on Earth? 

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Scott Bushey

CalvinandHodges said:


> This has been the norm among the people of God for over 2000 years. And it is the way the Jews understood their relationship with God. Pastor Shishko rightly required Dr. White to show that such a concept was abrogated in the New Testament.
> 
> If the Baptist position is correct, then we should no more hear of household baptism in the New Testament. Yet, in every instance of household baptism, like Abraham, it was the head of the household that believed first,



Pastor Shisko had a golden opportunity to explain federal headship on more than one occasion and bypassed it. Covenant and federal headship go hand and hand. This is why I say that _sometimes_ these debates can be fruitful, however, in this case, arguing from the middle out, it probably caused more confusion. You have to have the fundamental idea of what a covenant is to understand why abrogation of the federal head principle would be mindless.

Another item that would have been helpful would be the distinction between the visible and invisible church. White as well believes that the NC began @ the cross instead of being _fulfilled_ at Calvary. White said that 'wretched people were included in the OC.' The OC he refers to is the covenant of works; this is another distinction that needed to be made; this is why I said the book of Hebrews meant something different to both parties; they never resolved this contention or brought to light that they were not both talking of apples. One was talking about apples and the other oranges. The NC has always had 'wretched sinners in her visible side! How can this be denied? If it can be denied, how is it supported in light of people apostisizing every day? Well, White may say, the NC is better, ALL will know the Lord; how is this statement any different for the saint in Genesis? 

Here's another thing: Shisko had the opportunity to take White to all the OT passages that were referenced in the book of Acts. Example: Acts 2; Peter quotes Joel. Shisko never even mentions Joel and what Peter was saying here. This was monumental!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

You know, debaters have to use strategy. Perhaps Shishko wanted to use other arguments than the "old standbys" that he knew White had probably got some quick-fire ammo, some pre-placed ordinance, set up to fire off. I'll bet JW did the same thing.

Also remember, this is all a contest, and you also have to play the game once you get there. You can't play the "gameplan" regardless of what happens.


----------



## notgollum

I have to agree with Bruce.
Pastor Shishko simply did not have the time to do what Scott has suggested although there were times he did bring up the covenant.
There were many RB's attending and I am certain PS tried his best to communicate his understanding of baptism with them primarily in mind.

Also having attended the debate White seemed at times flustered by Shishko's cross examination especially when the question of what age would you baptize. White's answer was "that is a pastoral matter".
To me it looked like James was in the "principal's office".


----------



## JM

Contra_Mundum said:


> You know, debaters have to use strategy. Perhaps Shishko wanted to use other arguments than the "old standbys" that he knew White had probably got some quick-fire ammo, some pre-placed ordinance, set up to fire off. I'll bet JW did the same thing.
> 
> Also remember, this is all a contest, and you also have to play the game once you get there. You can't play the "gameplan" regardless of what happens.



Good point, lets not forget White and Shishko are friends and have probably done enough discussion on this topic in private to know what each other is going to say. 

jm


----------



## Scott Bushey

JM said:


> Good point, lets not forget White and Shishko are friends and have probably done enough discussion on this topic in private to know what each other is going to say.
> 
> jm



So, it was all a show?


----------



## Scott Bushey

notgollum said:


> I have to agree with Bruce.
> Pastor Shishko simply did not have the time to do what Scott has suggested although there were times he did bring up the covenant.
> There were many RB's attending and I am certain PS tried his best to communicate his understanding of baptism with them primarily in mind.
> 
> Also having attended the debate White seemed at times flustered by Shishko's cross examination especially when the question of what age would you baptize. White's answer was "that is a pastoral matter".
> To me it looked like James was in the "principal's office".



Would it be illogical to try and explain the gospel to someone without first including the fall and mans depravity? There are ways to argue. I believe Shisko argued on Credo soil.

Another thing that dawned on me was White's challenge that the NT was silent on the issue of paedobaptism. I don't think James has an issue w/ tithing, yet there is as much silence in the NT regarding this topic.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Scott Bushey said:


> Another thing that dawned on me was White's challenge that the NT was silent on the issue of paedobaptism. I don't think James has an issue w/ tithing, yet there is as much silence in the NT regarding this topic.



I don't think Baptists would agree with your last statement:

For example, see John MacArthur's take here.


----------



## JM

Scott Bushey said:


> So, it was all a show?



That's not what I was trying to say.


----------



## youthevang

Scott Bushey said:


> Blowing this one totally shows his ignorance of _covenant_ and the extent of it.
> 
> Here are a few others:
> 
> In regards to Abraham's faith: "it came first, then the sign. (The Baptist) gives the sign, not in hopes of faith, but because THERE IS FAITH". *My emphasis added.
> 
> 
> The promise in the OT for the children that had the sign placed, "was related only to land".
> 
> White many times mentions NT, NT, NT. He sounds very dispensational in my opinion.
> 
> Disc one; I was not impressed by the credo argument. Shisko's argument would have been better if he initially dealt w/ covenant.



There was another place in the debate where it shows that Dr. White did not understand covenant. It was his question with regards to not having a covenant sign of the covenant of grace from Adam to Abraham. In saying that the sign was given because of land promises.


----------



## JM

There was a few places in the debate where it shows that Pastor Shishko did not understand the new covenant. It had to do with the emphasis on the physical seed being the spiritual seed of Abraham.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

JM said:


> There was a few places in the debate where it shows that Pastor Shishko did not understand the new covenant. It had to do with the emphasis on the physical seed being the spiritual seed of Abraham.



Hay JM:

I hope you find a good church in your search.

I do not understand your point. In the Old Testament both Ishmael and Issac were physical descendents of Abraham, both received the sign of circumcision. Yet, "In Isaac shall your seed be called."

Could you clarify your point for me?

God bless,

-CH


----------



## JM

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hay JM:
> 
> I hope you find a good church in your search.
> 
> I do not understand your point. In the Old Testament both Ishmael and Issac were physical descendents of Abraham, both received the sign of circumcision. Yet, "In Isaac shall your seed be called."
> 
> Could you clarify your point for me?
> 
> God bless,
> 
> -CH




Sorry, I don't believe I can. 

Thank you for your well wishes on Church hunting...I'm going to visit another Church this Sunday night and if the statement of faith means anything, it should be both Calvinistic and Baptistic...please offer my name before the throne of God.

Thanks.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*An itch that needs scratching*

Season's Greetings:

Something about the Baptist argument has always rubbed me the wrong way. It appears to me that they take this phrase literally:

Believe and be baptized.

If we take these words literally, then what are we to do with the following texts?

*1) And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world, 1 John 2:2.

2) For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth, 1 Tim. 2:3,4.

3) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe, 1 Tim. 4:10.

4) But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man, Hebrews 2:9.*

1) Did Jesus (literally) die for the "sins of the whole world"?

2) Can the will of God be thwarted by men?

3) Does Jesus (literally) save "all men"?

4) Did Jesus (literally) "taste death for every man"?

If we follow the Baptist's hermeneutic, then what will stop us from interpreting these verses literally as well? The Baptist may (rightly) argue that we compare these verses with other passages of scripture. But that is the very point of paedo-baptism.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Kaalvenist

A few thoughts after listening to the debate:

1. I myself wonder about the "circumcision relates to the land promise" allegation. I don't think Dr. White ever actually made that argument; he simply asked Pastor Shishko questions in cross-examination which made it sound as if that was his position. But I have never heard any actual substantiation of that idea; whereas his own position that circumcision "prefigured" regeneration seems to argue against the idea that circumcision was tied to the land promise.

2. Which leads me to ask regarding the idea that circumcision "prefigured" regeneration: Where does this idea come from, other than a strained reading of Col. 2:10-12? How does anyone with "Reformed" in their church name assert that something in the Old Testament "prefigured" regeneration? Wouldn't that mean that Old Testament "saints" did not experience regeneration (because it would be a prefiguring of something under the New Testament, and so not a then present reality), and so (since regeneration precedes faith) did not have faith, and so were not saved, etc.? Was not circumcision then a sacrament, rather than a type, which represented spiritual benefits capable of being experienced under that dispensation? And would not its correlation to baptism then be rather manifest, since both are sacraments of initiation into church membership, and represent the same spiritual benefits?

3. The line from Spurgeon seems rather disingenuous. As I recall, it goes back to a debate that Spurgeon had with a paedobaptist, and they gave specific texts to discuss. The paedobaptist gave the one from the gospels, where Christ says of infants, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven (or God)." Spurgeon then gave Job 1:1. The paedobaptist said that it had no reference to the subject under debate; and Spurgeon replied that neither did his text. White claimed that Shishko's references did not relate to the subject of baptism. I suppose that I would ask what reference Hebrews 8 has to baptism. Where is baptism mentioned in that entire chapter? But the whole point of the Reformed Baptist reference to that chapter is to identify who are the members of the church; and that is the reason for paedobaptist reference to such texts. If they are members of the church ("the kingdom of heaven"), they should be received into the church by baptism.

4. I have never heard of anyone even suggesting that the "father against his son" references in the gospels have reference to the supposed change of infant membership in the church. If Dr. White wanted to look at such passages, I would recommend to him the prophecy concerning John the Baptist, that he would turn the hearts of the fathers to the children.

5. White didn't seem to understand what Shishko was saying regarding the expansion under the New Testament. If membership in the new covenant is now "circumscribed" to the called elect (which means that the "perfection" of the new covenant is always going to be administered imperfectly), then that is a farther restriction placed upon the new covenant, not correlating to the expansion we see of the gospel going out to all peoples, both Jews and Gentiles; the covenant seal being administered to both sexes, male and female; the halt and maimed being received into full favor with God, etc. In the face of all this, can it be reasonably argued that the infant members of the Old Testament church have been cast out of the church -- and that without any explicit reference in the Old or New Testament? Please note that Hebrews 8 makes no mention of infants; and yet, on the basis of this text, we should assume that the relation that has existed in all covenants made between God and man for some reason no longer exists, infants are cast out of the church, etc.?

There's other points, but those are some of the big ones.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Excellent points - especially this:


Kaalvenist said:


> 5. White didn't seem to understand what Shishko was saying regarding the expansion under the New Testament. If membership in the new covenant is now "circumscribed" to the called elect (which means that the "perfection" of the new covenant is always going to be administered imperfectly), then that is a farther restriction placed upon the new covenant, not correlating to the expansion we see of the gospel going out to all peoples, both Jews and Gentiles; the covenant seal being administered to both sexes, male and female; the halt and maimed being received into full favor with God, etc. In the face of all this, can it be reasonably argued that the infant members of the Old Testament church have been cast out of the church -- and that without any explicit reference in the Old or New Testament? Please note that Hebrews 8 makes no mention of infants; and yet, on the basis of this text, we should assume that the relation that has existed in all covenants made between God and man for some reason no longer exists, infants are cast out of the church, etc.?



I do remember Dr. White's relatively consistent refrain: "I have to ask - what does that have to do with Baptism...."

Without Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8, Reformed Baptists would have little to write about as they spend so much time trying to establish that New Covenant membership is the Elect alone.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*The "land promise"*

Hay Sean:



> 1. I myself wonder about the "circumcision relates to the land promise" allegation. I don't think Dr. White ever actually made that argument; he simply asked Pastor Shishko questions in cross-examination which made it sound as if that was his position. But I have never heard any actual substantiation of that idea; whereas his own position that circumcision "prefigured" regeneration seems to argue against the idea that circumcision was tied to the land promise.



Dr. White does actually make the argument that the circumcision of infants had to do with the promise. It is at the very end of part 1 where Pastor Shishko is cross-examining Dr. White (1:17:19). I almost laughed when I heard that often debunked argument being used, and I wonder why Pastor Shishko did not take advantage of it - being "too nice" I guess?

Anyway, good to see you back, I hope you are doing well. Email me when you can I have some news about our Dispensationalist friend Greg as well as our Baptist friend Dave.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## JM

CH, I'm not sure how the argument for circumcision relating to land promises, but I'd like to post what I think it "might" be...feel free to rip holes into it, I'm still reforming, always reforming, always reforming...  

I'm thinking it goes something like this...

3 Basic Aspects of Covenant
1. Land (Palestinian) 
2. Seed (Davidic) 
3. Blessing (New) 

Abraham had 8 sons by 3 different women, only through Sarah's son Isaac was the Covenant to be passed. Gen. 26:2-5, 24 

Provisions to Isaac 
1. Blessings Gen. 26:3, 24 
2. Land Promised 
3. Multiply descendants & become a 'people' 
4. Gentiles would be blessed 
5. Based on God's covenant with Abraham 

These provisions were passed on to Jacob only. Gen. 28:13-15 

Provisions to Jacob 
1. Land Promised to Jacob and his seed Gen. 28:13,15 
2. Seed multiplied v.14 
3. Gentiles blessed through seed 

Covenant provisions confirmed to all of Jacob's twelve sons who are the fathers of the twelve tribes as found in Genesis 49. So I figure the covenant made by God with Abraham which included his children would be related to the physical/national/ethnic Israel, those descending from the phsyical seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and not the spiritual seed. 

Don't say it! [dispensationalist] I'm just a Baptist.


----------



## Kaalvenist

Another point I thought of: Dr. White claimed that, in no sphere of doctrinal development do we proceed in the manner we do to develop the Reformed case for paedobaptism. I have four words for him: "First Day Sabbath Observance."

JM: A couple problems that I see are, (1.) All of God's covenants, not just the Davidic covenant, included the children of the covenanters; (2.) All of God's covenants have promised blessing, not just the new covenant; and, (3.) You are positing major disjunctions between these various covenants, instead of understanding them to all spell out a single, unified covenant of grace -- which *is* dispensational.


----------



## JM

Kaalvenist said:


> Another point I thought of: Dr. White claimed that, in no sphere of doctrinal development do we proceed in the manner we do to develop the Reformed case for paedobaptism. I have four words for him: "First Day Sabbath Observance."
> 
> JM: A couple problems that I see are, (1.) All of God's covenants, not just the Davidic covenant, included the children of the covenanters; (2.) All of God's covenants have promised blessing, not just the new covenant; and, (3.) You are positing major disjunctions between these various covenants, instead of understanding them to all spell out a single, unified covenant of grace -- which *is* dispensational.



I agree to the disjunctions between covenants...but did I at least have a grasp of the argument? I've never heard the full argument presented before.

~JM~


----------



## Scott Bushey

Kaalvenist said:


> Another point I thought of: Dr. White claimed that, in no sphere of doctrinal development do we proceed in the manner we do to develop the Reformed case for paedobaptism. I have four words for him: "First Day Sabbath Observance."
> 
> JM: A couple problems that I see are, (1.) All of God's covenants, not just the Davidic covenant, included the children of the covenanters; (2.) All of God's covenants have promised blessing, not just the new covenant; and, (3.) You are positing major disjunctions between these various covenants, instead of understanding them to all spell out a single, unified covenant of grace -- which *is* dispensational.



I'll add: All of the covenants are eternal and none of them are abrogated.


----------



## JM

JM said:


> I agree to the disjunctions between covenants...but did I at least have a grasp of the argument? I've never heard the full argument presented before.
> 
> ~JM~


----------



## Scott Bushey

JM said:


>




JM,
You didn't hear the full argument there either; thats what I've been saying. Unless you have the basics of CT down, both camps will be talking past each other; one talking about oranges, the other about apples. It's an unavoidable conundrum. The only reason I became paedo is because I allowed for the wiring to be rewired for the sake of truth. I allowed for the paedo idea and challenged it, trying to prove it illicit and couldn't. 

I will add: Anyone who's position is based upon default is no position at all.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*Children of the Promise*

Hay:

When Dr. White tries to explain the Acts 2:39, "For the promise is made to you and to your children..." he tries to cross-reference it with Matthew 27:25 which reads:

*Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.*

He claims that the curse the Jews made in Matthew 27:25 was remitted by Peter in the Acts passage. In making this claim he seems to think that he has avoided the Covenantal perorgatives of Believers and their children. However, the facts are just the opposite.

But the Jews are calling down the responsibility of their actions upon their children as well - who had no say in their decision. This is clear case of Federal Theology at work and in the understanding of the 1st Century believers.

By uniting Matthew 27:25 with Acts 2:39 Dr. White is actually making a sound case for the paedo-baptist position. Paedo-baptists argue that Federal Theology is firmly in the mind of Peter when he preached in Acts chapter 2. If, as Dr. White claims, that Matthew 27:25 was in the mind of Peter when he spoke, then it would necessarily follow that Peter was speaking of the Covenantal priviledges that believers have with their children.

Dr. White is actually trying to use Covenant theology against itself.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Good point.


----------



## Iconoclast

*It was instructive*

I was able to attend this debate. Pastor Shishko was able to present much of his material from his lengthy series of bible studies which are available on sermon audio.
Pastor Shishko is a faithful minister of God's word and sought to present the padeo position in the time allowed. I am sure both men would have liked much more time to develop some of their theological threads. Pastor Shishko was very good on showing how God has indeed worked in times past in families and households and this was one of the most instructive parts of His presentation.
Many times in baptist churches there is not as much an emphasis on this as there should be . Pastor Shishko sought to frame this out and demonstrate it and the material he put out was worthwhile.
James White went about to give a Reformed Baptist presentation of what took place in the book of Acts. James White was able to show some inconsistencies in the position offered.
The men made it clear that they were brothers in Christ by new birth. They were not looking to make personal attacks as that is not productive.
There were times when I felt that a more forceful arguement could have been offered in a decisive way, but I sensed a letting up if you will with the answer being pointed too,but not completely pressed home. 
The question and answer portion was short in my opinion. We were allowed one written question with no follow up. The next time I speak with Dr.White I will invite him to come onto the puritanboard and watch you explain to him his "mistaken presuppositions"


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Anthony,

I have been personal friends with Dr. White for 7 years. 

When I started a thread on the Puritanboard challenging Dr. White on his inconsistencies, I sent him a personal e-mail so that he could interact here if he desired. I don't post things behind people's backs that I'm not willing to interact with them on to their face. To do so in Dr. White's case would be to stab a friend in the back.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Iconoclast said:


> I was able to attend this debate. Pastor Shishko was able to present much of his material from his lengthy series of bible studies which are available on sermon audio.
> Pastor Shishko is a faithful minister of God's word and sought to present the padeo position in the time allowed. I am sure both men would have liked much more time to develop some of their theological threads. Pastor Shishko was very good on showing how God has indeed worked in times past in families and households and this was one of the most instructive parts of His presentation.
> Many times in baptist churches there is not as much an emphasis on this as there should be . Pastor Shishko sought to frame this out and demonstrate it and the material he put out was worthwhile.
> James White went about to give a Reformed Baptist presentation of what took place in the book of Acts. James White was able to show some inconsistencies in the position offered.
> The men made it clear that they were brothers in Christ by new birth. They were not looking to make personal attacks as that is not productive.
> There were times when I felt that a more forceful arguement could have been offered in a decisive way, but I sensed a letting up if you will with the answer being pointed too,but not completely pressed home.
> The question and answer portion was short in my opinion. We were allowed one written question with no follow up. The next time I speak with Dr.White I will invite him to come onto the puritanboard and watch you explain to him his "mistaken presuppositions"



Greetings:

Hearing James White's presentation at that time I doubt very highly that he would do so, because any paedo here would clean his clock.

The more you get to know him the more you will realize that Dr. White will not debate a person he senses will get the best of him. Dr. White goes after easy targets: KJO fanatics, Mormons, Roman Catholics, etc...

You do not need to wait to speak with him. You can email him and ask him to do so.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Iconoclast

*a matter of perspective*



notgollum said:


> I have to agree with Bruce.
> Pastor Shishko simply did not have the time to do what Scott has suggested although there were times he did bring up the covenant.
> There were many RB's attending and I am certain PS tried his best to communicate his understanding of baptism with them primarily in mind.
> 
> Also having attended the debate White seemed at times flustered by Shishko's cross examination especially when the question of what age would you baptize. White's answer was "that is a pastoral matter".
> To me it looked like James was in the "principal's office".




The look you are describing was James White trying to ease up. there were several series of questions that pastor Shishko basically side stepped and Dr.White let it go
Dr.White pointed out that the padeo baptist on the issue of padeo communion does the same thing as the baptist in reference to believers baptism. Do you also remember the series of questions about the adult who comes to faith but has children,not just infants some of whom deny the faith ,or some older than infants.
Dr . White raised the issue and then backed off. Both men did not have enough time to do much more.


----------



## Iconoclast

*did he answer you*



SemperFideles said:


> Anthony,
> 
> I have been personal friends with Dr. White for 7 years.
> 
> When I started a thread on the Puritanboard challenging Dr. White on his inconsistencies, I sent him a personal e-mail so that he could interact here if he desired. I don't post things behind people's backs that I'm not willing to interact with them on to their face. To do so in Dr. White's case would be to stab a friend in the back.



Rich, did he say he would come in? Did he respond to you in email? I will discuss it with him the next chance I have.
I know he he really working on the upcoming Islamic debate[ shabir allie]sp?
He has a growing concern as many of us do that Islam is spreading like a plague and needs to be addressed.
He comes out here once in awhile and is a frequent guest on a local christian radio show,iron sharpens iron, which is on mon-fri on the internet, at 3pm-4pm est.it is on 1440 spirit of ny. They have various pastors and guests on. It is small but growing


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Iconoclast said:


> notgollum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to agree with Bruce.
> Pastor Shishko simply did not have the time to do what Scott has suggested although there were times he did bring up the covenant.
> There were many RB's attending and I am certain PS tried his best to communicate his understanding of baptism with them primarily in mind.
> 
> Also having attended the debate White seemed at times flustered by Shishko's cross examination especially when the question of what age would you baptize. White's answer was "that is a pastoral matter".
> To me it looked like James was in the "principal's office".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The look you are describing was James White trying to ease up. there were several series of questions that pastor Shishko basically side stepped and Dr.White let it go
> Dr.White pointed out that the padeo baptist on the issue of padeo communion does the same thing as the baptist in reference to believers baptism. Do you also remember the series of questions about the adult who comes to faith but has children,not just infants some of whom deny the faith ,or some older than infants.
> Dr . White raised the issue and then backed off. Both men did not have enough time to do much more.
Click to expand...


Nonsence Anthony!

The criteria for communion is different than that of Baptism. Communion requires one to be able to discern the body and blood of Christ, and to examine oneself to make sure that one is in the faith. These are not requirments for Baptism.

-CH


----------



## Iconoclast

CalvinandHodges said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was able to attend this debate. Pastor Shishko was able to present much of his material from his lengthy series of bible studies which are available on sermon audio.
> Pastor Shishko is a faithful minister of God's word and sought to present the padeo position in the time allowed. I am sure both men would have liked much more time to develop some of their theological threads. Pastor Shishko was very good on showing how God has indeed worked in times past in families and households and this was one of the most instructive parts of His presentation.
> Many times in baptist churches there is not as much an emphasis on this as there should be . Pastor Shishko sought to frame this out and demonstrate it and the material he put out was worthwhile.
> James White went about to give a Reformed Baptist presentation of what took place in the book of Acts. James White was able to show some inconsistencies in the position offered.
> The men made it clear that they were brothers in Christ by new birth. They were not looking to make personal attacks as that is not productive.
> There were times when I felt that a more forceful arguement could have been offered in a decisive way, but I sensed a letting up if you will with the answer being pointed too,but not completely pressed home.
> The question and answer portion was short in my opinion. We were allowed one written question with no follow up. The next time I speak with Dr.White I will invite him to come onto the puritanboard and watch you explain to him his "mistaken presuppositions"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greetings:
> 
> Hearing James White's presentation at that time I doubt very highly that he would do so, because any paedo here would clean his clock.
> 
> The more you get to know him the more you will realize that Dr. White will not debate a person he senses will get the best of him. Dr. White goes after easy targets: KJO fanatics, Mormons, Roman Catholics, etc...
> 
> You do not need to wait to speak with him. You can email him and ask him to do so.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH
Click to expand...


Rob,
You have gotten to know Dr.White,and he confided in you that he only goes after easy targets? He is afraid to come in here,because he would "get his clock cleaned"
Are you sure of this? I do not think he thinks of brothers in Christ as 'targets'!
It looks like he targets false gospels,not christian brethren!
Rob, I read most of your posts and I know you have a seeming zeal for truth. I hope that some of this zeal translates to a zeal for lost souls.
Did you ever hear a presentation where the person has much truth but lacks grace or patience and instead of communicating they drive away the hearer by a lack of charity?
If you have spoken to Dr. White face to face and voiced your concerns to him,I am more than sure that he would discuss any issue you choose time permitting


----------



## tellville

Rob, you should call James White's show! I know you disagree with him on Baptism and Textual Criticism. Why not just talk to the man himself? I personally would like to hear a dialogue between you too.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Iconoclast said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anthony,
> 
> I have been personal friends with Dr. White for 7 years.
> 
> When I started a thread on the Puritanboard challenging Dr. White on his inconsistencies, I sent him a personal e-mail so that he could interact here if he desired. I don't post things behind people's backs that I'm not willing to interact with them on to their face. To do so in Dr. White's case would be to stab a friend in the back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, did he say he would come in? Did he respond to you in email? I will discuss it with him the next chance I have.
> I know he he really working on the upcoming Islamic debate[ shabir allie]sp?
> He has a growing concern as many of us do that Islam is spreading like a plague and needs to be addressed.
> He comes out here once in awhile and is a frequent guest on a local christian radio show,iron sharpens iron, which is on mon-fri on the internet, at 3pm-4pm est.it is on 1440 spirit of ny. They have various pastors and guests on. It is small but growing
Click to expand...


He was really, really busy at the time. His baptism debate occured about the same time as the Tomb Story surfaced and he wrote that book in two weeks of straight work. I think he was a bit busy to take it up but I'm always willing to interact.

I'm actually not that concerned either way. I love listening to his show and the topics he takes up in defense of orthodoxy. If he has time to come in here and interact on the thread I started asking about his own consistency then I'm quite willing to interact. He does have a username here.


----------



## Iconoclast

*your opinion*

Rich,
Thanks for your response. I would like to ask your opinion on something.
If I read a book or article and would like to question it,do you think it would be wise to take up that persons time or it is better to interact on this type of forum until such an opportunity might present itself,like at a family conference?
Most of the time there is good interaction and links offered here and that is very valuable.
What would you say?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I'm not sure I understand the question.

If I'm reading you properly then you seem to suggest that I shouldn't have posted the interaction specifically challenging Dr. White's assertions on the board until I had the time to interact personally.

If that is what you mean then I would disagree. It was a publically moderated debate where he challenged paedo-baptists as a class on their consistency with Scripture. I responded and challenged in like manner. His brethren of like mind took up the challenge. Debate participants know they're going to open themselves up to public discussion. They can't possibly interact with everybody, personally, they might have addressed as a group.

If you meant something else by the question then please clarify because I want to make sure I answered your question.


----------



## Iconoclast

*clarification*

Rich,
No , I was not talking about that. I mean if I read a book by David Englesma and have questions. Should I write Him directly,or should I use the book to raise the questions in a forum like the puritanboard? This way it does not come across as an attack,but more of a questioning for clarification. Sometimes I see some really good responses in here.
But if others have not read the book,or heard a particular sermon they might not feel as comfortable defending someone elses position.[ i do not think Prof. Englesma would feel uncomfortable, lol. ] But sometimes I am not so sure what to do. Do you think the response to the book would be looked at as welcomed?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

tellville said:


> Rob, you should call James White's show! I know you disagree with him on Baptism and Textual Criticism. Why not just talk to the man himself? I personally would like to hear a dialogue between you too.



Hey:

The problem with calling him on his radio show is the limited time allowed on an issue that requires a lot of information. His radio show is also set up in a way so as to make him look good - this is typical of any call-in radio show, like, for example, Rush Limbaugh. Also, Dr. White is practiced on the Radio where such would be my first time. Being uncomfortable in such a situation would be a detriment to the argument.

Why will Dr. White not appear here on the Puritanboard? I have invited him to do so about a year or so ago. Putting things in writing is a more sure record of his thoughts. It is apparent that he uses logical fallacies in order to promote his views. Such fallacies would be clearer, and easier for me to point out, if he wrote them down rather than in a debate or radio show.

Iconoclast:

"Seeming zeal for truth"? Where do you get that from? Are you accusing me of insincerity? That is an amazing statement from a guy who never met me. One could point out your lack of charity here - could one not?

As for White choosing easy targets - it is obvious from his website. Does he engage in the arguments of Robinson and Pierpont? Does he belittle Dr. Theodore Letis? Especially since Dr. Letis is dead and cannot defend himself? Reading his website over the last three months he has not engaged a godly scholar on the TR, but simply posts articles relating to the KJO fanatics. There is an endless list of errors that Dr. White engages in, but he has poisoned the well with his KJO rhetoric.

It seems to me that a person like Dr. White who lumps all defenders of the Textus Receptus as being KJO fanatics is uncharitable. So, the answer is yes I have seen people present their views as being uncharitable.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Iconoclast said:


> Rich,
> No , I was not talking about that. I mean if I read a book by David Englesma and have questions. Should I write Him directly,or should I use the book to raise the questions in a forum like the puritanboard? This way it does not come across as an attack,but more of a questioning for clarification. Sometimes I see some really good responses in here.
> But if others have not read the book,or heard a particular sermon they might not feel as comfortable defending someone elses position.[ i do not think Prof. Englesma would feel uncomfortable, lol. ] But sometimes I am not so sure what to do. Do you think the response to the book would be looked at as welcomed?



Not per se. I think if he's willing to answer your questions directly that would be cool. If you have questions about it here then I don't think it is bad to bring them up here as there are plenty that can responsibly answer in a way that Prof. Englesma would have. I think the recent interaction on the Sola Scriptura thread is a good example of how Godly men can disagree in a way that does not come across as mean-spirited.


----------



## tellville

CalvinandHodges said:


> tellville said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rob, you should call James White's show! I know you disagree with him on Baptism and Textual Criticism. Why not just talk to the man himself? I personally would like to hear a dialogue between you too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey:
> 
> The problem with calling him on his radio show is the limited time allowed on an issue that requires a lot of information. His radio show is also set up in a way so as to make him look good - this is typical of any call-in radio show, like, for example, Rush Limbaugh. Also, Dr. White is practiced on the Radio where such would be my first time. Being uncomfortable in such a situation would be a detriment to the argument.
> 
> Why will Dr. White not appear here on the Puritanboard? I have invited him to do so about a year or so ago. Putting things in writing is a more sure record of his thoughts. It is apparent that he uses logical fallacies in order to promote his views. Such fallacies would be clearer, and easier for me to point out, if he wrote them down rather than in a debate or radio show.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm. I think a lot of people use this as an excuse to not phone his program and challenge him. I can appreciate that as he has incredible rhetoric skills. But if you really want to challenge him or you think he is grossly in error, then no matter how good at rhetoric he is it wouldn't matter. If what he was saying was false the truth would come out. 

Personally at the moment I agree with Dr. White on pretty much everything  But I would like to see people challenge him more often as opposed to people just poising the well about him.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

tellville said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tellville said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rob, you should call James White's show! I know you disagree with him on Baptism and Textual Criticism. Why not just talk to the man himself? I personally would like to hear a dialogue between you too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey:
> 
> The problem with calling him on his radio show is the limited time allowed on an issue that requires a lot of information. His radio show is also set up in a way so as to make him look good - this is typical of any call-in radio show, like, for example, Rush Limbaugh. Also, Dr. White is practiced on the Radio where such would be my first time. Being uncomfortable in such a situation would be a detriment to the argument.
> 
> Why will Dr. White not appear here on the Puritanboard? I have invited him to do so about a year or so ago. Putting things in writing is a more sure record of his thoughts. It is apparent that he uses logical fallacies in order to promote his views. Such fallacies would be clearer, and easier for me to point out, if he wrote them down rather than in a debate or radio show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmm. I think a lot of people use this as an excuse to not phone his program and challenge him. I can appreciate that as he has incredible rhetoric skills. But if you really want to challenge him or you think he is grossly in error, then no matter how good at rhetoric he is it wouldn't matter. If what he was saying was false the truth would come out.
> 
> Personally at the moment I agree with Dr. White on pretty much everything  But I would like to see people challenge him more often as opposed to people just poising the well about him.
Click to expand...


Hi:

That is a good point. It is an excuse, but the question is - is it a good excuse or not? Would you be more persuaded by a person who appears sure of himself, but is wrong? The history of debate proves this concept correct - Adolf Hitler for example. A person, like yourself, who is preconditioned to believe in credo-baptism is not going to be persuaded by a first time caller on a Radio show. Would he? Also, the person sitting on the fence would not be so convinced.

I think it would be great to debate Dr. White here on the Puritanboard, but I just don't think he would agree to it because the record would show his errors.

Such is life.

May God richly bless you,

-Rob


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Rob,

I would caution you not to ascribe motive to Dr. White. He is a personal friend and, like all men, has his faults and may overstate his polemics at times. I have heard him make note that there are some who are not in the lunatic fringe that disagree. He has a tendency to overstate on some issues. You must admit, however, that the bulk of KJVO are the worst kind of friends you could hope to have on the subject. His polemics are typically aimed at them from what I've seen.

Thus, unless you have actual evidence of motive, do not use the Board to infer one. The man is extremely busy. I do not agree with him on the subject of Baptism but I don't attribute the fact that he has interacted little on this board to anything other than his schedule.

Finally, I would agree with you that not everyone is cut out for a give and take on a "radio" format. Some are able to both write and speak well but oration is not necessarily the mark of the best argument. Some very brilliant writers are not very good public speakers and the validity of their arguments should not be measured in that vein.


----------



## tellville

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> That is a good point. It is an excuse, but the question is - is it a good excuse or not? Would you be more persuaded by a person who appears sure of himself, but is wrong? The history of debate proves this concept correct - Adolf Hitler for example. A person, like yourself, who is preconditioned to believe in credo-baptism is not going to be persuaded by a first time caller on a Radio show. Would he? Also, the person sitting on the fence would not be so convinced.
> 
> I think it would be great to debate Dr. White here on the Puritanboard, but I just don't think he would agree to it because the record would show his errors.
> 
> Such is life.
> 
> May God richly bless you,
> 
> -Rob



Maybe you should do a critical review of his KJV only book, or maybe his lectures and debates on Baptism? If you posted enough substantial critique you would probably eventually pull him out of the woodwork. If you write quality stuff, somebody is bound to tell him about it. 

As for being preconditioned for the credo position: I probably am. Which is probably why it makes a lot more sense to me at the moment  But I would be lying if I didn't say that the padeo position has me quite intrigued and starting in September I will be beginning a very in-depth study of the subject. I expect it to be a long, agonizing, tough, but in the end very beneficial study. 

God bless, brother!


----------



## CalvinandHodges

SemperFideles said:


> Rob,
> 
> I would caution you not to ascribe motive to Dr. White. He is a personal friend and, like all men, has his faults and may overstate his polemics at times. I have heard him make note that there are some who are not in the lunatic fringe that disagree. He has a tendency to overstate on some issues. You must admit, however, that the bulk of KJVO are the worst kind of friends you could hope to have on the subject. His polemics are typically aimed at them from what I've seen.
> 
> Thus, unless you have actual evidence of motive, do not use the Board to infer one. The man is extremely busy. I do not agree with him on the subject of Baptism but I don't attribute the fact that he has interacted little on this board to anything other than his schedule.
> 
> Finally, I would agree with you that not everyone is cut out for a give and take on a "radio" format. Some are able to both write and speak well but oration is not necessarily the mark of the best argument. Some very brilliant writers are not very good public speakers and the validity of their arguments should not be measured in that vein.



Thank you Rich. I happen to agree with Dr. White concerning the lunatic fringe of the KJO movement. However, does this really need to be constantly pointed out? He harps on this issue so much that he has poisoned the well with those scholars who are legitimate on this issue. He simply has to label someone "KJO" and who will listen to the argument? Now, is that charitable?

Now, as for his motives concerning self-promotion? Well, I was in attendance at Hope Reformed Baptist Church during his "visits" to Long Island. Back in 1998 or '97 he preached at the church. The "sermon" was all about himself and full of stories and anecdotes about his apologetic work - there was nothing in it about Christ. And this was a sermon on Sunday morning! His book, *The Potter's Freedom* has on the first few pages lists of various Reformed men who endorse the book. At the end of it he gives a webpage where you can read even more testimonies! Why all the self-promotion? Is self-centeredness a Christian virtue? Excepting for yourself - he attracts other such egoists like Chris Arnzen.

I do not consider James White as a friend (not that he is an enemy either), but I have enough experience with him to make some inferences. The word "I" is constantly in his vocabulary: "I did this," "I did that," "I spoke here" etc...

If you took a step back and actually reveiwed his website I think you would be able to catch the drift of this point. I am no psychologist, but I have taken several courses on the subject, and Dr. White's behavior is reminiscent of a man with an inferiority complex.

Now, is this unsubstantiated? In my opinion it is not, but simply my experience with the man as well as the objective material he has produced both on the internet and in writing. He goes after soft targets because it makes him look good. He is "too busy" to debate with people who are scholars on the subject, but he is not too busy to debate flakes.

As always I am the bad guy. I will take my lumps in the service of Jesus Christ.

Blessings to you as always,

Rob Wieland


----------



## JohnOwen007

*Berean Issue*

We must be careful when interpreting the Berean issue in its relation to the unity of OT and NT. I don't think it's got much to do with James White's appeal to the NT only issue (even though I personally am a paedobaptist).

The NT obviously presents revelation not found in the OT (hence Paul's use of the term "mystery"). If in Christ all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found (Col. 2:3) then we must recognise a certain priority to NT revelation.

So what is going on with the Bereans? They were searching the OT scriptures to see if what Paul said was in *conflict *with the OT, not whether *all *of Paul's message could be found in the OT.

Moreover, the hermeneutic of "what OT command is not rescinded in the NT still stands" is a very tricky one (is it explicitly taught by the Bible itself?). The issue is rather what does it mean for Jesus to "fulfill" the law (Matt. 5) and be the "end" / "goal" (_telos_) of the law (Rom. 10:4). It is *this *issue that stands at the heart of how the OT applies to us now.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

CalvinandHodges said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rob,
> 
> I would caution you not to ascribe motive to Dr. White. He is a personal friend and, like all men, has his faults and may overstate his polemics at times. I have heard him make note that there are some who are not in the lunatic fringe that disagree. He has a tendency to overstate on some issues. You must admit, however, that the bulk of KJVO are the worst kind of friends you could hope to have on the subject. His polemics are typically aimed at them from what I've seen.
> 
> Thus, unless you have actual evidence of motive, do not use the Board to infer one. The man is extremely busy. I do not agree with him on the subject of Baptism but I don't attribute the fact that he has interacted little on this board to anything other than his schedule.
> 
> Finally, I would agree with you that not everyone is cut out for a give and take on a "radio" format. Some are able to both write and speak well but oration is not necessarily the mark of the best argument. Some very brilliant writers are not very good public speakers and the validity of their arguments should not be measured in that vein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Rich. I happen to agree with Dr. White concerning the lunatic fringe of the KJO movement. However, does this really need to be constantly pointed out? He harps on this issue so much that he has poisoned the well with those scholars who are legitimate on this issue. He simply has to label someone "KJO" and who will listen to the argument? Now, is that charitable?
> 
> Now, as for his motives concerning self-promotion? Well, I was in attendance at Hope Reformed Baptist Church during his "visits" to Long Island. Back in 1998 or '97 he preached at the church. The "sermon" was all about himself and full of stories and anecdotes about his apologetic work - there was nothing in it about Christ. And this was a sermon on Sunday morning! His book, *The Potter's Freedom* has on the first few pages lists of various Reformed men who endorse the book. At the end of it he gives a webpage where you can read even more testimonies! Why all the self-promotion? Is self-centeredness a Christian virtue? Excepting for yourself - he attracts other such egoists like Chris Arnzen.
> 
> I do not consider James White as a friend (not that he is an enemy either), but I have enough experience with him to make some inferences. The word "I" is constantly in his vocabulary: "I did this," "I did that," "I spoke here" etc...
> 
> If you took a step back and actually reveiwed his website I think you would be able to catch the drift of this point. I am no psychologist, but I have taken several courses on the subject, and Dr. White's behavior is reminiscent of a man with an inferiority complex.
> 
> Now, is this unsubstantiated? In my opinion it is not, but simply my experience with the man as well as the objective material he has produced both on the internet and in writing. He goes after soft targets because it makes him look good. He is "too busy" to debate with people who are scholars on the subject, but he is not too busy to debate flakes.
> 
> As always I am the bad guy. I will take my lumps in the service of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Blessings to you as always,
> 
> Rob Wieland
Click to expand...


Rob,

No good guy, bad guy thing. I respect your right to an opinion on the man. I just don't want people assuming motive. I don't presume you have a bad motive in bringing the issues to light so let's just leave it at that.

I don't believe the sun rises and sets on him but he has to have a pretty strong character to withstand the withering assault of cultists left and right. I don't want this board to be a place that levies any more stuff his way unnecessarily.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Marty,

Who are you responding to?


----------



## JohnOwen007

SemperFideles said:


> Marty,
> 
> Who are you responding to?



To some of the earlier posts in this thread that touched on the issues of continuity / discontinuity between OT and NT.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

> *Posted by Tellville*: Hmmmm. I think a lot of people use this as an excuse to not phone his program and challenge him. I can appreciate that as he has incredible rhetoric skills. But if you really want to challenge him or you think he is grossly in error, then no matter how good at rhetoric he is it wouldn't matter. If what he was saying was false the truth would come out.



Mark, I don't know if I would agree with this. Some folks are so adept at verbal debate they can walk circles around one who is not, even if their position is not supportable upon close examination. Consider Charles Finney; he was so eloquent and forceful in his presentations he often overwhelmed better men than he, that is, men soundly based in biblical doctrine, but who were soft-spoken and mild-mannered.

On the other hand, Robert W., I took note recently where James White talked (I think on his Aomin blog) of having lunch or dinner with a friend in England who was either TR or KJV only (James wasn't sure), and although they disagreed (perhaps it was over 1 John 5:7), their conversation was friendly and pleasant to them both.

Myself, I am sort of slow-witted when it comes to verbal repartee; I was leaving a picnic when an elder in another church (in a friendly manner) made a sarcastic remark about predestination, and as I didn't have time to develop a response, it wasn't until the next picnic some months later that I answered him, leaving him speechless. That wouldn't fly in a debate format!

I much prefer written interaction. If I discuss textual issues with Dr. White, I would prefer to do it in a forum such as PB, where he also is a member.

And if I do thus interact with him, I would not want negative remarks about my brother in the thread -- he gets enough of that from the RCs and the Muslims!


----------



## tellville

Jerusalem Blade said:


> *Posted by Tellville*: Hmmmm. I think a lot of people use this as an excuse to not phone his program and challenge him. I can appreciate that as he has incredible rhetoric skills. But if you really want to challenge him or you think he is grossly in error, then no matter how good at rhetoric he is it wouldn't matter. If what he was saying was false the truth would come out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark, I don't know if I would agree with this. Some folks are so adept at verbal debate they can walk circles around one who is not, even if their position is not supportable upon close examination. Consider Charles Finney; he was so eloquent and forceful in his presentations he often overwhelmed better men than he, that is, men soundly based in biblical doctrine, but who were soft-spoken and mild-mannered.
> 
> On the other hand, Robert W., I took note recently where James White talked (I think on his Aomin blog) of having lunch or dinner with a friend in England who was either TR or KJV only (James wasn't sure), and although they disagreed (perhaps it was over 1 John 5:7), their conversation was friendly and pleasant to them both.
> 
> Myself, I am sort of slow-witted when it comes to verbal repartee; I was leaving a picnic when an elder in another church (in a friendly manner) made a sarcastic remark about predestination, and as I didn't have time to develop a response, it wasn't until the next picnic some months later that I answered him, leaving him speechless. That wouldn't fly in a debate format!
> 
> I much prefer written interaction. If I discuss textual issues with Dr. White, I would prefer to do it in a forum such as PB, where he also is a member.
> 
> And if I do thus interact with him, I would not want negative remarks about my brother in the thread -- he gets enough of that from the RCs and the Muslims!
Click to expand...


Steve, point taken. However, what I meant by that the truth would come out was not necessarily in the immediate context of that debate. It would come after people researched the things he had said. 

Like I said in my previous post: If Rob or anybody else has a problem with Dr. White, write a review of his work! Usually, because people are afraid of his rhetorical skills, people just throw mud at him. Write something substantive. He'll notice. Then when he responds on the Dividing Line, write another response. Bang, you got a dialogue.


----------

