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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Further, James White could find someone better (and someone more faithful to the Westminster Standards) with which to debate Baptism.

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

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

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


Regarding the White/Shisko debate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am STILL totally not settled on this subject, but lean credo. BUT, believe there is ambiguity. These are simply my thoughts on this debate.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the White/Shisko debate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Almost there, Perg, almost there. ;)
 
Regarding the White/Shisko debate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am STILL totally not settled on this subject, but lean credo. BUT, believe there is ambiguity. These are simply my thoughts on this debate.
Yeah, I thought White won the Shisko debate as an RB and still think he won it as an OPC-leaning Presbyterian.

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

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

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

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

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

I think Shisko was more irenic and likeable.

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

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

It's interesting how our biases play in hearing a debate!
I might have to go back and listen again. But I recall the argument about the New Covenant being particularly persuasive to me. You're correct that a lot goes into this whole thing. Some arguments that just don't connect at one point in our lives might connect later.
 
A problem for me is that I have trouble separating my personal feelings for a minister from his doctrine. I sometimes judge a debate by who I like more rather than the punches landed. You can win an argument and lose a person, after all. And in Jesus the Person and the Doctrine are inseparable.

I think Shisko was more irenic and likeable.

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

I remember a few years ago listening to William Lane Craig debate Sam Harris. I thought Craig so obnoxious, by the end I found myself nearly rooting for Harris. :confused:
 
I think that I would largely agree with Perg's assessment of debates, which is one of the reasons why I spend very little time debating with people either here or on Facebook. By and large, people are just engaging in #ConfirmationBias and have largely made up their minds before a ball has been kicked. These events are good at attracting a crowd, as people like to watch a fight. But if you want to get people to understand a position, it is usually better to recommend reading material or have a discussion in a less combative venue than a debate forum.
 
By and large, people are just engaging in #ConfirmationBias and have largely made up their minds before a ball has been kicked.
That is why it is important to have a "cross examination" in the debate. It may not get rid of a Confirmation Bias, but a person who aims to be open minded can learn a lot from cross examination. That is, bad arguments cannot survive a robust cross examination :)
 
It is best to use a Covenantal Baptist if you want to debate a Paedobaptist.

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

What would be helpful for me is to have someone like Jim Renihan or Rich Barcellos debate someone like, I don't know, Lane Tipton or Ryan McGraw (who would be excellent because of his Owen expertise).
 
What would be helpful for me is to have someone like Jim Renihan or Rich Barcellos debate someone like, I don't know, Lane Tipton or Ryan McGraw (who would be excellent because of his Owen expertise).
Rich Barcellos has written on Baptist hermeneutics, and a book on Vos' and Owen's Biblical Theology. He would be ideal on the Baptist side. I agree a Owen scholar would be ideal on the Paedobaptist side. Perhaps someone who has also read a lot of Vos' historic-redemptive method, because I think a solid historic-redemptive hermeneutic is key to this type of debate.
 
This is precisely why I think this White/Wilson debate will be essentially useless. I don't think Dr. White holds to the "1689 Federalist" position of the covenants, in the first place. And Wilson—well, he's Wilson. This will literally be a pointless debate.

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

Public service announcement:
The "1689 Federalist" position is not the official position of the Reformed Baptists on the covenants. There has been quite a degree of variety among them. One need not be an advocate of this new position to represent the baptists on baptism.
 
Rich Barcellos has written on Baptist hermeneutics, and a book on Vos' and Owen's Biblical Theology. He would be ideal on the Baptist side. I agree a Owen scholar would be ideal on the Paedobaptist side. Perhaps someone who has also read a lot of Vos' historic-redemptive method, because I think a solid historic-redemptive hermeneutic is key to this type of debate.

I think Pastors Shisko and Strawbridge would represent the paedobaptist position rather well. And have already.
 
Public service announcement:
The "1689 Federalist" position is not the official position of the Reformed Baptists on the covenants. There has been quite a degree of variety among them. One need not be an advocate of this new position to represent the baptists on baptism.

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

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

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

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

Oh yeah, I remember that. Still, with the numerous misdemeanors and court appearances, that's the least of his problems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top