Debate between James White and Douglas Wilson scheduled for

[luvroftheWord]

This is from James White's blog at www.aomin.org:

[quote:dec9c56e74]
Friday night, November 5th, we will be hosting a major debate between myself and Douglas Wilson.  The topic?  Does Trinitarian Baptism Make One a Member of the New Covenant?  For those who have been keeping up with the "Auburn Avenue" controversy, (the proponents of this view are now said to be promoting the "Federal Vision&quot you know that we are, in essence, debating that issue.
[/quote:dec9c56e74]

This debate has so much potential, but my prediction is that the time will be spent mostly by talking past one another. I'm sure the debate will include all sorts of issues such as infant baptism, covenant keeping and breaking, paedocommunion, and other similarly related things. Its a shame we have to wait until November to hear it.

 

[pastorway]

I have never yet heard James White talk past anyone. He is a world class debater.

I hope this will help clarify matters and am looking forward to it!

Phillip

 

[fredtgreco]

I saw this posted on another list, and I have to say, I have no doubt that this debate will be completely unhelpful if anyone is thinking that this will address any of the NP or A4 issues.

In essence, as cast, it will be a debate on infant baptism. Every paedobaptist acknowledges that that baptism places a person into covenant with God, making him a member of the visible church. This is true of the new covenant as much as the Old (i.e. different administrations of the covenant of grace).

Reformed baptists (e.g. Chantry, Waldron) that consider the new covenant an administration of the covenant of grace rather than the covenant of grace agree that baptism places one into the new covenant, just that baptism is only proper for professing believers. But the effect is the same, just different subjects.

Unless White is going to take the position that the new covenant = the covenant of grace, the "debate" will really only be about infants. And if White does take that position, just as Phillip, Dan and I have discussed it, the "debate" would break along classical covenantal/modified baptist lines, again ignoring the NP/A4 issues.

I would suggest that if anyone has a line in to Mr. White, that they suggest that the premise of the debate be changed, or else it will be unhelpful, not do to dodging by the participants, but by a poorly worded resolution.

 

[pastorway]

The main debate title is actually:

[quote:6ec6bb3422]Are Roman Catholics part of the Covenant People?[/quote:6ec6bb3422]

The second day of hte conference will be focused on "The New Challenges to Justification" and will feature presentations by Phillip Johnson (Grace to You and Spurgeon Archive), David King (Dayspring PCA), Steve Camp (Audience One), and Dr. White.

Phillip

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:42544f171b][i:42544f171b]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:42544f171b]
The main debate title is actually:

[quote:42544f171b]Are Roman Catholics part of the Covenant People?[/quote:42544f171b]

The second day of hte conference will be focused on "The New Challenges to Justification" and will feature presentations by Phillip Johnson (Grace to You and Spurgeon Archive), David King (Dayspring PCA), Steve Camp (Audience One), and Dr. White.

Phillip [/quote:42544f171b]

Phillip,

Where did you see that? White's website actually says:

[quote:42544f171b]Those of you who listened live to the Dividing Line last evening, you are "in on the big news." For everyone else, here it comes.
If you will click on the cruise page over to the right you will see not only a new page that gives you a lot more reason to join us for our apologetics cruise, but you will discover that our Conference will be featuring such speakers as Phil Johnson, Steve Camp, and David King (aside from myself). But, you will also discover that on Friday night, November 5th, we will be hosting a major debate between myself and Douglas Wilson. [b:42544f171b]The topic? Does Trinitarian Baptism Make One a Member of the New Covenant?[/b:42544f171b] For those who have been keeping up with the "Auburn Avenue" controversy, (the proponents of this view are now said to be promoting the "Federal Vision&quot you know that we are, in essence, debating that issue. A large number of folks are looking forward to this encounter, and though we have obtained spacious accommodations, do not procrastinate! In fact, just give in and go for the whole Conference/Cruise deal! Make it an early Christmas present for your family! For details, see the cruise link at the top right of our home page. Many thanks to Mike and Sau O'Fallon and Rich Pierce for all their work in setting this up.[/quote:42544f171b]

 

[pastorway]

On the "2004 Apologetic Cruise" details page:

http://aomin.org/cruise/cruise2004.html

Scroll down and look to the right of the page under the "National Conference" notice. This debate and conference will be held just before White leaves for his annual apologetic cruise from Nov 7-14.

White's whole purpose is to refute the Federal Visionists view of justification!

Phillip

PS - Doug Wilson will be arguing FOR Catholics being in the covenant by virtue of their Trinitarian baptism!

[Edited on 3-11-04 by pastorway]

 

[luvroftheWord]

[quote:a544abb197]
PS - Doug Wilson will be arguing FOR Catholics being in the covenant by virtue of their Trinitarian baptism!
[/quote:a544abb197]

Oh, good heavens, NO!!! :saint: I guess a little "poisoning the well" never hurt anybody, did it? :tongue:

 

[pastorway]

More Details

In his [i:6dea2617ff]Dividing Line[/i:6dea2617ff] internet broadcast on March 9, James White said that the debate with Wilson will specifically deal with "Auburn Theology (also called Federalism) regarding their view of the Covenant."

The next day will be devoted to a full Biblical assault on both the NPP and Auburn views of justification.

Phillip

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

As much as I appreciate White, I think he is the wrong person to be debating Wilson on the issue of covenant. I would have liked to see someone like Richard Pratt or Joel Beeke deal with Wilson. Now that would be fun to hear.

 

[twogunfighter]

[quote:99bc9f7d86]
PS - Doug Wilson will be arguing FOR Catholics being in the covenant by virtue of their Trinitarian baptism!
[/quote:99bc9f7d86]

Don't most reformed churches accept Roman Catholic baptism?

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:9ab7042a7b][i:9ab7042a7b]Originally posted by twogunfighter[/i:9ab7042a7b]
[quote:9ab7042a7b]
PS - Doug Wilson will be arguing FOR Catholics being in the covenant by virtue of their Trinitarian baptism!
[/quote:9ab7042a7b]

Don't most reformed churches accept Roman Catholic baptism? [/quote:9ab7042a7b]

This gets back to the point I made earlier. Some (probably not most) Reformed churches accept infant baptism, but they would not (read Hodge) argue that baptism makes one a member of the covenant of grace. So again, if the debate here is over who is in the New Covenant, and White means that the New Covenant = the Covenant of grace, he proves too much. If White means that the New Covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace, then he has issue with all paedobaptists, not just Wilson.

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:cbaafc6f42][i:cbaafc6f42]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:cbaafc6f42]
[quote:cbaafc6f42][i:cbaafc6f42]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:cbaafc6f42]
[quote:cbaafc6f42][i:cbaafc6f42]Originally posted by twogunfighter[/i:cbaafc6f42]
[quote:cbaafc6f42]
PS - Doug Wilson will be arguing FOR Catholics being in the covenant by virtue of their Trinitarian baptism!
[/quote:cbaafc6f42]

Don't most reformed churches accept Roman Catholic baptism? [/quote:cbaafc6f42]

This gets back to the point I made earlier. Some (probably not most) Reformed churches accept infant baptism, but they would not (read Hodge) argue that baptism makes one a member of the covenant of grace. So again, if the debate here is over who is in the New Covenant, and White means that the New Covenant = the Covenant of grace, he proves too much. If White means that the New Covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace, then he has issue with all paedobaptists, not just Wilson. [/quote:cbaafc6f42]

would you say that baptism makes one a memebr of the visible covenant...at least?

-Paul [/quote:cbaafc6f42]

Yes. That is why I think that the new covenant cannot be the covenant of grace. One can be the subject of covenant curses of the new covenant (just as one could be of the Abrahamic - Ishmael/Esau, and the Old - the generation in the wilderness), but only the elect are in the covenant of grace.

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:f7dff05e59][i:f7dff05e59]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:f7dff05e59]
[quote:f7dff05e59]
One can be the subject of covenant curses of the new covenant (just as one could be of the Abrahamic - Ishmael/Esau, and the Old - the generation in the wilderness), but only the elect are in the covenant of grace.
[/quote:f7dff05e59]

just trying to follow your thoughts here. how can one be the subject of a curse of a covenant that they are not members of?

and, when you mention Esau/Ishmael, do you think that they were in the Abrahamic?

if so, was your analogy disanalogous?

-Paul [/quote:f7dff05e59]

The curse is the curse of the Abrahamic covenant, Old covenant or New covenant. Each of those covenants are expressions of the covenant of grace, but the covenant of grace is larger than each.

Ishmael and Esau were certainly in the Abrahamic covenant. Each received the sign of the covenant, and experienced cursings for disobedience instead of blessings for obedience.

 

[wsw201]

[quote:3e25bc0b02][i:3e25bc0b02]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:3e25bc0b02]
As much as I appreciate White, I think he is the wrong person to be debating Wilson on the issue of covenant. I would have liked to see someone like Richard Pratt or Joel Beeke deal with Wilson. Now that would be fun to hear. [/quote:3e25bc0b02]

Agree. A White/Wilson debate, not the best.

But White versus Schissel? Hmmmmm..... I would pay good money to see that

 

[luvroftheWord]

[quote:b53e7dc2bf]
Agree. A White/Wilson debate, not the best.
[/quote:b53e7dc2bf]

I also agree. Because James White is a baptist.

I think that because it is a baptist vs. a paedobaptist debate, the debate will end up being much larger than simply whether or not baptism makes you a covenant member. I'm sure during this debate the issue of paedobaptism itself will be dealt with. It just seems that there are too many things White and Wilson disagree on for the debate to be that concentrated.

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:9f78e8aa15][i:9f78e8aa15]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:9f78e8aa15]
[quote:9f78e8aa15]
Ishmael and Esau were certainly in the Abrahamic covenant. Each received the sign of the covenant, and experienced cursings for disobedience instead of blessings for obedience.
[/quote:9f78e8aa15]

does the cog have "a sign"...a visible one, that is?

[quote:9f78e8aa15]
The curse is the curse of the Abrahamic covenant, Old covenant or New covenant. Each of those covenants are expressions of the covenant of grace, but the covenant of grace is larger than each.
[/quote:9f78e8aa15]

what does, "counted as unholy the blood of the covenant that sanctified them" mean to you?

-Paul [/quote:9f78e8aa15]

Each of the administrations of the covenant of grace have a visible sign, which becomes the visible representation of the promises and blessings of the covenant of grace.

I take those verses in the same way that John Owen does, XXIII.545.

 

[michaelofallon]

Debate

Gentlemen,

Thanks for your suggestions in the debate. If you would like to attend, you may reach me at 602-373-5092 ext 28.

I felt that Wilson was the best fit for what we were attempting to accomplish in this debate. While certainly there are others who would represent the Auburnist perspective well, we wanted to have a debate that would stay out of ad hominem remarks and representation. We sincerely look forward to a great and scholarly exchange.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Mike O'Fallon
www.aomin.org

 

[wsw201]

[quote:c181c9a287]
While certainly there are others who would represent the Auburnist perspective well, we wanted to have a debate that would stay out of ad hominem remarks and representation.
[/quote:c181c9a287]

So I guess that's why you didn't ask Schissel :wink1:

 

[luvroftheWord]

Wow, welcome to the board, Mr. O'Fallon. You might refer Dr. White to our messageboard, particularly the threads on covenant theology, and maybe we'll get our names mentioned on the dividing line. I mean, that's all I really care about is the publicity.

 

[fredtgreco]

Mr. O'Fallen,

Did aomin get the email I sent to it from the website regarding this debate?

 

[Ianterrell]

My encounter with Schissel

Schissel is no shirker on the insults. Haha, I was leaning towards the credobaptistic model at the time I visited his church (I live in NY where Schissel pastors). I knew I disagreed with his views on Baptism at the time but I really liked his teaching apart from that, and enjoyed his boldness even if I felt/feel that it is misplaced sometimes.

I was leading a college group at the time, and most of us didn't have a home church in the city so we were all looking together. Many of us were baptistic in thought I think, but the baptistic issue wasn't the problem. It was the insults and condemnations that stung. What I guy I tell ya.

Aside from that his congregation seemed really friendly, I introduced myself to Schissel we shook hands and stuff before the service. He gave me a suspicious look, maybe he had the gift of discernment? Anyway I'm interested in hearing what Mr. Wilson and Mr. White have to say on this issue. I'm sure it will be interesting at least.