Baptism Debate: White vs Shishko

[JM]

Free MP3 streaming and downloads of the Baptism Debate!

THE BAPTIST: "Baptism is ONLY for those who have personally repented & believed in Christ."

JAMES WHITE is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona, and is an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. He is a professor, having taught Greek, Systematic Theology and various topics in the field of apologetics. He has authored more than twenty books, including The King James Only Controversy, The Roman Catholic Controversy, The Same Sex Controversy, The Forgotten Trinity, The Potter's Freedom, The God Who Justifies, Dangerous Airwaves: Harold Camping Refuted & Christ's Church Defended and the soon-to-be-published Pulpit Crimes: The Criminal Mishandling of God's Word. He is an accomplished debater, having engaged in more than fifty moderated, public debates with leading proponents of Roman Catholicism, Liberal Protestantism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostalism and Mormonism.

THE PRESBYTERIAN: "Baptism is NOT only for those who have personally repented & believed in Christ."

BILL SHISHKO has served as Pastor of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Franklin Square, NY, for over 25 years. During his time as pastor there the church has been blessed with significant numerical growth, and has overseen the formation of 2 mission churches (Mount Vernon & Bohemia, NY). He is also one of the instructors for the Ministerial Training Institute, OPC, and an Adjunct Faculty member of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Taylors, SC, where he teaches in the dept. of Applied Theology. He has written numerous articles for the OPC publications NEW HORIZONS and ORDAINED SERVANT, as well as magazines such as The Banner of Truth. His public ministries have taken him to such foreign mission fields as Suriname, Cyprus, Egypt, Uganda, China, Eritrea, and Wales, and his conference ministries have been carried out in a number of states in our own nation.

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

You gotta hear it.

jm

 

[Iosias]

Will do when I find the time.

What were your thoughts of it?

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Will do when I find the time.

What were your thoughts of it?

JM,

Thanks for the link. I found the debate worth the time it took to listen to it.

AV, I found the debate to be interesting. I don't think it will change anyones mind on either side, but it is useful as a tool to let folks on the "other side" here some of the arguments for the opposing system.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[JM]

I agree with Cajun Huguenot.

Dr. White has a few for the highlight reels, nice 360 slam dunks and so did Shishko. Both White and Shishko struggled with a few questions that were key to their arguments.

IMO, White came out on top by a hair, but Shishko was able to raised doubt in my mind on credo baptism.

jm

 

[heymikey80]

I'm missing a middle argument ... Shisko is in the middle of something, and when I shift to the second file I'm in a Q/A asking White something.

At this point I'm beginning to wonder. White's got a good point that Jesus expects this to split families; but Shisko has pointed out, the heads of Jewish families were being referred-to in Acts 2. So the Gospel is going to families, and may split them.

 

[Iosias]

Shishko was able to raised doubt in my mind on credo baptism.

Sounds like a good man then

 

[heymikey80]

Well, for an infant baptist, it was interesting again to hear that the subjects of the sacraments were those hearing ("the audience of") the New Covenant.

I'm unsure how those who are being discipled by their parents are not the audience of the New Covenant.

White (around 30 min. on the second tape) points out the Old Covenant sign was of regeneration -- but it was on the unregenerate kings -- by God's command.

I guess it makes me wonder why wouldn't that indicate what should happen under the New Covenant?

In Romans 4, Paul explicitly refers to those circumcised in infancy (Rom 4:12 e.g.), and affirms Abraham is the father to those outwardly circumcised (in infancy, by God's command) and also having faith (inwardly circumcised). Why isn't baptism the same? Or maybe more significantly, where is baptism stated to be differently -- prohibiting baptism in this way?

Some churches -- I should say, many Baptist churches I've worked with -- won't accept members who hold to infant baptism. And that bothers me immensely. For if Christ didn't make the prohibition clear -- why would we?

 

[AndOne]

I listened to Part I today - hopefully I can get to the rest tonight or tomorrow. I believe White brings up a very good point - one in which I had not considered when examining the whole issue of padeobaptism a couple of years ago.

I'm refering to his use of Matthew 10:35 in regards to the whole "household baptism" stand. In light of what Jesus says in Matthew 10:35 I think when one looks at the issue of padeobaptism - or more particularly - "household" baptism, that the words of Jesus here logically seem to negate any indication that a believer's family would automatically be included in the covenant. It is the strongest case for credo-baptism that I've seen yet.

I'm not saying I disagree with PB here - not yet - but I will say this - Matthew 10:35 is a hard one to just pass by in light of this issue.

I'm still on the middle road on this whole issue. I can't figure out who I agree with - don't think I ever will. I accept both and understand folks' convictions in regards to both CB and PB.

I will say this - I stand in agreement with "heymikey" that I don't like it when churches will preclude someone from membership because in their deepest convictions they think that PB is the correct practice.

 

[heymikey80]

Mt 10:35 was interesting, but I guess it didn't strike me as strongly as the audience argument. Paul said of the Old Covenant (!) "It's not hearers of the Law who are declared righteous, but doers." So the continuity is very much more strongly asserted among infant baptists, that "even now there's a remnant according to the promise" within the audience of the New Covenant. It sets a very different tone of continuity -- that Christ isn't weeding His field differently or giving us a "purer church" with new methods of discerning unbelief; He's adding His revelation of Himself, and His church is impacted by that addition.

The thing that struck me with Mt 10:35 is that removing familial roles is not a present goal of the Gospel, but at best a sometime-effect of Christ in His proper place, when the family is opposed. As Jesus' meaning unfolds in verses trailing this, it becomes clear that Jesus is emphasizing His supremacy to familial bonds, thus breaking them when they are set against Him. This is along the same lines as Mk 10:29-30, too. The cases we're discussing are when the familial bonds are set toward Him, and rightly so.

I think this can also be observed in that believer-only baptism in this Reformed context isn't tending toward destruction of the family; and infant baptism isn't tending toward deifying the family. The fellowship of believers is greater than the familial. But it doesn't obliterate the familial role either, but reasonably serves to strengthen proper familial roles (as Eph 5:21-6:3 or so tends to point out, as does 1 Cor 7).

So to me it's a given in both infant baptism and believer baptism.