Baptism Debate with Dr. Gregg Strawbridge

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed

Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation if you'd like to talk with dr.

White call now 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll -free across the

United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white Time to the vying line. We have a debate myself and Greg Strawbridge on the subject of Baptism this will run much longer than our normal dividing line around two hours worth of time

Dr. Strawbridge will go first. It is a moderated debate on the subject of baptism.

I as a reformed Baptist Dr. Strawbridge as a Presbyterian, so we hope you enjoy the program this evening the debate on baptism.

Good evening Welcome to Covenant radio located at Covenant radio .com My name is

Jeff McCormick, and I've got my co -host bill. Oh I'm just a co -host tonight.

I like that host tonight. No residents. I kick no partner in crime Yeah, we'll let you be a co -host tonight

He won't be a co -host. Thank you very much. We are we have a great discussion tonight this is going to be a debate set up we're going to have two hour show this evening and Bill why don't you go ahead and tell them what we've got lined up?

Sure be glad to tonight. We have the pleasure of having dr. Greg Strawbridge on the program He's been on before so those who listen to Covenant radio quite often have heard dr.

Strawbridge speak with us on various topics, and we also have dr. White on he is a well -known

Conference speaker, and he is the president of Alpha and Omega ministries, and that's AOM Make sure

I get this right dr. Way AOM. I n .org is that correct? That's correct Okay So these these two gentlemen who are well noted in this particular field

Are going to be discussing in a debate format the topic of infant baptism now that the specific topic

Question that they're going to be dealing with this evening would be will be that should the children of Christians be baptized as Infants and dr.

Strawbridge will be taking the affirmative on that particular question and dr. White will be taking the negative position on that so dr.

Strawbridge I know you haven't had a chance to speak yet But we do welcome you back to Covenant radio, and I'm glad to have you have you on board

All right, thank you. I'm so glad to be part of this discussion, and I'm glad to have the opportunity to interact with James I really appreciate his work in so many areas

And I think that we would consider ourselves brothers especially in the Reformed faith as we hold many truths together

But tonight we're discussing the difference on our views Respecting who should be baptized and what that event means and I'd like to begin just by framing the question

The question is should the children of Christians be baptized as infants and that's very significant

That we're talking about the children of Christians When it comes to adult converts we all agree

East West Protestant and Catholic all agree Holy Jesus name apostolic

Pentecostals agree that adult converts should profess their faith before baptism but the

Doctrine and the recipient of baptism that that matters in this debate is whether indeed the children of Christians should be

Baptized in their infancy, so we're talking about the children of Christians and now there are two

Possibilities should the children of Christians be treated the same way adult

Converts from paganism are treated so they should grow up mature to the point that they can self -consciously profess their faith or Should they be treated in terms of previous covenantal administrations?

Such as we see with a circumcision in the Abrahamic sign given to Abraham Genesis 17 11 to 13 or as in the the case of Subsequent covenant administrations where the children were included in these signs or the rites of covenant participation for example

Passover excess 1224 or In the Noahic Covenant even that there is a sense that the household of Noah was included in that So the question before us is how do we deal with the children of Christians?

now a lot of rhetoric will be disposed of by a reformed Baptist specifically and perhaps

James don't I don't know what he's going to say, but many reformed Baptists will argue of Vehemently that will look at all the cases of baptism and then this person professed their faith and then they were baptized where they had faith

Or faith that's connected to their baptism But of course that's true with an adult convert.

They're going to self -consciously profess their faith But the question before us is not what we do with adult converts, but what we do with their children to that end we're thrown right in the midst of Discussing the question of how does the

Bible treat the children of believers are? They treated in the same way as they were in previous covenant previous covenant administrations

I hope that I believe that James would agree with me that children were included in the covenant

Administrations prior to the new covenant. I believe that he would agree with me.

You can speak to that later So then we're asking whether something has changed or not now if you look through the covenant administrations the creation covenant with Adam included the descendants of Adam obviously first Corinthians 15 22 the

Noahic Covenant Included his household Genesis 7 1 the Abrahamic Covenant included his household and those born into the household

Genesis 17 11 and following the Sacrificial meals of the patriarchs included the children of those patriarchs

Genesis 31 54 the Mosaic Covenant obviously included the children such as in the rite of Passover Exodus 12 24 the

Davidic Covenant promised future seed to be participant in that and of course that was kind of a a a

Demonstration that looked forward to the final Davidic King see Psalm 89 3 & 4

Now the question is what about the new covenant? My contention is that the new covenant in no way changes that pattern in fact

We're told in Acts 2 39 that the promise of the new covenant specifically referring to Joel chapter 2 when

Peter is speaking includes Those people to whom

Peter is speaking to as well as their children and as many as are Called from far off looking to the

Gentile World conversion and then of course in the case of the

Lord's Supper some some Presbyterians don't believe that the Lord's Supper includes their children.

I do believe that includes their children because as it says in first Corinthians 10 17 That we are one bread therefore

We're out. We're one body Therefore we all partake of one bread and that all of us have been baptized into the body of Christ So I believe the new covenant very clearly includes the children of believers not only that But when we look at the way baptism is

Administered we have a direct confirmation of that. I'm I don't hesitate to say

That there is no explicit statement in the Bible that says an infant was baptized

But again, there's no explicit statement in the Bible that says the children of believers are to grow up and mature to the point where they are then

Able to profess their faith and be baptized. There's no example as Happens in many

Baptist churches of a young child being baptized upon profession of faith

There's simply no example or direct statement about children and baptism

But if we look carefully at what the Bible does speak about it tells us how the gospel goes from Jerusalem to the end of the earth and if you look at the book of Acts That pattern is very clear.

That pattern is a pattern It's Jerusalem Judea Samaria and then the ends of the earth

Acts 1 8 and Following and if you look at it the baptisms follow this outline There are 3 ,000 men at Pentecost that are baptized in Samaria.

There's the Samaritans and Simon a little Terricopy about those folks and the eunuch is also there in chapter 8 as well and then the gospel moves to the ends of the earth and so you have the

Transitional baptism of the Apostle Paul in Acts chapter 9 and you have Then the first Gentile convert is baptized in Acts chapter 10

That's Cornelius Then you have the God -fearer Lydia in Acts 16 then the new convert the the out -and -out pagan jailer in Acts 16 verse 31 and following and then in Acts 18 the

Corinthians Many were baptized and we're told a little bit more about that in 1st

Corinthians 1 where it says that Crispus and Stephanus and Gaius as mentioned by name are baptized and then we have the

Disciples of John who were rather confused about John's message in Acts in Acts 19

Now that's the example of baptism we have in the Bible as it unfolds After the

Great Commission is given in the apostolic carrying out of Jesus command and where we learn from it

I think it's very clear as the gospel grows From Jerusalem, Judea Samaria to the ends of the earth as it goes to the nation's

Households are baptized. So if you look at the chart And you can actually see this if you go to pedo baptism calm my website

They're called pedo baptism calm and there's a PDF booklet available and you can see this chart for yourself but you have

In the Gentile territory you have Cornelius household that's baptized Lydia's household that's baptized the jailers household that's baptized

Crispus household that's baptized Stephanus household that's baptized and every person else that you can name is is listed as either a man individually or as a

Group of people like 3 ,000 men at Pentecost or the Samaritans both men and women or Simon or the eunuch individually

So as it turns out of the nine individuals, you can name that are baptized in the New Testament Five of them are household cases

Four of the other four to ostensibly do not have households that would be

Saul and The eunuch and why aren't the eunuchs children baptized?

Well, he's a eunuch that's why and then we have Simon the sorcerer who turns out to be an apostate and Gaius and we're not told much about so of the nine individuals named five have households baptized

Well, that is not a promising set of statistics for those who maintain that Something radically different has changed with how the covenant is administered in the

New Covenant era That is a pattern If I might say so boldly that's a pattern of continuity if there ever was one as the gospel goes to the

Gentiles it goes by way of households and I will speak a bit later about the particularly poignant example of the

Jailer who is the first out not pagan? Who is baptized and the text is very clear

There's a new Passover for the Gentiles. They pass through the Red Sea they escape from Egypt they at midnight leave and go through the waters of baptism and rejoice at the table as they

Exodus out of Egypt that is inclusive of the little children

In fact, that's the very reason that the

Exodus event is so Discussed in the Bible.

There's a lot of emphasis on the little ones of the children little ones of Israel that were down you see

Okay, Greg. Thank you. Um, just before dr. White speaks in response to the

Dr. Starbridge's intro. I just want to make a point for our listeners. We are being what webcasted streaming live tonight

Somewhat of a new venture for us and that's being brought to us by Alpha Omega Ministries the program the dividing line that dr

James White is It publishes and produces and it frequently is on So before I just want to make that real clear to our listeners tonight so that everybody understood that and that the format would be

That dr Starbridge would get a 10 -minute intro and then there'll be For three rounds of response and then a conclusion from each side

So I just want to make that real clear and for our guests just so you understand what I'm going to do since we're all

Using the same program when your time limit is coming close to end I'll go ahead and just text message you so it's not going into the broadcast.

So I hope that's clear Just pay attention your text messaging window and you'll see when times up and then we'll move from there

So anyway with that said dr. White, why don't you go ahead and take 10 minutes and respond to dr. Starbridge's introduction?

Well, thank you very much I appreciate the opportunity of being with you and I do think this is a very important subject for us to address it's an opportunity for us to take our differences to the

Word of God and Demonstrate that we do believe our confession of solo scriptura and tota scriptura

It is also an opportunity I think for the audience to judge who is consistent in their exegesis and their hermeneutics

And that's what I would invite the audience to do this evening. I I've debated this subject before I'm sure that dr.

Strawbridge has as well. I really doubt that either one of us are going to be changing our views this evening, but It is for the audience.

It is for the people of God to hear two people who have stayed the issue bringing this information to them and challenging them to go the

Word of God and to See who is consistent and that really to me is the issue is who is going to be consistent in The form of hermeneutics and exegesis they use to defend for example the deity of Christ the doctrine of the

Trinity the resurrection and then use the same consistent form of exegesis in dealing with this subject of baptism from my perspective baptism is an ordinance of the

New Covenant and hence it is positively established by Jesus Christ and therefore since it is of positive

Establishment that means there is a positive biblical teaching Concerning the nature of baptism now in the second portion of our debate

I will be presenting a positive case for my view in this portion of the debate

I am basically to simply interact with what dr. Strawbridge has already said I would start off by saying that I don't believe that the apostolic example of Baptism can simply be dismissed as being irrelevant to infants because it was all of adults

I believe that we would normally look at how the Apostles interpreted the

Old Testament and how they established baptism first and foremost and Then use that as the primary foundation upon which to then build any doctrine from that point and It is my assertion that when we do this when we go through the same text in Acts chapter 8 and go through them carefully

We discovered that there is absolutely no instance anywhere of the Apostles giving baptism to an unrepentant

Individual this I believe is due to the fact that if we carefully examine the subject of baptism

We see that is always associated a with the Holy Spirit of God and be in the New Covenant era with faith

And so looking at the texts that were brought up I suppose in this instance the best that I could do would be to look at some of these texts in Acts that were just mentioned and See if there is this very clear as dr.

Strawbridge claims in his book Consistent compelling really overwhelming Evidence that this is a household

Activity that takes place in the sense of once it goes baptism goes the Gentiles that this is always a household baptism

Just in summary, and then we can look at specifics I would simply point out that when we look at household baptisms in book of Acts.

We look at Cornelius all Believed when we look at the jailers household

It is I I hope we will have an opportunity to delve into the text there because it is very clear to me that again

This is this is where we can test for consistency That a reformed person is not going to assert that only the jailer believed and his family having rejected the word of the gospel

Rejoiced with him that he actually accepted it That's not normative for reformed folks to believe that folks who had just rejected the gospel

Rejoicing that you actually accepted it while they were Rejecting it themselves. And so I think it's very consistent to indicate that the jailers household believed

Crispus all believed Acts 18 8 Stephanos all believed they were called the first fruits of a

K a first Corinthians 16 15 Then you have two others Lydia and Gaius about whom we are given almost no information

Gaius We aren't given any information about at all to be able to even know what kind of a household he had who was included

Anything about them whatsoever. The name is just simply given Lydia It seems fairly obvious that given that she is the head of a household not a man

That the household would probably if it included family members at all would probably have servants and things like that in it

Which another issue we might want to bring up if we're going to make the circumcision connection and say that circumcision

Is the model that we're going to follow through here? What really a household is? Because it wasn't just infant children in the

Old Covenant who received the Covenant signs It was also the servants the slaves and Lydia's household undoubtedly would have included individuals and not of her specific family

But since there's no man involved and she is a seller of purple. It's quite Improbable that infants were included in this anyways

But we just simply are not told what we are able to discern is that there is already an apostolic

Example provided we do not have to have the text completely repeating every time

Repentance faith then baptism repentance faith and baptism when each time it has appeared before this

This is what we have going on this would be I would think in almost any other instance other than this one something that reformed exegetes would agree on that the

Apostolic principle is going to stand in those instances and that we are going to be able to look at that now

We had I believe cited and I apologize if this wasn't but I believe

I heard it being cited Acts chapter 2 verse 39, which is cited a number of times in dr

Strawbridge's pamphlet that he just referenced on line And I noted that in that pamphlet

Only once in a list of verses was the entirety of the verse quoted every other time

It was used it was just simply the the statement the promise is for you and your children and This to me has been

I think one of the one of the more consistent Elements of my study of my pedo -baptist brethren's writings and and sermons is that the the

Old Covenant? Drumbeat is so strong that they they miss the

New Covenant fulfillment that is found in Acts chapter 2 verse 39 We know the text for the promises for you and your children and for all who are far off as Many as the

Lord our God will call to himself. It is interesting that when you actually look at the text you will see it says for to you is the promise and to your children and to all who are far off as many as the

Lord our God shall call when you look at the way that it's written out in the Greek text and and It is very clear that the phrase and to your children is

Just as much connected in and no more or no less than those who are far off but the delimiter in this text is as many as the

Lord our God shall call to himself and Reformed Baptists believe that given the nature of the

New Covenant as it is laid out in Hebrews chapter 8 as The New Covenant writers interpret the

Old Testament text and I would like to assert and that again it is the consistent belief reformed exegetes that the

New Covenant writings Determine the way in which the Old Covenant writings are fulfilled.

You don't go to the Old Covenant go Well, this is the way that we think this should be fulfilled then push that on the New Testament Instead it's the

New Covenant writers who get to interpret the Old Covenant and how it is being fulfilled in their own

Writings and so when we do that, we go to Hebrews chapter 8 and we see the presentation that is made by the

Apostle there We see that the New Covenant in the blood of Christ is this covenant with the elect of God?

It is a perfect covenant and we'll look at in my presentation I will take the time to go through Hebrews chapter 8 and emphasize the the better promises the better covenant the better mediator and things like this but one of our areas of fundamental disagreement is that from my perspective if a person is truly in the

New Covenant not the External Church, that's not a Simon not the ones in 1st John 2 It says they went out from us because they were not truly of us.

That's a demonstration They were not truly of the New Covenant But those who are in the New Covenant there is no way that those persons can be lost because they have been perfected by the one -time sacrifice of Jesus Christ and so Since baptism then becomes the sign of that covenant then there is a radical

Fulfillment not a disjunction, but just as there is a radical change for example in the giving of the covenant sign to to women

Because there's no male or female in Christ Jesus in the same way Given that the promises to Israel included not only the land promises

But also the promises of being the people through whom the Messiah would come once the Messiah comes

There is a major fulfillment there is going to have to be a change and since the gospel then goes out to the

Gentiles not just of the Jews that family principle that marked off the people of God it

Changes and in fact we see that that a person's true sons and daughters are not those who spring from their loins but those who share the faith in Jesus Christ, and so there is a not not a

Diminishment but actually a grand expansion of these promises in the in the promulgation of the gospel of Jesus Christ and That is seen in Acts 2 39 for this promise is to you and to your children the

Jews and to all who are far off the Gentiles as Many as the Lord our

God shall call on to himself there is the election principle And then it says those who receive the word were baptized those the ones who receive

That covenant sign because they have received the gospel message that is always connected together my time is up So I relinquish the microphone back to dr.

Strawbridge Okay, dr. Strawbridge you have seven minutes to continue with part one of this discussion

Yes, very good. Well again as we look at the way that children are

To be included in the church or in baptism Again, we have to make the decision.

Are we going to treat them as adult converts? that's what James is essentially saying or are we going to treat them as members of God's covenant to be nurtured in the faith and therefore to mature in that expression of the faith now my

Point is of course the latter point and I think that when you look at the actual

Uses of baptism in the Bible it supports that because as I said There's no example of a child being baptized and there's no example of a

Christian's child Growing up and being baptized as a believer. So the Bible is silent on both accounts.

So we have to reason by inference So again, we can't turn to the Ethiopian eunuch and say look

He had a crystal -clear profession of faith before he was baptized. Therefore your children should be baptized because the eunuch cannot be an example of how we deal with the

Christians child because well He's a eunuch so when we look at the pattern we see that there is a strong pattern that the gospel goes to the

Gentile world in Fulfillment of the promise to Abraham by going to households and households are baptized

And I don't have to maintain that their infants in every household or any household for that matter because remember the point is the household is

Incovenant with God just as it has been throughout the whole millennia many many a couple thousand years before The the book of Acts is written

So let's take one example though just to be a little more I can say that in in general

But let me let me take one example as a as a more specific Case and that is the jailer as I alluded to earlier

The jailer is the very first in Acts 16 the jailers the very first out -and -out pagan

That's baptized as recorded in the New Testament There is the member Cornelius was a was a

Gentile, but he was a God -fear. He worshipped God He brought alms to support

The poor he was a God -fearer in technical terms the jailer however Manifests that he himself is a

Roman. He has a Roman sense of values about to kill himself over loss of duty So what can we say about that passage in Acts chapter 16 it evidences?

solidarity Continuity and corporeality it evidences solidarity of the household because the emphasis of the grammar

Is on the head of the household's action and that's very clear that the verbs

Themself like having believed in God with this whole household Acts 16 34 is singular

Luke does not Nuance the text to say every person in the household believed He doesn't nuance it that way he could have and indeed

He should have if you were trying to teach us that something radical has changed about that But what he said is perfectly consistent with as for me in my house

We will serve the Lord what Joshua said it evidences continuity therefore Because this whole event recalls the original formation and deliverance of Israel at Passover After all like in the case of Peter being released from prison this happened at midnight

Acts 16 25 that's a reference to Passover. That's a that's a type

Reference to Passover. It's an illusion and that same hour it Passover They are released and I think this is pretty unmistakable

Passover illusion because Exodus 11 4 5 speaks of midnight and in fact the

The Hebrew term literally means the division of the night the point of release

Between darkness and light and so ironically with the release of those in bondage fallen silos

It was the jailers house Which would be delivered by the blood of the Lamb to pass through the

Red Sea of baptism and Rejoice on the other side remember what the Exodus 11 4 5 said about midnight

I will go out into the midst of Egypt and all the firstborn of the land Shall die from the firstborn of the

Pharaoh who sits on his throne even to the firstborn female It was all about the firstborn so then the corporality the whole

Family the the corporate identity of the family is very significant the children are of the essence in the first example of Moses request to be released

He says to go with our young to hold a feast to the Lord Pharaoh was unwilling

To let the little ones go Exodus 10 7 through 11 and then came one more plague and what was that plague at midnight?

it was that the firstborn child would die Exodus 11 29 and then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron by night and As the text says

Pharaoh turned about face and said rise go out with my people and you know the story

So this is a I think Luke is taught is casting this as a direct allusion to Passover But remember

Passover was about letting the children go as much as the whole The children of Israel, I believe this is very very significant in fact the firstborn judgment was was an allusion to the inclusion of children and to the to the ownership of children by the

Lord and so I like what The what

FF Bruce says about this passage. He says he washed them from their stripes and was himself washed

From their sins Chrysostom said of the jailer He was he washed and was washed that is he was baptized and was baptized and his whole household was baptized his whole household was baptized as a result of This Passover to this pagan a jailer now that is not consistent with the

Baptistic assumptions about the way baptism should be administered. This is being

Cast as an example of the Passover and the whole household is baptized

Remind you also what first Corinthians 10 says when it says that when act when the

Israelites left out of Egypt they passed through the Red Sea and Paul calls that baptism and they all ate and drank and Yet, of course

God reminds them that with many of them. He was not well pleased Now, I'm not sure where my time is and I do not see an indication

So can some of you guys tell me where we are? You're at time right now as a matter of fact, okay

Okay, dr. White. It's your turn in the seven minutes Thank you very much I very much appreciate that and I appreciate the opportunity of getting into the text of Scripture if we could look again at Acts chapter 16 verses 31 to 35 they said believe in the

Lord Jesus and you will be saved you and your household and they spoke the word the

Lord to him together with all those who were in his house and he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds and Immediately he was baptized he and all his household and he brought them into his house and set food before them and rejoiced greatly

Having believed in God with his whole household now You will notice a couple of things first of all

It says believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved you and your household reformed exegetes recognize that no one is saved on the basis of the faith of another person so obviously when it says and your household in verse 31

Anyone in the household who believes in the Lord Jesus will be saved that is the mechanism by which any person is saved

There has never been anyone outside of unless we want to start talking about unusual circumstances like children who die in infancy or something

No one goes to heaven who is an individual who has the opportunity of confessing faith in Christ who does not

Hopefully none of us here are inclusivists or universalist or anything like that obviously so within the reformed camp

We look at 631 and we can come up with an understandable and consistent way of interpreting it then notice

It says they spoke the word the Lord to him together with all who were in his house now

That means the gospel has present been presented to all who were in his house

I think this gives us some indication of the nature of the household because they can hear the proclamation the gospel

It can be made to them there can be communication made to these individuals And so when it says that he was baptized he and all his household

These are individuals who have had the message preached to them if they did not believe then

I would have to ask dr. Strawbridge will you baptize a a teenage boy at say age 14?

Who to whom you have presented the gospel who rejects the gospel and says I reject Jesus Christ?

I reject the message will you still baptize that person? I realize that there are some who would say yes when

I debated Bill Shishko He said he would not baptize anyone Who was in a situation like that so that's a question that maybe we can?

Kick around and have answered here in this context And so when it says he brought them into his house and set food before them and rejoiced greatly having believed in God with his whole

Household yes believed in God is singular But Panoik I that adverb is not something that can be kept in a singular context are we to interpret this as?

the as the household Having not believed and rejected the gospel

Rejoice together with the jailer who has accepted the gospel Would he be would he be rejoicing in the rejection of his family?

While he himself has accepted the gospel or is the obvious meaning of the text that they all rejoice together

Because they all had believed the gospel which is why they were all Baptized and isn't the wonder of the household passages given the history of the church given that that we know

That the gospel divides families given that we know that individuals

Reject the gospel of Jesus Christ and therefore there is a a division in families And how often this kind of thing took place given all of that is it not the case then that what we have in Acts?

Chapter 16 plainly and clearly is a situation where they rejoiced greatly together and all of them had believed

In God together, and that's why rejoicing is taking place I think this is a consistent interpretation of Acts chapter 16

And if we can provide a a consistent interpretation of each of these texts

Going backwards going backwards to Cornelius for example and the fact that his household

Why were they baptized because they likewise had believed and Christmas his household believes and Stephanus?

They believe is there a is there a consistent pattern going on here

I believe very clearly that there is a consistent pattern, and I I would like to ask

We don't have a specific give -and -take section But but I would like to ask is there on on dr.

Strawbridge's part of some statement concerning the issue of Baptismal regeneration

The reason being that very clearly in the pamphlet at the beginning we have the assertion no justification

It's all a feed a so gratia the the soul is and etc etc and yet If we are going to try to draw some of the parallels that are drawn here

It would seem to me that the only consistent way to do so would be to embrace a form of baptismal regeneration

So that you have a direct parallel when we start talking about is Baptism the fulfillment of circumcision for example and things like that which dr.

Strawbridge hasn't gotten into yet fully But is a part of his his presentation I I would again exhort the listeners to look for consistency on both of our parts

When when I'm handling the text of Scripture am I using the same exegetical methodology that I utilize?

when I am For example interpreting Any other doctrine you might think of in the book of Acts whether it be gifts the spirit whether it be anything along those lines the resurrection the proclamation of justification and Peter and and all these things just just a beta

Muslim up in Seattle on the subject of the of the atonement and Am I using the same?

Exegetical methodology and hermeneutics in addressing the issue of baptism as I am in those other areas if I am

NOT if I change my method of interpretation That is the indication that I have encountered a tradition that I am in some way giving honor to a tradition that I should not be giving honor to and that it is

Interrupting my exegesis my interpretation the text of Scripture. That is an important aspect that we need to take a look at.

Thank you very much Okay, great, dr. Strawbridge you have five minutes to continue on with your affirmative

Sure, um, yes and Let me follow up because it's kind of hard to to go point for point

I'd like to do that. But but because earlier the New Covenant was mentioned. Let me address the

New Covenant I think that my burden is to make sense of texts that look like on The face of them things about every person in the

New Covenant is regenerate. I think that James is Difficulty or dr. White's difficulty is to show that new children are not included in you in the

New Covenant, even though virtually every New Covenant prophecy does say Israel and her children are to you and your seed

In fact, let me just support that and point out that if you look at eyes in Jeremiah 31 verses 34 31 to 36 37 you'll see that in Jeremiah 31 the offspring of Israel will not be cast off verse 36 of chapter 31 and It will be with the families of Israel.

They shall all be my people verse so one of Jeremiah 31 a

Joel to the passage that's in the background of Acts chapter 2 Peter To you and your children and to all who are far off as many as the

Lord your God shall call That passage says to your sons and daughters so there is

Covenant succession in virtually every New Covenant prophecy. So how do we read the children out of that?

Even Mary the mother of our Lord says his mercy is upon generation after generation Paul in Romans chapter 4 says the promises made to Abraham are just as certain

For those who are of the faith and what are those promises? Well, the promise is that I will be

God to you and to your children after you So now how can I make sense of the New Covenant statements?

I think if we look carefully at the New Covenant statements, they're all inclusive of children and they are passages which in the in the previous

Era given looking forward to the New Covenant period looking forward to a consummation period these promises

Essentially look forward to a new heavens and new earth I mean they're correlated with a with a new heaven and new earth to a fully consummated world

So I do believe there is a an already and not yet since to them But in Christ the future has become present in Christ those things have become present so those

Connected to Christ have the presence of the future. That's why for example vindication and Justification language can be utilized in Christ.

That's why Resurrection is true. Now. I am the resurrection and the life Jesus says in John chapter 11

The kingdom is now in Christ I will eat a drink of this cup anew with you in the kingdom of God in the resurrection and so forth

I think that there is a presence of the future in Christ And I think that extends to those that are in covenant with Christ and the

New Covenant itself is Using I think Jeremiah uses hyperbolic language to describe this to some extent if you look very carefully at Jeremiah's own usage of his own words what when he talks about things like You shall all they shall all know me from the least to the greatest that language and the language of heart

Renewal is language that's in Deuteronomy 30 verse 5 and 6 It's previously in Jeremiah circumcised your hearts remove the four skins of your hearts

Those who are circumcised yet uncircumcised in a 925 these this is a call for the renewal of the

Covenant which was Formatively given to Abraham which includes no doubt

The and I seed and in fact the I will be their God and they shall be my people is the restatement of the very same promise now, please notice the the

Structure of James's argument his structure is that even though children are not

Explicitly excluded from the New Covenant. He infers from what he takes the New Covenant to mean their exclusion but the texts

Say the Covenant Lord will be God to you and your descendants Genesis 17 7

Exodus 29 45 Deuteronomy 7 9 Deuteronomy 29 13 30 verse 6 1st

Chronicles 16 15 psalm 103 verse 17 psalm 105 verse 8 all of those say that and that's

Precisely what Jeremiah 31 says your time? There is a time coming of renewal of the heart

Okay, dr. White you have five minutes to respond Thank you very much. I Intend to explicate to Hebrews 8 and demonstrate that honestly

I believe that some of the argumentation that was just made such as hyperbolic language Would be very effective on the part of someone who is opposing the

Apostles presentation of the New Covenant in Hebrews chapter 8 That's why my assertion that we need to allow the

New Covenant documents to interpret the fulfillment of the Old Covenant within them

Not vice versa. We do not start with well My interpretation of the Old Covenant documents is that they mean this and then say therefore the

New Covenant must be Interpreting it the same way that I am we have to start with the New Covenants interpretation of these texts

Now when we come to this particular issue, I noted a statement by Dr.

Strawbridge in his book where he said households of a Cornelius or a Lydia a Philippian jailer or a

Stephanus Could now be counted as Abraham's children and quote page 12 of the

URL given to you earlier And I think this is an excellent example of of what

I feel is missing the consistent New Testament teaching Because all those listed except for Lydia either clearly believed or obviously believed and to say otherwise is not only unwarranted by the text

What is worse it leads to the untenable idea that unrepentant unbelievers are counted as Abraham's children in the

New Covenant that would make it the same as the Old Covenant where you have an Ahab who bears the Sign who is clearly unregenerate and is a

God hater How does the New Covenant become better than the Old Covenant when both are just mixed covenants and maybe as in some people say you've

Got a few more regenerate people in the New Covenant Is that really the argument of the writer to the Hebrews demonstrating the supremacy of Christ?

It's a little bit better than the Old Covenant and really for a reformed exegete Is it not clear how a person is a child of Abraham in the

New Covenant? Doesn't Galatians chapter 3 say Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law having become a curse for us

For it is written curse as everyone hangs on a tree in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham Might come the

Gentiles so that we would receive the promise the Spirit how? Through faith not through baptism

But through faith and in Galatians 3 26 to 29 for you're all sons of God through how through faith in Christ Jesus not through baptism through faith in Christ Jesus for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ Was a a hab clothed with Christ by circumcision the

Old Covenant? I submit to you He was not is a person who receives baptism Do who does not have faith and the

New Covenant era is he clothed with Christ? I submit to you He is not that is not what the New Covenant Ordinance of baptism is about verse 28.

There is neither Jew nor Greek. There is neither slave nor free man There is neither male nor female You are all one in Christ Jesus that baptism makes us one

But in Christ Jesus if you're not in Christ Jesus baptism doesn't do anything for you because it doesn't represent the reality of your experience

And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants heirs according to promise

So notice the contrast in the statements according to Galatians 329 if you belong to Christ not if you are just Baptized and hence quote -unquote covenantally related to him if you belong to him if you are in him

Same language as Ephesians 1 belonging to Christ being in him Then you are Abraham's descendants heirs according to the promise and so without faith

There is no relationship with Christ in that way And that's the radical beauty of the

New Covenant and hence the New Covenant signs. Is that these these? demonstrate the consistency between the existence of God's elect people and now in the

New Covenant Those who are united with Christ those who are forgiven of their sins his laws written upon their heart and unlike the

Old Covenant Where those who experienced these gracious acts of God? themselves are

Are troubled and and and and greatly disturbed by the presence of unbelievers in their midst now in the

New Covenant The Covenant in the blood of Christ not the blood of goats and bulls and calves, but in the blood of Christ They have forgiveness of sins.

They have a perfect union with him and that Covenant is inviolable that's why it is better than the

Old Covenant, which is passing away and That is that is the argument of the writer of Hebrews Which as I said,

I'll attempt to expand upon when I have a little bit more time in my section in the next half of the debate

Okay, great, dr. Starbridge, you have five minutes and round three Greg did he get muted?

I was on mute. Sorry. There you go. I'm sure that would be preferable for dr. But I would just like to point out you just glad we did we didn't lose you that's good

Okay Yeah, I'm trying to get my burden of proof is to to say, okay.

What does the New Covenant mean then and Because I think the accusation is coming from dr.

White that that there's no difference in my view of the New Covenant in the previous Administrations.

I want to say the structure and the recipients of the Covenant are the same. There's more efficacy

There's more revelation and as I tried to indicate earlier There's an eschatological

Breaking in now through Christ. That's really the difference But I want to challenge him to answer the question

I can produce 20 verses that say the New Covenant includes the children of believers

So please also I'm trying to make sense of what these efficacy passages say about the

New Covenant But I'd like for you to say how these children are now excluded on what basis can you produce one?

Text in the Bible that excludes the children of believers from the New Covenant. I don't think you can now

What can I say about Hebrews 8? Well the writer? cites Jeremiah 31 31 to 34

Remember 35 and 36 and 37 say the offspring of Israel shall not cease to be a nation before me

So please note that's covenant inclusion of the offspring in the New Covenant passage

But in in Hebrews 8 6 to 12 the writer simply cites 31 to 34 to prove that a better covenant administration was promised than the

Mosaic and Remember why because there were temporary? Sacrificial system aspects of the

Abraham the Mosaic Covenant and the Levitical priesthood for example see Hebrews 181 to 13 he says

This he says he said since a new covenant He has made he has made the first obsolete.

That's Hebrews 8 13 this point I think is very relevant to the original audience, which is

Jewish Christians who attempted to return to the shadows I'm sure we don't disagree about that when he cites in Hebrews 10 16 to 17 the same

Passage he also makes clear. He says the Holy Spirit bears witness to us in what?

That the first order shadowed sacrifices, which were temporary and have been replaced by the second

Final order of once for all sacrificed in Christ Hebrews 10 10 It's a contrast of the singular unrepeatable sufficient sacrifice of Jesus The good the shadow of the good things to come with the repeatable

Old Testament sacrifices the writer of Hebrews Does not cite the new covenant reference in Jeremiah 31 to say everyone in the new covenant is regenerate and Here's why

I know that the whole argument of the book of Hebrews is against that he says in Chapter 2 verse 2 to 3 if the words spoken through angels prove unalterable

How shall we escape if we neglect the greater salvation in 3 8 and 12?

He says today if you hear his voice do not harden your hearts as they did take care brethren Unless you should be in any one of you an evil

Unbelieving heart falling away from the Living God. He's parallel in that in 4 2.

He says therefore let us Let us fear less while a promise remains of entering his rest

Any one of you should seem to have come short of it for indeed We have good news preached to us just as they also in 411

He says let us be diligent to enter that rest lest anyone fall through falling the same example of disobedience

If under Moses and had Hebrews 10 28 and 29 if under Moses one rejected the covenant how much severe punishment for us?

under Christ He says see to it that no one comes short of the grace of God that no root of bitterness

Springing up causes trouble and by it many be defiled 12 verse 15 and 16 that there be no immoral person like Esau who sold his birthright one minute 12 25

He says in the Hebrews 12 25. He says for those did not escape.

This is talking about Sinai people If they did not escape when they refused him who warned from earth

How much less shall we escape who turn from him who warns from heaven in other words?

The whole book of Hebrews is an argument from the lesser to the greater How much more how much more how much more you also not do this?

That makes James's reading of the New Covenant unintelligible if no one in the

New Covenant can fall away Why does he cite in at least five or six ninety seven or eight times?

the parallel between the Old Covenant apostates and The New Covenant recipients in fact, that's what the

Holy Testament does Paul does that in Hebrews? And excuse me Paul does that in 1st Corinthians 10?

1 and following okay time Okay, dr. White you have five minutes to respond

Thank you very much. I hope people heard the description of the Old Covenant as well.

There's more efficacy there's there's an Eschatological breaking in I would invite people to look at the arguments that the book of Hebrews makes at this point

I haven't had a chance to develop this yet. But since that's where we seem to be focused right now And notice that that's not the argumentation of the writer.

He's not saying well, it's a little bit better There's there's some more efficacy in the New Covenant. So don't go back to the Old Covenant No, there is a radical change between these two so much

The first is is has been made obsolete and is passing away and in fact those who are the recipients of New Covenant are

Perfected by the one -time sacrifice of Jesus Christ. So what are all these warnings in the book of Hebrews? We just had it proved to us that there are many warning passages in the book of Hebrews And I I think we're all aware of the fact there are warning passages

Does it therefore follow that the person in the New Covenant? Can is not perfected by the sacrifice of Christ that we see in Hebrews 10 10 and 14

No, obviously what you have here is the same thing you have in Paul when I look out over a congregation and preach the gospel

To them. I cannot see within their hearts. I cannot see what it is that they are truly confessing

And so I have warnings for them just as well It does not follow that what I'm saying is that if you are clinging to Christ that Christ can fail to save you

I am in no way shape or form even beginning to make that kind of an accusation that kind of an assertion

To anyone and the same thing is the case here Just because the writer of the Hebrews is exhorting people and saying don't go back

This is what will happen If you do does not mean that these individuals are truly a part of the New Covenant remember first John 2

They went out from us why? Because they were truly of us, but they broke the the violable

New Covenant No, they went out for us for a very obvious reason because they were not truly of us for if they had been truly of us

They would have remained with us How can that be if what was just said is true that the

New Covenant can be violated and you see this is where I believe That the consistency of reformed theology comes into play because if we recognize that the

New Covenant is the covenant in his blood and if we believe in particular redemption and if we believe

That's the elect who've been united with Jesus Christ so that his death is our death his resurrection is our resurrection

How is it that those who have been united with Christ could fail to achieve? That which they themselves have been promised as the elect of God This is the very heart and soul of our whole assertion is it not and that's where we fundamentally differ

Is that while reformed Baptists see the Old Covenant as a mixed covenant? We see the

New Covenant being with the elect the external church may have false professors We had

Simon the magician first John 2 tells us that there are those who go out from us first John illustrates

This is the case these were people who had been baptized Paul makes reference to false brethren who snuck in unaware

But it does not follow that because someone makes it into the external Church itself and makes profession of faith by baptism that they are there by a part of the

New Covenant and therefore can violate that Because the New Covenant is a divine covenant look at all the actions in Hebrews 8 who does them

God? Does them and he does it from the least to the greatest of them?

And I'm going to argue when I exegete the text here in a few moments That to argue as was just argued and has been argued

Against me on this subject in a number of other contexts that well It doesn't mean that the those who you know there are all these promises of God in the

Old Covenant about Writing his law upon their hearts and look at all the people. He didn't do it with that's what

Hebrews 8 is saying He's saying he found fault with them. He did not care for them

He has cast them off and now we have the New Covenant if we want to try to to Equalize these equalize these two things and make them so similar to one another we're falling into the trap of refuting the very supremacy of the work of Christ in the

New Covenant and so I believe that a consistent exegesis of Hebrews chapter 8 would indicate to us that this is the very argument of the writer to the

Hebrews that this is a better Covenant because it is God who is accomplishing these things and when

God accomplishes these things He does not fail to do so and therefore if baptism is the sign of this covenant

That is why Reformed Baptists are consistent in seeking a profession of faith Just as I believe we are consistent in the other ordinance of the

New Covenant. That is the Lord's Supper in Likewise protecting that table and asking for that statement of faith

We interpret those Old Covenant paradigms in the way that the New Covenant requires us to do so Okay, great, dr.

Starr bridge you have three minutes to conclude your Affirmative side of the argument. Well, I'm glad to know that James only baptizes regenerate people and only has regenerate people in his communion ministry however, the writer of Hebrews is not so Able to do so because he warns at the end of that long passage that anyone who set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy

How much severe punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God and has regarded as?

Unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified and as insult to the Spirit of grace

Now I'm aware that some people interpret the he as referring to the

Son of God Christ I don't think that's actually Dramatically unnecessary and I don't think that's what the text says

Nevertheless the next verse says for we know him who said Vengeance is mine. I will repay and again the

Lord will judge His people it is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the

Living God. I Don't see how you can take your interpretation of only regenerate people in the

New Covenant in light of what the state with the very text says the text of Hebrews makes the argument of lesser to greater in terms of judgment coming to those who are apostate

Vengeance is mine. The Lord will judge his People the

Lord will judge his people his people his people. That's ownership. That's covenant ownership

I believe and it's perfectly reasonable for anyone who reads the Bible from left to right or from right to left if you're in Hebrew But if you read the

Bible from beginning to end Covenant relation is made now. I think James actually his view of the

Covenant is That It's an invisible

Covenant, but what is a covenant a covenant is the relationship specify?

Does the Covenant have stipulations for judgment? Well first Corinthians chapter 11 says that the new covenant?

communion event Brings and judgment to those who eat it unworthily and drink it unworthily

I believe that first Peter 3 alludes to judgment in baptism where the parallel is to the flood

Great Luther who had that great flood prayer said that that God has drowned hard -hearted

Pharaoh in the Waters of baptism just like he drowned the wicked world and no minute we are to be preserved

Safe in the holy ark of Christendom from it the new covenant has stipulations for judgment that's perfectly clear in Hebrews chapter 6 and Hebrews chapter 10 indeed the whole book of Hebrews and How can that be if only?

Regenerate elect people are in it. Well again. The Covenant is the administration to God's people visibly

I Agree, I'm a Calvinist. I believe that there are elect I believe that but I believe that the

Covenant is administered visibly and again James is not able to only Baptize regenerate people he's not only he's not able to only

Serve communion to regenerate people we have the functionally the very same thing, but his theological basis

Excludes I think quite clear biblical text the Lord will judge his people is a terrifying thing to fall in the hands

Okay of the living God Okay great dr. White you have three minutes to respond

Thank you very much obviously It's a straw man to say that I believe that I can look into someone's heart Especially when I just said that I cannot do so we ask obviously the very same thing that the

Apostles of Jesus Christ did they? Asked for a profession of faith, and so we are following their example We are not trying to read anyone's hearts, and I did not make any claimed any type of supernatural knowledge that point

It is not functionally the same however some for someone to lie to us When we seek to protect both the table and the

Baptistry That's not the same thing as purposefully giving the Covenant signs to people that you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever are

Regenerate and in fact many grow up to be unregenerate themselves that is what the Covenant signs under the Old Covenant Did do and brought much?

Of course shame that the the prophets spoke of many times who will bring shame upon the name of Yahweh Because of the way that they lived bearing that Covenant sign

And that's one of the things that the New Covenant is better than the Old Covenant now Hebrews 1029 as dr.

Strawbridge knows as dr. John Owen for example understood it The the text is not talking about the apostate who is sanctified as the high priest who has set himself apart

It is fascinating that Hebrews chapter 10 this tremendous apologetic for the once -for -all

Finished work of Jesus Christ that perfects for all time those who are sanctified and it removes from them

Their sin can then in just a space of 15 verses all sudden be saying however

You can still lose your salvation you can buy some sort of covenant and faithfulness

Lose your salvation and even though you're once perfected you will not be perfected any longer This again

Reduces the New Covenant to the Old Covenant it makes it a mixed covenant it makes it a covenant that does not perfect It makes it confuses the fact that as first John tells us when people leave the communion

They do so because they were not truly of us so you may want to say well the covenants of visible administration

But then you have to explain how can John know that those who left were not truly of us in the first place?

How can he say if they were truly of us they would have remained with us you see?

This is where the Reformed understanding of the perfect work of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit of God in in Perfecting that work within them keeps them and does not lose them.

It is not because of my fulfillment of some kind of Covenant works of faithfulness that in some way shape or form

I keep myself In Christ it is the work of his Holy Spirit within me, and that's what makes the

New Covenant Superior to the Old Covenant that is passing away And that's why the writer to the

Hebrews says what he says is in my next section I will try to unpack with a little more time Okay that concludes part one of the discussion should the children of Christians be baptized as infants dr.

Starburst of course carrying the affirmative Discussion and dr. White responding now we will turn the argument over and dr.

White will start out with the the negative view should the children of Christians be baptized as infants, and he will

Set out to show that no they shouldn't and we will follow the same format gentlemen as before with ten minutes intro and three rounds

And then a conclusion so dr. White. It's all yours Okay, thank you very much

I would like to say that as far as the actual thesis of the statement itself

Should the children of Christians be baptized as infants? If as infants they confess faith in Christ and repent then

I would say yes But of course that brings up the issue of what you define as an infant And that was actually a problem which surprised me in my debate with Bill Shishko is that I couldn't get a definition of an infant

I'm functioning primarily on the idea that the difference between a child I was a child and I confessed faith in Christ the difference between a child and an infant has to do with the infants ability to understand the spoken word to understand the issue of Sin to see himself as an individual and know who

God is and be able to understand the message that is preached That is where I would draw the line between an infant and a child and hopefully that will be a usable definition within this context obviously as a

Reformed Baptist elder I Hold my view of baptism Out of a conviction that the consistent application of the proper exegetical interpretation of the divinely inspired scriptures

Not only teaches the absolute sovereignty of God over all things including his own self glorification

Saving a peculiar people powerfully and perfectly in Jesus Christ that likewise teaches that baptism as a positive ordinance established by the

New Testament and Exemplified and defined therein is a sign of the New Covenant Signifying one's union with Christ death burial and resurrection in him and one's new life in him as such it is given only to disciples

Those who have professed faith in Christ and repentance from sin It is the consistency of the teaching of the

New Testament regarding the nature of the New Covenant The atoning work of Christ the fact that Old Testament circumcisions

New Testament fulfillment is regeneration not baptism and the clear Establishment of baptism as an ordinance related directly to faith and repentance that precludes my acceptance of any other understanding of this

New Testament ordinance I believe the long list of great names that can be associated with a belief in pedo baptism or as some prefer

Oiko Baptism can be traced directly to the historical context the Reformation and the late medieval period in Europe where one religion reigns supreme in a nation

Resulting in generational Christianity, but this is a context very different than that of the early church

It is I firmly believe the tradition that arose at that time in particular in the formulation of John Calvin Regarding baptism that results in an inconsistent application of exegesis and hermeneutics on the part of many of my

Reformed brethren today Leading to our debate this evening I have already made the assertion that the idea that the

New Testament gives to us a normative household baptism situation That does not take into consideration both the old the the historical reality that the majority of those who are part of the church

Were not families, but that the gospel divided those families clearly seen for example in the discussion of marriage in first Corinthians 7

So often I think misused and being cited as relevant to this subject Where people are wondering well, what about my marriage to my pagan husband?

What about my children? Are they legitimate is my marriage legitimate? What has everything changed and Paul's response being that yes your marriages remain your children remain legitimate cetera, etc

What does that point out it points out that many there in Corinth? We're not living in a generational

Christianity They were living the situation where the gospel Divided and that the people they were living with though they had can continue to live with them had not accepted the gospel and so the gospel was dividing

Husband and wife just as Jesus himself had said and in fact I would point out that is a Household principle that's clearly found in the

New Testament as well And I think another household principle in the New Testament is the household of faith that is where we are brothers and sisters with one

Another and that there is a propagation of the gospel propagation of the church through the presentation of the gospel not through a genetic propagation in a family type of a situation and So when we look at these things we've already brought up a number of the issues

I just did want to just try to sneak in because I don't know if we're gonna get have time to get to it Obviously, we can't even cover most of the topics in the time

We have this evening, but I want to point out that that John Calvin's doctrine of infant baptism

Was very much dependent upon two texts one in Romans 4 and running one in Colossians chapter 2 and I would just simply point out

I would invite people to look very carefully at Colossians chapter 2 and its assertion that the actual new covenant fulfillment of baptism is itself regeneration and dr.

Strawbridge makes this point in his book But I think if he were to be consistent would have to move the baptism regeneration point to actually make the point stick to his

Own position and I would also like to point out I think this is very important people don't seem to realize that when

Abraham is used as the example His circumcision is used as an example in Romans chapter 4

Abraham is called the father of the faithful But Abraham received what we reformed Baptists like to call believers circumcision

That is he received the sign after faith it was a sign of the righteousness that was his by faith

Isaac could not have functioned as the father of the faithful Because he received the sign prior to faith only

Abraham and Abraham's circumcision could function to make him the father of the faithful.

What does that tell us? That tells us that to be the father of the faithful. There's gonna be something about these who are faithful That's different than Isaac.

That's different than those who come after Abraham because they received the sign before they have faith

That's a very important point to bring out I honestly think that if Calvin could have been challenged on those issues things might have been a little bit different historically but that wasn't the situation historically that we were facing now in the

Did I not reset my time? I got four minutes left. How in the world did that happen? Hebrews chapter 8

Jesus described the New Covenant as a covenant in his blood in Luke chapter 22 We believe that That covenant then reflects

God's eternal elect people How I would like to ask dr.

Strawbridge if he wants to say that the New Covenant is made with people who are not of the elect How can it be said that it is the covenant in the blood of Christ if the blood of Christ was not specifically shed?

For the remission of their sins, which according to Hebrews chapter 8 is exactly what the

New Covenant does I will not remember their sins. I will forgive their sins

That is what is said I believe baptism as it is a New Covenant ordinance has as its recipients those in the

New Covenant just as the supper does I further believe that when we examine the full Explication of the New Covenant in Hebrews 8 and 10 and by the way, dr.

Strawbridge said he doesn't the writer didn't restate the Jeremiah 31 text he does in Hebrews chapter 10

Restate the very same Jeremiah 31 passage as demonstrative of the perfection of the work of Christ We discovered there is a fundamental difference between the

Old Covenant and the New Covenant regarding the nature of the members of each Now please as I have mentioned

Hebrews 8 is a part of an apologetic defense The entire book of Hebrews is demonstrating that those under pressure to go back to the old ways had nothing to go back to So let's listen to what the text says because we've only quoted it in part

I only have two and a half minutes left, but let me at least read it into the the record But now beginning of verse 6 he has obtained a more excellent ministry

By as much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant is Jesus the mediator for someone who is not of his elect

That is a question that I would ask Which has been enacted on better promises where the better promises of the

New Covenant over the old For if that first covenant had been faultless there would have been no occasion sought for a second for finding fault with them

He says behold days are coming says the Lord when I will affect a new covenant with the house of Israel in the house of Judah no matter what you do with this text there had the text is creating a contrast

Between the two God has found fault with them. It is a mixed covenant They have not remained in that covenant and so he's going to establish a new covenant that's going to undo

It's going to get it get rid of this main problem and that is that of faith Lessness because it has a better promise and a better mediator not like verse 9 not like Who in this debate is saying not like and who in this debate is saying?

Oh very much like Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers and the day I took them by the hand led them out of land of Egypt for they did not continue my covenant

I did not care for them says Lord. That's textual variant, but can't go through that right now For this is the covenant

I will make with the house of Israel after those days says the Lord I will put my laws into their minds, and I will write them on their hearts, and I will be their

God They shall be my people yes, that's found throughout the Old Testament but this is found in the context of Jesus as the mediator and the finished work of his cross and They shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen everyone his brother saying know the

Lord for all Will know me from the least to the greatest of them for I will be merciful to their iniquities

And I will remember their sins no more we cannot break the connection Between the I will be merciful to their iniquities

I will remember their sins no more well except for the apostates who break the New Covenant is that what it's actually stating is

That is that meant to be an apologetic demonstration the supremacy of the New Covenant over the Old Covenant Because that's what it was in the

Old Covenant How can this be an argument don't go back? There's nothing to go back to when the argument is actually being being made well

It's actually the same thing just somewhat better. I will continue that in my next portion

Okay great dr. Starr bridge you have ten minutes to respond very good, okay?

Let me first respond just to that idea of the not like and the covenant itself

James believes that there were elect people in the Old Covenant How is there

Their participation in the Old Covenant any different than our participation in the New Covenant if he believes that only elect people are in the

New Covenant there is a secret invisible group of people elect that do not have an e on their forehead

Just as there were in the old covenant So I can I'm this is an ad hoc response to his point of this of the sameness between the covenants he believes there was a group of elect people that were in a secret covenant with God in the

Old Testament just like He believes that there is a group of people in the New Covenant and a secret covenant to the difference between the

Old Covenant administrations and the New Covenant ministrations in my view is not the structural difference of the participants it's the efficacy of the realization and the fulfillment the

Eschatological breaking in of Jesus fulfillment of the very things that make for the reality of redemption redemption was looked forward to and in shadows and types and so forth in the previous administration and here it is not

Considered in a new covenant. It's not considered as as a as just a

Fulfilled it in the New Covenant. I'm sorry I got off track there because my phone rang and I was trying to to stop it

But let me just say that just to start over again the If there is an invisible group of people called the elect in the

New Covenant, and that's what the New Covenant is Well, that was true of the Old Testament the difference between the Old Covenant New Covenant is not the structure of who receives covenant

Stipulations, but rather the efficacy in the realization that Christ has provided for Full redemption now, let me move to the particular points that he's made.

He said that baptism Is a New Covenant ordinance

Well, I agree that baptism is a New Covenant ordinance in one sense certainly the Matthew 28 19 and 20

But if you think about baptism Extends right back to the very first days of God's Revelation We have in Genesis the rivers that flowed out of Eden We have images of washing in the patriarchs in the tabernacle.

There's the labor in the temple. There are the great Oceans in Ezekiel's prophetic

New Covenant temple the water flows out and gets deeper and deeper There is baptism throughout the

Bible the New Covenant makes that baptism the entrance point For for a relationship to Christ in the church

And so I do believe he's right in saying that it is involves doing with Christ now

I believe that when he argues that The context of the

Reformation was generic generational Christianity, but that was not the context of the

New Testament I think he's quite mistaken believe the context of all the biblical people is generational faith because the very first word of the

Covenant to Abraham is I'm going to Bless you and your children after you also think that the

Abrahamic Covenant itself is a renewal of the Creation Covenant, it's a renewal of the

Covenant to Make a new Adamic humanity. That's the way

I interpret the Abrahamic Covenant. It is a Remaking of man and Israel failed to do so, but Jesus does succeed and that's why again

He breaks into history Eschatologically and now those who are connected to Christ are to live that out and I believe do believe that that applies to children with regard to the household

Principle that he mentions with which I think it comes out of a couple of different passages

Luke chapter 12 and Matthew chapter 10 which which relate to this idea that There Is a

God the gospel brings a sword and separates people 1249 says that That the father against the son the son against the father the mother -in -law against the daughter -in -law

That actually is a citation especially clear in Luke in Matthew's version of Micah chapter 7 verse 6 for son treats father contemptuously

Daughter rises up against her mother daughter -in -law against her mother -in -law a man's enemies are the men of his own

Household that's exactly what is cited if you check out Matthew 10

Version of it. This is referring to the time when Israel was so wicked the statutes of Omri now

Micah 616 but if you think about that as if you if you if you consider the text before and after That relation to the gospel bringing a sword.

It's those who deny me before men It's those who do not love me if you love father and mother more than me.

You're not worthy of me But then if you keep reading in the Matthew 10 version of it Verse 42 says and whoever in the name of the disciple gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water

To drink truly I say to you. He shall not lose his reward the purpose of the gospel may bring about a division between father and mother

But it need not bring about a division between father and mother or between parent and child

Indeed our purpose is to raise our children and a discipline the admonition of the Lord Genesis 18 19 very early after the

Covenant administration to Abraham is that the people of the Covenant are

To live out their faith in such a way as it says about Abraham I Have chosen

Abraham in order that he might command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord in Order that I may bring about all that I've promised to him in order that I may bring about all that I've promised him that is to say that the

Covenant renewal to be accomplished to create a new humanity in the world Through Abraham is going to be accomplished by Abraham's fidelity to raise his children in the knowledge of God That is fundamentally what's behind the inclusion of children in the covenant and therefore given the covenant sign.

I think it's time, isn't it? No, you have three minutes to go about three minutes

Greg, okay Then in that case if you think of the the

Development of the Covenant as it comes through time and space that inclusion of children

That starts with Abrahamic Covenant is not by accident. It's not an old covenant

You know Scaffolding that must be torn down once the house is built that is a part and parcel of the purpose of God Because if the

Abrahamic Covenant is a renewal of the creation covenant to make a humanity to fill the world after God's image and that's exactly what

Paul the way Paul interprets What we're doing in the church today in Ephesians chapter 2 verse 15

If that is true, then you cannot exclude future generations, and I don't believe that Dr.

White wants to exclude his children from the covenant. I don't believe he wants to have the

Gospel divide he and his children sometimes it does because people don't believe

I can think of many Muslim cases where that is very poignant verse

Applicable but as parents would erase our children and knowledge of God that's behind it I think all now with regard to Let me take one more shot at the text in Romans chapter 4 which he referenced

Abraham as the father of the circumcision the point being that only

Abraham could Be the father of many of the father of us because he had believer circumcision

If you read the text carefully, the argument is not that at all. I think that's really a misreading of it

He's the father of the circumcision of course, but he's also the father of the uncircumcision because he received the

Sign of circumcision which he was the father of while he was uncircumcised so he stands in the middle of both cases

So if he can please notice he received a sign of circumcision a seal of the righteousness of faith

Which he had while uncircumcised that he might be the father of all who believe without being the circumcision that righteousness

Might be reckoned to them and this is part James left off and the father of circumcision to those who are not only of the circumcision to also follow steps of Father father

Abraham, which he had while uncircumcised. In other words, there's two parts to that He's the father of the circumcision because he hands them circumcision and says be faithful I've chosen

Abraham that he might command his children after him to keep the way of the Lord and he's the father of the Gentiles who are now coming in as Families as households as Luke says over and over again

So that he is the father of the Gentile inclusion and he's the father of the Jews who are faithful Okay, great.

Dr. White. You have seven minutes to continue with your your position on this issue Well, thank you very much

Let me say that when the question is asked that do I believe they were elected people in the old covenant?

Of course, I do I have said many times it was a mixed covenant. How were they different than us now?

That was a mixed covenant and the bearing of the covenant sign did not perfect anyone according to Hebrews chapter 10

Now the death of Christ perfects and the sign of that Therefore is only to be given to those who profess faith.

I think it's a fairly straightforward Difference and again, I think that illustrates the tendency on the part of Greg's position to even out the

Old Covenant in the New Covenant when the Text says not like the covenant better promises better meteor.

It's a drumbeat It goes on and on and on over and over and over again and to say well only slightly better Probably again is not consistent reformed exegesis

And I would likewise point out that to make that kind of an argument Regarding Hebrews 8 and Hebrews 10 would really

Be to lessen the apologetic weight of the argument that is being presented by the writers to the right of the

Hebrews Greg used the term secret covenant a number of times in his response. I've never said anything about a secret covenant

We do not know the identity of the elect Greg does not know the identity of the elect and therefore if you want to say the secret elect

That would be one thing But it's not a secret covenant because the people who are in it make profession of it and they do so by Professing faith in Jesus Christ repentance toward God and then they are baptized that makes it a very non

Secret covenant and in fact, that's normally the way in which they were then cut off from their families because they were baptized

So it is not a secret covenant at all. We make profession of faith It was just alleged that the generational faith is always the way that it is in in in the covenants of God and I really think that that ignores the fact that the old

Covenant is given to a particular people and that they are as Greg said looking forward to something

Where are they looking forward to the coming of Christ? But when Christ come comes is there not going to be a radical change once the fulfillment takes place?

Since this is a this is a covenant that has land promises That puts these people in a particular place around particular holy places like Jerusalem And they are looking forward to the coming of the

Messiah once he comes Then aren't the signs of that covenant now being fulfilled?

We don't have a problem saying the Old Covenant which had all these eternal things in the

Old Covenant language fulfilled and therefore done away with why then do we have a problem seeing that the audience of Baptism is going to be greater.

It's going to be men and women It's going to be those who profess faith in the

Messiah Jew or Gentile and they're going to be Regenerated there in dwelt by the Holy Spirit.

They're perfected by the one sacrifice of Christ. They are united with him they're adopted as sons and daughters of God and Therefore their baptism is their statement of their union with Christ and I haven't heard any answers yet I'd really like to press this are

Those in Greg's perspective who he says are in the New Covenant. Are they united with Christ?

Is he a mediator for them? Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant? What does Jesus mediate to non -regenerate members of the

New Covenant? That's what I would like to ask. I'd like to find out What does Jesus mediate to non -regenerate members non -elect members of the

New Covenant? What how does the mediation work there? That's a question Many times and I've gotten some very very interesting responses to that particular question

He uses the language of now. I want to exclude someone from the Covenant It is not up to me to exclude anyone from the

Covenant What is referring to of course is that children under the Old Covenant? Well some children under portion under the

Old Covenant Received circumcision now, please point out I point out the Covenant of Grace has not always had signs for infants from Adam to Abraham It did not so you can't say it's a constituent part of the

Covenant of Grace first of all But but secondly when we're talking about excluding someone from the

Covenant the idea is well You're trying to exclude children the Covenant if it's the Covenant in the blood of Christ, and if I am right

If it's a covenant the blood of Christ we believe that the blood of Christ is shed salvificly for the elect of God then there is a equative element there and Would I not be completely wrong then to use the language of exclusion regarding union with Christ Would I be right to say well you're trying you're excluding someone from being united with Christ who determines?

Who is united with Christ? Who determines who excludes or includes who is in Christ?

And who is the recipient of his salvific work is that not God? It's not me.

It's not us That's God's choice and it's God therefore the dependent that determines who the members of the new covenant are and therefore who the who receives the benefits of the new covenant and whose sins he will remember no more and so to to assert that I'm trying to exclude someone.

I think is is improper and finally I forget exactly when it was said But but the Greg said he could produce 20 verses say the new covenant includes believers

Not a single one of them came from the New Covenant At least in the sense that once again, I want to assert you can't simply go back to old covenant passages

They are this is about the New Covenant. I'm going to interpret this about the New Covenant and it says the word children so I'm gonna read this into the

New Covenant text and therefore say ah see there's there's there's my baptism of of infants who are in the

New Covenant Again I think that ignores the what I think is a fundamental and given understanding of Reformed exegesis and that is you allow

The New Covenant documents to interpret the Old Covenant fulfillment.

It's the New Covenant documents that determine the means Extent and way in which the

Old Covenant documents are fulfilled within the New Covenant itself It is not us who gets the right to go back and want to grab this text

I grab that text if we did that that would be that that's not for example how we deal with Messianic prophecies concerning Jesus Christ if you go back to Psalm 22

You could go back there say wait a minute There's stuff in Psalm 22 and so the Messiah must have been this and Messiah must have been that no

It's the New Covenant documents that determine what of the Old Covenant is being fulfilled within them That is a given in other areas.

We cannot change that just to make it fit our particular viewpoints in this area. Thank you

Okay, great. Thank you. Dr. Strawbridge. You have seven minutes to respond Okay, great.

Let me start with this New Covenant interpreting the Old Covenant I believe that I don't disagree formally with what

James is saying about the interpretive principle So let me just start with the New Covenant The purpose of the forerunner

John the Baptist was to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children That is direct fulfillment of what

Malachi says Which is that the covenant will be fulfilled that to you and your seed

The the covenant will come the people's heart will be renewed. They'll be prepared for the

Lord Luke 249 and 50 Mary and the Magnificat says the Holy One the

Mighty One has done great things his mercies upon Generation after generation Toward those who fear him.

That's a citation of the New Testament in Relating to the Old Testament.

Nothing has changed that truth has not changed. That's true Acts 239 as we've already said

Peter again responding to Joel chapter 2 Saying the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off as many as the

Lord our God shall call to himself Again that's a reference to you and your children the

Original statement in Joel chapter 2 was to your sons and daughters and to all who are far off That's the looking forward to the

Gentile inclusion the Abrahamic Covenant Genesis chapter 12 Acts 3 25

It is to you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers that hasn't changed

Saying to Abraham and in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed Acts 13 32 that we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers.

This is a recontinued Dual reaffirmation how many times you have to say it of the promise made to Abraham?

Which is that to you and your seed the God that God has fulfilled this promise to our children

In that he raised up Jesus acts 13 32 Romans 4 13 The promises to Abraham or to his

Descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the law But through the righteousness of faith for this reason it is by faith that it might be met in accordance with grace in order that the promise what promise the promise made

Abraham may be certain to all the Descendants that is in the

New Testament Romans chapter 4 Not only to those who are of the law But also to those who have the faith of Abraham who's the father of us all and again?

I've already explained that these texts as well as many of the new covenant promises and again

I can go back to the new covenant promises and say the same things So I'm not interpreting the new covenant promises in the absence of the

New Testament statements about them I'm interpreting the new the voluminous new covenant promises which

Explicitly include the children and I let me give you a few references on that in light of the

New Testament Statements and the fulfillment of how that works out in the explicit accounts of baptism that households about us

Deuteronomy 30 verse 6 through 9 Jeremiah 30 verse 9 your offspring

Jeremiah 30 verse 18 their children will return They shall be my people

Jeremiah 30 verse 1 the families of Israel shall be my people there Jeremiah 30 1 verse 36

That the offspring of Israel will not cease to be a nation before me Jeremiah 32 verse 15 to 18

Who show us loving kindness to thousands of generations Jeremiah? 33 verse 22 to 26 that I will reject not reject the descendants of Jacob Ezekiel 37 verse 24 and following their children and their children's children forever

Zechariah verse 10 verse verse 10 chapter 10 verse 6 Indeed their children will be glad and see it their heart will rejoice before the

Lord day and their children will live and come back How many more verses must I say? to point out that the children of believers are

Explicitly included in the New Covenant find one verse that says they're not please tell me one explicit verse

This is the structure of the Reformed Baptist argument They infer the exclusion of children by their misreading of the meaning of the

New Covenant then they Say you can't infer

That children are to be baptized from their alleged inclusion in the covenant But they do not have an explicit text that says they are

Excluded nor do they have an explicit text that says children of believers should grow up and then profess faith like a pagan before they're baptized

Now let's move on to a couple of statements that James made just to respond kind of point -by -point

Where It says that he makes the argument about the the

New Covenant media What is the status of children in the

New Covenant the mediator the argument really is this his argument kind of Summarizes all

New Covenant members haven't have effectual redemption Unregenerate infants do not have effectual redemption

Therefore unregenerate infants are not New Covenant members. Now. This of course is a valid argument

That is the premise is if they were true Yield a cogent conclusion, but the first premise is false

I mean and again This is really the point of contention of the differences between the New Covenant all

New Covenant members have effect or interest obviously I don't believe that all New Covenant members Have our elect that's my point in Hebrews chapter 10

The text virtually says that it says those who were sanctified by the blood of the Covenant God will judge the

Lord will judge his people So it's referring to the people under the Son of God who are worthy of judgment one day again

I I would explain the difference between the old covenant administrations and the

New Covenant by means of not the structural difference they're both covenants given to and have stipulations for judgment and for for the wrath of God But they're given to people that are visible and demonstrable and I would like to ask

James Where how do you do you think that the New Covenant has stipulations for judgment? And if not, please explain?

first Corinthians chapter 11 regarding the Lord's Supper Please explain the statements in Hebrews chapter 6 and verse 10 about new covenant members those

Under Christ if if now under the Son of God, please explain that I don't think that the

New Covenant is different in its Administration, I think the New Covenant is different because Jesus is here.

Okay, great. Dr. White. You have five minutes to continue Let me set this up here so we can be on the same page here

Okay in Hebrews chapter 6 But beloved we are convinced of better things concerning you and things that accompany salvation though We are speaking in this way

Once again The assumption seems to be that if you ever utter words of warning that you are assuming that everyone in your hearing

Is of the elect and of the New Covenant and that is not a meaningful assumption to make in that particular situation

Same with the first Corinthians chapter 11. Once again, we have it seems to be a major difference here between believing that this is the covenant in the blood of Jesus Christ and that therefore he is able to save the uttermost those drawn to God by him and Believing that while it's a covenant the blood of Christ there can be people in it who actually aren't in Christ and that's why

I asked the question if G is the mediator of the New Covenant and if you believe there are people who are in the New Covenant who are not elect

And who are not regenerate then what does Jesus mediate to them? How does he fail to mediate for them?

What does he mediate to them? What does he mediate to non -regenerate members of the New Covenant? That's what I'd like to know because certainly Greg is going to admit that there are many

Presbyterian babies who are baptized to grow up to be reprobates. They grow up to hate God If they were in the

New Covenant as evidently Greg is arguing they were how is Jesus their mediator?

How are they related to Jesus as mediator and show me from the New Testament where that that comes from?

There was a remnant in the Old Covenant those who were the elect if Greg is right. Where is the remnant in the

New Covenant? Where does the New Covenant use that kind of language? Where's the New Covenant referred to the remnant of the

New Covenant? I Wouldn't that have to follow that there is a remnant it might be a bigger remnant

It might be even a majority, but it's still a remnant right where is that language found? That's what I'd like to know The citation was made all the families of the earth shall be blessed assuming that these are somehow physical families not language groups and yet That's frequently used as languages language groups for people in families

And I've pointed out, but would like to point out again Family units in this context was this family unit normally involved

Servants did it not is there is there in fact? I would think almost every single one of the many texts that has talked about families or Descendants and things like that that Greg has mentioned would have included

Servants would have included people outside the family unit, so how does that fit into the New Covenant?

Where is the discussion of this transition to where that's no longer the case where you do not have baptism now?

Of servants or in our own context. What would be the fulfillment of that now? I would like to like to know how that works one of the quotes that was just given mentioned thousands of generations as if somehow

In all these verses that this is relevant to baptism thousands of generations Yes, God has been merciful to thousands of generations, but in every single one of them

There were some who received his wrath and some who received his mercy and under the Old Covenant There were many who received his wrath who bore the

Covenant signs The point is in the New Covenant in the blood of Jesus Christ With Jesus as the mediator who perfects those who draw on nine to God by him who saves them to the uttermost

Where is God's wrath going to have a place in them if they are in Christ That becomes the question that a reformed person would ask of another person who's trying to say that you can lose your salvation

But here it comes up within the context of baptism and those discussions and finally exclusion of Children we do not believe that there is a promise of God to save every single one of my children is one of the elect

The only way I can understand the argument that was just presented by Greg Strawbridge And I'd like to ask him if this is what he was actually saying

Does he believe with Pierre Marcel that there is a promise of God to save my children? That once I was married and I had children there was a promise of God to save my children, where is that and Where has that ever come to fruition or is that something?

That's only future is is is is this sort of a Is this sort of a well the New Covenant's just keep getting better and better and better until someday

That's what's going to take place. Is that all your children to be saved, but right now. It's sort of a hit -and -miss It's getting better though a type of percentage thing and again

I would say if someone I've heard people make that argument That the New Covenant is getting better and better in a post -millennial scheme that someday.

It's going to be You know really good, and it's actually gonna this all stuff's gonna come to fruition How would that have been an apologetic argument back in the days of the writer of Hebrews?

Someday stick with us, and this is gonna get really good. Is that really an apologetic argument and If John Calvin had just not said these things within the context of coming out of medieval

Roman Catholicism Would anyone interpret these texts this way? That's the question. I would ask folks to think about this evening.

Thank you Okay, dr. Strawbridge you have five minutes to respond, okay? try to Respond to a number of those points made

With regard to the again mediator question who what do we say about the mediator and so forth?

Yes We have obtained a more excellent ministry.

He is also the mediator of a better covenant That covenant what is the covenant the covenant is as it were a document?

It's stipulations about what God will do and what our requirements are That document that covenant itself not only

Includes promises of more efficacy and realized eschatology of Jesus Bearing our sins and the reality that all those sacrifices pointed to and Remember Jeremiah chapter 3 says there will be a time

Looking forward to the New Covenant era when the Ark of the Covenant will not be remembered There's a strong emphasis in both

Hebrews and Jeremiah That the purpose of the New Covenant will be that the the forms of mediation of the

Old Testament Administration will not even be remembered just like we don't remember.

We don't remember a Levitical sacrifices today Do we we don't even think about that? We don't think about the

Ark of the Covenant unless we watch Raiders of the Lost Ark we are in an era beyond that just as Jeremiah prophesied and So I think in what sense is

Christ the mediator of Those people who are quote unregenerate the same sense in which he will judge those who've trampled underfoot his blood

Hebrews chapter 10 he is the covenant head for everyone

Under the terms of the covenant under the terms of the covenant means there can be people who are covenant breakers

He see Romans chapter 11. And again, the passages have already mentioned Hebrews chapter 6 and chapter 10 those texts themselves indicate there are people under the stipulations of the

New Covenant that will be judged That's what I believe and I think that that is perfectly consistent with everything the

Bible says The as I said my burden of proof is to say now What do we mean by they shall all know the

Lord from least to the greatest? I think if you read back in Jeremiah's prophecy on those things that language

First to that all the classes of God's people from prophet to priest

Will know the Lord that language refers to the the efficacy of the

New Covenant in terms of the removal of the forms of mediation and I would encourage you if you want to read a couple of articles that go into more

Depth of this you can read the appendix of my book infant baptism does the Bible teach it where I have a long exposition of Jeremiah 31

You can also read Jeff Neal's article in my book the case for covenant with baptism and you can also read

Richard Pratt's argument Jeff Neal Richard Pratt and myself all have differences among us because again

It's very difficult to work through all the aspects of this but there is an eschatological

Fulfillment of the New Covenant coming in the future because as it turns out right now It's not the case that we don't say to our neighbors know the

Lord James if he sees a person He doesn't know whether he knows the Lord or not, but the text says you will not say to your neighbor

Know the Lord for all will know me well right now. We don't know that there is an eschatological fulfillment in the future a

Consummation the same way that there's going to be new heavens and new earth even though the new heavens and new earth are here now in Christ even though resurrection is here now in Christ.

There's going to be a future consummation of it. So I believe that is a Better way to think of it.

And again the whole argument of the Hebrews is lesser to greater with regard to then household baptism and the servants that question

Yes, I believe servants were baptized think about Cornelius's household Cornelius is a very powerful man

He believes in the Lord one minute. The slaves are going to say I believe in Jesus, too

There's been plenty of cases of this with the Jesus film showing on the Congo River in Africa the tribal chief stands up and says today we believe in Jesus and everybody believes and it might not be understandable to us who are

Western individualist but it's perfectly intelligible in such cultures that the adult mature servants would follow the master in their faith and again

Just as but those baptized and Baptist churches today Some say they believe but as it turns out later, they fall away

That's not necessarily hypocritical belief. It's belief, but it doesn't last it's

Covenant breaking we are to call people who are baptized to live out the reality of their baptism all their life long

That's what we're to call people to do. Okay, Tom All right, dr. White you have three minutes

To continue with your argument Didn't he just have five so I get five to respond because he's sorry you're you're absolutely right

It is five minutes. I did the same thing in wrong. I did the same thing in part one, too Yes, you have five minutes. Thank you for correcting. Okay, and then after this will be the three minutes section closing, right?

That's correct. Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you. All right. I think what we just heard

Left a number of us pretty speechless because the the whole reason the whole foundation that we have for Looking at what happened in the medieval period of Rome and Seeing what what took place within that context?

Could I ask you all to hold on just? Okay, I'll go ahead

I'm watching someone right next to my car on video tape on video outside We have a lot of crime problems around here.

So it's a little bit a little bit distracting So if all of a sudden I disappear it's because he's trying to break into my car

So I apologize for that and I'll just lose that time. I just had the the conversion of people based upon someone else someone the head of the house saying

I believe therefore slaves believe is This the Reformed understanding of saving faith, is this the

Reformed understanding of someone closing with? Jesus Christ, this is the work of the Holy Spirit in someone's heart

Very hard for me to understand this Dr. Strawberries just talked about the New Covenant having more efficacy.

Where does this? Where is the New Testament teach? It has more efficacy than the old. Is that what better means?

When it speaks of Jesus being the Covenant head under terms of the Covenant Okay, but here's my question again, and this is what

I'd really like to ask in his last portion that dr. Strawbridge answer this Jesus is the mediator for all those who are in the

New Covenant What does he mediate to those who will go to hell who are members of the

New Covenant does Jesus mediate wrath to them? Can he show me anywhere with the term mediation in the

New Testament of Jesus as the mediator mediates wrath I would like to hear will

Jesus mediate wrath to members of the New Covenant who were not regenerate that's what

I would like to know because I think the overriding argument of the book of Hebrews is the supremacy and perfection of Jesus Christ and the fact that his death perfects for all time those for whom it is made and that he because he ever lives to make

Intercession for them is able to save them to the uttermost does Jesus ever cease to make

Intercession for these members of the New Covenant and if his blood wasn't shed for them upon what grounds could he possibly intercede for them?

These would be some of the questions I would ask of this to me very odd idea of Saying that you have members in a covenant members of the

Covenant in his blood who are not Regenerate who will not be saved who Christ will fail to save does he try to save them and fail to save them?

How does this work, I mean, I think these are questions that Calvinists should answer

This is where the Reformed Baptist says I see a glaring inconsistency in my

Pato Baptist brethren And the reason is not biblical. It's historical at this particular point in time

Interestingly enough you made reference then to Jeff Neal's article in your book Richard Pratt's article your own I wrote a very lengthy response to both

Jeff Neal and Richard Pratt in the Reformed Baptist theological review Since you gave a URL I can give one to www .rbtr

.org and I examined both arguments the arguments are not just different from one another they are completely contradictory to one another

Dr. Pratt's view is a complete con a flat contradiction of Jeff Neal's view and vice -versa

There is nothing in this text about all classes of God's people Knowing the

Lord the whole point of the apologetic argument of Hebrews chapter 8 the only thing that could make this

Superior To the Old Covenant would be that the the fulfillment has now come

It's not that this is just a slightly more efficacious covenant. It's going to get better with time

That's not the apologetic argument of Hebrews chapter Chapter 8 and when he says well, there's an eschatological fulfillment

James doesn't know you know James does say to his neighbors know the Lord That's not the point of the language

We will not say to another I do not say to my fellow believers

Know the Lord in the sense of my constantly trying to exhort them to make profession of faith and come to know

Jesus Christ, I'm not in my church with my fellow believers Repeating the four spiritual laws every

Sunday But that's what they were doing in the Old Covenant Because there were so many who didn't know the

Lord now when I stand before the people of God. I'm gonna give warnings But you see there's a difference between exhorting the people of God to remain faithful and saying hey, let me introduce you to the

Lord You don't do that in the New Covenant because we already know him because it is he who has written his knowledge upon our hearts

That's the difference the grand fulfillment of the New Covenant which makes it so Strong an argument that there's nothing to go back to under the

Old Covenant at all. Okay, great. Dr. Starbridge You have five minutes to respond

Okay With regard to let me respond to the mediator point You know the idea of mediator

I'm just looking at the low night a lexicon about the the word Messa taste the word for mediator.

It is bringing about agreement between two parties. It's the one who brings agreement So I think

James is using mediator in a rather artificial way when he says What does Jesus mediate what does he mediate as though he can only mediate blessings?

Well, he can mediate Cursings as well. That's the point of the Covenant Certainly Moses was the mediator of a covenant and his covenant had curses check

Mount Gerizim and evil There is the possibility of covenant breaking again if we step back from this

James view I mean our differences are conceptual about the New Covenant we agree with the reality that there are people that are part of the church that will go to heaven and People that are part of the church that will go to hell.

We both agree with that. We're both Calvinists We both believe God ordained that from the foundations of the world but his theological construct on the

New Covenant is is engineered to exclude the very explicit promises made of the

New Covenant recipients to you and to your children generation after generation and I think that's an illegitimate perspective, but even so let's test it this way.

Let's say okay Let's look at parallel Concepts to Covenant membership,

I would say that there is two at least or at least two. There's the church and there is the kingdom

Who's in the church? Well are do are we to consider that there are people in the church that will be excluded from the church?

Absolutely. The Bible is very clear about that Demas was excluded from the church

We're told that that people are put out of the church the process of church discipline excommunication includes

That very concept what about the kingdom well absolutely we're told that people are put out of the kingdom in I think it's a mark

Matthew 13 the parables that in the last day the angels of God will come and Remove out of the kingdom those like the wheat in the tares example are then children included

Explicitly in the church the covenant and the kingdom well I've already given about 50 verses or maybe not 50, but dozens of verses

I think that talk about the inclusion of you and your children in the new covenant prophecies and in the

New Testament statements about those prophecies and James has not produced one verse that excludes them

I'd like for him just to give me one verse that excludes the children of beliefs It says something like and by the way in the

New Testament in the new covenant By the way it has to be stated in the New Testament It can't be an

Old Testament statement about this has to be a New Testament statement that says new covenant Does not include your children, please give me one verse that says it

I've given you many that say that they are included what about Children included in the kingdom well we know very well the gospel statements where Jesus brought children to himself

Had the parents brought them to him the one word in Luke is he brought they brought

Brea fast to him little children infant children to him and he blessed them now the question about What do you do with children that are unregenerate?

Unbelieving children being received in baptism. What's their status? Well does

Jesus bless? unregenerate unbelievers One certainly blessed infants he blessed infants brought to him

He blessed the children brought to him Presumably by the faith of the parents

Was Jesus blessing unregenerate people I? Don't believe so I think he was blessing people in Covenant relationship and in the organic way that God works people must mature in their profession

And that is not true for people. There's not there's no excuse me there's no difference between that and the people that come by profession of faith a adult convert comes he's converted and you say

Continuing the faith be faithful live out that maturity and if you don't if you imbibe a life of sin

We're going to put you out of the church I'm sure that our practice of church discipline and Jane dr. White's practice of church discipline is exactly the same and I'm sure that we practice it very faithfully.

We've we've excommunicated someone from our church for becoming an apostate But we don't try to purify the church by excluding little children that are to be raised in the nurture and admonition of the church and Okay great dr.

White you have three minutes for your concluding argument Well, thank you very much again for having me

Just a few things in conclusion here And I invite folks to to listen to the debate more than once look up the text themselves

And and I think that would be very helpful to folks. I'd like to thank Greg for joining with me this evening I want to make sure two things in the last a portion of Greg's presentation were heard first of all once again

We heard the partial citation of hex 239 to you and to your children without the delimiting phrase that is to those who are far off as Many as the

Lord our God shall call the repetitious partial citation of that text to me is

Indicative of an overriding tradition that really cannot deal with the exegesis of the text and what it really means in its context secondly

We heard Greg say that Jesus mediates judgment To those who are in the covenant of his blood

I would like to once again I started this debate off by saying who is going to be consistent with their theological underpinnings and their presuppositions

Who's going to be consistent as to their reformed beliefs? Can we have the idea he mentioned messa taste and and what it means?

But what does it mean when Jesus is the mediator and on what grounds does Jesus mediate?

I would submit to you that the grounds of Jesus mediation is his finished sacrifice It is his giving himself on behalf of his elect people

So how can he who has given himself in sacrifice and who stands in the presence of the

Father for us all? Then mediate wrath to those that he is standing before the Father to represent for their salvation

How does that work? It there's there's nothing like this anywhere in the New Covenant I can't imagine that anyone would read the book of Hebrews and come up with this type of a concept were it not for this overriding tradition

That comes from I don't believe a biblical situation But from a historical situation and finally once again in regards this issue of the show me one verse

That says that your children are excluded from the New Covenant, please Hear what that challenge is that's the same challenge as show me the verse that teaches

That God has promised that when a Christian marries all of his offspring will be elect

That's what that is. I don't believe that that's the case I don't believe that I have a promise from God that all of my offspring are going to be of the elect

I cannot demand that God be merciful even to my children I pray that he will be and I pray that he has they both make profession of faith

But I have no grounds upon which to say since you've been merciful to me You must be merciful to my children and so to say well you you well

You're just assuming something about the New Covenant No I think I've made a pretty strong argument that the New Covenant in the blood of Christ is

What I've said that it is and if it is then that argument I just made is valid again. Thank you for having me

I appreciate everybody listening in God bless Okay, thank you, dr.

White and dr. Starbucks your final three minutes Can I ask a quick question are we gonna get a chance to just ask some questions back and forth at all

Cuz I really think that'd be helpful. I think we've been missing each other Debate that's gonna be up to you all

I guess I mean it is getting later And we're at the two -hour mark, but if you all still have wind and want to go a little bit we can

I'd rather just ask James a couple, you know just on friendly terms just you know I think After five or six minutes of talking it's difficult to answer everything.

I don't want to miss I don't want to dodge any of his hard questions, and and I certainly don't want him to You know miss anything that I'm asking just just to get a direct question

And if it's okay, I'd just like to ask a couple questions and How long are we going

Well you can set the time it doesn't matter to me, but well if you'd like to to do

Maybe just a 10 -minute portion here at the end where we can just sort of go back and forth

That'd be fine, but I think we need to probably be wrapping it up fairly fairly soon Just simply because the area of town

I'm in I'd like to get back out to my car while it still has tires on it.

Let's put it that way Okay, okay. Well apparently you're not in the fully realized

New Covenant era when everyone knows the Lord Well I don't actually expect that any of those who are wandering around my car are actually my fellow believers in Christ So I don't think you see the application there

Let me let me ask this question. Maybe I'll just ask a question You know let's try to respond quickly, and then you can answer

I'll try to respond quickly and not dominate the time You seem to be indicating that Jesus Will not judge people in the

New Covenant I mean are you seriously maintaining that Jesus will not judge people that are baptized

Under New Covenant vows and have taken communion under New Covenant vows I think that he will and obviously the

Reformed Baptist position is those people are not in the New Covenant They are are as Paul said

Pseudodelphoid they are false brethren, and yes, they will be judged by God, but that's the whole point the church is not the

New Covenant They are not identical to one another that's the point of 1st John 2 they went out from us So it might be demonstrated.

They were not truly of us and so that there's a there's a major Disconnection I think at this point

I thought I was very clear in Asserting that we recognize that there is a difference between the external church

And what would be called the eternal church and in the same way that we believe that the those who are truly in the

New Covenant are in this dispensation the same as the elect and People can fake that just as they did in 1st

John 2 just as they did in as Paul says in Galatians But that doesn't mean that they were truly in the covenant in the blood of Christ and so yes

Those individuals who who play with the holy things of God will receive his wrath

But they were never in Christ to begin with I'm not joined to the New Covenant by by what

I do Only God can join me to the New Covenant You want to follow up with a question well?

Yeah, because I would just turn that around because I need to understand when I ask you what Jesus mediates to the members in New Covenant You're I guess your position would be

That while they are members of the New Covenant they are not of the elect right the people that are the people that are

Apostates no, they're not elect. So how can they be a member of the covenant in the blood of Christ?

You you do believe in particular redemption, right? Yes, but I mean again the language of Hebrews 10 is very clear to me that the they've regarded as unclean the blood of the

Covenant by which he was sanctified Those are people that I see under the terms of the

New Covenant Maybe maybe the question would be when you believe if you think that people will be judged

In the New Covenant, I'm sorry if you think people will be judged that have been brought under baptism

Communion church membership, etc That there will be people in hell like that is

Jesus judging them according to the stipulations of the New Covenant and if not, what is he judging them according to well

First of all, he is a couple things. I I didn't get an answer to my question there

But maybe you're answering it by asking That that's okay It'll flesh out.

It'll flesh out here. I think Because what I'm saying is that to be in the covenant of the blood of the

Son of God is That's that's the the supper that's that's everything that Christ has done and I do not see how anyone

Can be in that covenant properly in that covenant truly in that covenant who is not of the elect because I see that Jesus Christ Salvific intention in his death is to save and perfect the elect now we disagree on Hebrews 10 29 and You said that it was not grammatically

Necessary to take it the way John Owen did and that I do but you do recognize that it is grammatically possible to do so and So I would simply say that citing

Hebrews 10 29 to me without demonstrating that my interpretation of it is inconsistent with the context

See, I I just simply say wait a minute if you take it that way then you have an absolutely unsolvable contradiction between 29 and 10 through 14, so the the entire apologetic thrust of the finished work and the perfection that results in that finished work that's found in 10 really 1 through 18 is going to be contradicted in 11 verses

I I don't see how that is in any way shape or form a possibility So I don't accept the use of Hebrews 10 29 in that way

I recognize the grammatical possibility of either antecedent But I think John Owen's argument on that is very strong and and more consistent than the position that you take so when you ask what the basis of God's judgment of A person who falsely professes faith would be it would be the same basis

That is ever been of anyone who has played with with holy things It does not require however

Jesus to be their mediator Because my point is who is Jesus mediating for before the father?

Who who is who is he representing and if he's not? Representing someone before the father which

I think you just said he's not representing the apostate Then you are admitting there is a distinction in his work and there is distinction in who is truly in the

New Covenant and who Is not is that is that would you say maybe that maybe that's this will answer the question

I was asking you I didn't think I'd answer does Jesus Represent the apostate before the father does he present his blood?

Before the father Hebrews 9 having obtained eternal redemption. Did he obtain eternal redemption for them?

Well, obviously not. I mean he doesn't Obtain eternal redemption for people that are reprobates but That eternal redemption is in the context of a covenant

Administration the covenant administration includes both stipulations for judgment and for blessing

So my question to you is does the New Covenant have any stipulations for judgment? And if not, what do you do with 1030 the

Lord will judge his people in the context of the New Covenant? Okay, where and where do you get the term stipulations for judgment?

Maybe you can help me find out what a covenant sure. That's what a covenant is Well, I think Hebrews 10 verse 29 and 30 include the stipulations for judgment

How much what severe how much severe punishment do you think he will deserve in other words under Moses?

Covenant under Christ, that's where I get that I mean there are many places but I get it from the basic definition of covenant

Okay, but the between two parties and I would I would disagree with your application because the judgment in the

New Covenant was born by Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary and so the church most certainly has discipline and grounds for discipline but it is not the grounds of violating the blood of Jesus Christ in the sense of being in the

New Covenant and then not being Perfected by the blood of the New Covenant. So we keep going back to these issues that unfortunately

I think most people probably agree that we Moved a little bit away from the baptism issue because we were focusing on the nature of the covenant and hence the signs

Given to it, but still I think there's you know you and I know but we both know that your interpretation of the

New Covenant is the basic foundation of Whether you think there's continuity or radical discontinuity and so forth

I mean that that is the background my my interpretation. Yeah. Yeah, I agree it is but isn't that Reformed theology in this sense that do we not start with what

God has done? Well how God is glorifying himself the centrality of Jesus Christ is the totality of the gospel and then work out from there

We don't start with well, I interpret Thousands of generations in the

Old Covenant to mean this and therefore I'm going to to read that into the New Covenant documents

That's where I I again I'm striving honestly for consistency on On these particular issues and it does seem that we're approaching it from a dip from two different angles

Okay, do you have a question? I think that probably most people

I'm watching folks listening in our chat channel right now I think most people's brains have turned to mush about this point.

So I honestly think that most people have The opportunity of listening back and we've only got one minute in this little segment

Anyways, so I would just thank all of you to to Jeff For putting

Jeff and William for putting this together. I appreciate your working with me when I was rather scatterbrained

I had a major debate just a few weeks ago against Shabir Ali a Muslim apologist and and I would hope

I bet you a $2 .00 to donuts Greg if you listen to my Debate with Shabir Ali there probably wasn't anything.

I said you disagree with so That's that's a good thing. And and I hope that you all will pray for us as we continue to pursue

Developing a consistently biblical and indeed reformed apologetic in regards to Islam I think it's a really major need in our world today and and I hope you all will pray for us in that way and Again, appreciate you having me on your program

Yeah, thank you James I let me just say in my closing that I really appreciate that ministry that you have and I'm very much supportive of it and This is very much

An intramural debate. I do think that we are both after the same goal, which is

I hope to raise Faithful children. I believe that that's accomplished by their inclusion in the household of faith and they're being nurtured in it

And I was raised in a Baptist Church, so I know very well the idea that you know a mark in time where you can confess the faith

I Hope that tonight as we've worked through some of these these issues that that people will really

Be able to think through it for themselves and and come to those conclusions I'm glad again to call

Reform Baptist and Baptist generally on my brethren in Christ and I look forward to further interaction on these matters

Thank you, Greg. Okay, that's great. Now if you guys just hold on just line just for a second Um, let me just wrap wrap up the program

I know we're streaming live and I know that's what you want to leave. Um, this will only take a minute Tonight we did have a debate on the issue of baptism for those who've hung in there and listened to the live webcast

That was brought To us tonight by Alpha Omega Alpha and Omega ministries and that's at a old mi n .org

for those who are interested in the website and Dr. James White is the director. I think

I was an error earlier. I said president. That's wrong He is the director of the ministry and there's a lot of good resources there and I encourage everybody to go and Check out that website and he also hosts the dividing line program on a daily basis.

So that's another Resource that's available out there on the internet and I would encourage people to listen to it.

Dr Greg Strawbridge is the pastor of All Saints Presbyterian Church in Lancaster. I got that right this time

Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and he also hosts the word mp3 .com website.

So for those who are interested in Different resources out there. They're they're available and I would encourage everybody to go and Spend some time on those sites

You let this moment away We must contend for the paper.

We need a new Reformation The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or write us at PO box 3 7 1 0 6

Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omin org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks