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 at 602 973 460 to or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James White.

The Debate Format and the Question of Infant Baptism

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, and 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 to host tonight. No residents.

I kick no partner in crime. Yeah, we'll let you be a co-host tonight. He won't be silent, but he's 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 him 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.

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 and Genesis 17 11 to 13 or as in 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 know what he's going to say, but many reformed Baptist 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 and 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 that'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 Curricopy 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-fear 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.

But 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 what do 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. 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 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-and-out 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 chill little ones of Israel that were down you sleep. Okay, Greg.

Thank you. 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?

Scripture, Exegesis, and the New Covenant

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 the 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 studied 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 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 discover 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 associate 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.

Or 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 the gayus about whom we are given almost no information gayus. 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 More consistent elements of my study of my pato-baptist brethren's writings and in 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 unto 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 there are infants in every household or any household for that matter because remember the point is the household is in covenant 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 Godfear.

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 a loss of duty.

So what can we say about that passage in Acts chapter 16 it evidences? Solidarity. Continuity and corporality. 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 themselves like having believed in God with this whole household. Act 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 jailer's 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 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 requests 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 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'll 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 I? Hopefully none of us here are inclusivists or universalists 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 of 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 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 believe 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 rejoiced 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 obeyed a Muslim up in Seattle on the subject of the of the atonement and.