The Baptism Debate James White vs Gregg Strawbridge

The following presentation is a production of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Inc. and is protected by copyright laws of the United States and its international treaties. Copying or distribution of this production without the expressed written permission of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Inc. is prohibited.

Good evening everybody and welcome to Orlando Grace Church and we are so delighted that so many people are here today who really care about truth. And first of all, before I say anything else, I would like us all to give a round of applause to Pastor Heffelfinger and the congregation at Orlando Grace Church for allowing us to use this facility.

Debate Format and Housekeeping

I'm also going to make an announcement that I hope you all take very seriously. After this announcement, you don't have to take anything I say seriously, but this one announcement is pretty serious. Due to a strict contractual obligation in regard to the filming and recording of this event, no unauthorized individuals are to use filming or recording devices and unfortunately you will be asked to leave the premises if you are doing so.

So please, just please take that very seriously and it all has to do with contracts that are involved in the filming and recording and so on. My name is Chris Arnzen. I am the host of the Iron Sharpens Iron radio program, which is going to be returning to the airwaves after a few year hiatus.

God willing, in about three to four weeks. And I hope that you listen to this broadcast. I will inform the pastor here as to how you can get in touch with the program on the internet. And I will also let you know that you can get it at cruciformmedia, I'm sorry, cruciformonline .com.

Cruciformonline .com is where you will also get links to listen to the broadcast when it returns to the airwaves. I had the privilege of interviewing such fine folks as Dr. R .C. Sproul and John MacArthur and D .A. Carson and Michael Horton and our guest here, debater Dr. James R. White has been featured many times on the broadcast.

So I'm looking forward to that program returning to the airwaves. I actually met, I think, my one Florida listener in the lobby before who recognized my voice, believe it or not, and was a listener to the broadcast.

So I appreciate your prayers about that as well as the time is coming soon for the relaunch of the broadcast. And I'd like to thank also the publishers of the New American Standard Bible who are sponsoring that broadcast as well as the Lindbrook Baptist Church in New York and the Wading River Baptist Church in New York.

And one thing I want to clarify because there's some vicious rumors going around about me and my program. People have commented that I'm a male chauvinist of some kind and nothing would be farther from the truth.

And let me state right here that some of my finest and most highly upheld heroes of the faith are such fine women as Lorraine Bettner and Meredith Klein and Kim Riddlebarger. What am I thinking? Those are dudes with girls' names, I'm sorry.

But I hope that you all are going to prepare your hearts and minds for this debate. I'm excited about it. Many thanks are also due to Chris Hatton, the pastor of Grace Chapel in Sanford, Florida. Also Spurgeon Fellowship and Michael Fallon of Sovereign Cruises.

The SpurgeonFellowship .com, SpurgeonFellowship .com is where you will also be able to hear about the rest of Dr. White's speaking engagements while he's here in Florida. Also, there's something that you should know during a break, we have book tables out there.

We have a book table that is run by Mike Adosh, who happens to be my very first pastor of 30 years ago. Mike Adosh of Solid Ground Christian Books has some delightful things out there. First of all, we have the Joel Osteen Study Bible.

I don't know why everyone's laughing, but if you're curious about why it's so small, all references to hell, sin, and repentance have been edited out. But seriously, Mike Adosh has a book that will be of interest to all of you here, regardless of whether you're a Pato Baptist or a Baptist or neither.

What every Christian needs to know about the Koran by Dr. James R. White is on the Solid Ground Christian Book table, and also many other things that you will find of interest, I'm sure. Oh, here's one that's also on that table, and that is Recovering a Covenantal Heritage, Essays in Baptist Covenant Theology, edited by Richard Barcelos, is also on the Solid Ground Christian Books table.

We have Dr. Strawbridge, who is the debater here tonight defending infant baptism. He has several things, including You and Your Household, the Biblical Case for Infant Baptism, and a book that he edited called The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, out on the book tables out there.

And I'd like to also introduce our debaters. First of all, to my left, we have Dr. Greg Strawbridge, who is pastor of All Saints Church in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and he's founder and creative director of WordMP3 .com, an online audio library of Christian worldview resources.

That's WordMP3 .com. He served as the president of the Evangelical Theological Society's Eastern Region from 2010 to 2011, and is currently the permanent secretary treasurer. And I also have the books that he has mentioned.

Among them are The Case for Covenant Communion, which I did not mention, it's out on the table, and The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, which I showed you before. Here he is, ladies and gentlemen, Dr. Greg Strawbridge.

And Dr. Strawbridge's Baptist opponent is Dr. James R. White. He's to my right. Dr. James R. White is an elder of the Phoenix Reform Baptist Church in Arizona, and he's director of Alpha Omega Ministries.

He's a professor, having taught Greek, systematic theology, various topics in the field of apologetics. He's authored 24 books, including The King James Only Controversy, The Forgotten Trinity, The Potter's Freedom, and The God Who Justifies.

He is an accomplished debater, having engaged in more than 140 moderated public debates around the world, with leading proponents of Roman Catholicism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, and homosexuality, as well as critics such as Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and John Shelby Spong.

Here he is, ladies and gentlemen, Dr. James R. White. Our moderator today is Pastor David Camara, and he is pastor of River Oaks Presbyterian Church in Lake Mary, Florida, and I'm turning over the proceedings now to Pastor Camara.

Thank you very much.

Well, let me add my welcome to you. Thank you for this opportunity. Debaters, it's good to have this opportunity to be before you. My role as moderator is very, very simple. It's to keep score and then to declare a definitive winner and put an end to this debate once for all, for all of Christendom, for all time.

If I fall short of that goal, then I simply want to keep time, keep it fair, and keep it civil. We flipped a coin at the beginning to see who would go first. We will have a 12-minute opening statement by Dr. Strawbridge, and then a 12-minute opening statement by Dr. White, and then a 10-minute rejoinder from each, and then five minutes of remarks from each, after which we'll take a short break.

At the break, we are going to ask you to go out and take a little stretch, but there'll be papers and pens at the back. If you have questions that you would like our debaters to answer, you can write those questions down and bring them in, and then there will be an offering, a love offering that will be divided between our two debaters that will be taken after the break, and you can put your question and your offering in the basket as it goes by, and those questions will be sorted and handed to me.

At the end of the—near the end of the debate, we will have a question-and-answer time. So if you would like your question answered, you need to write legibly in English, maybe for Greek for Dr. White, but if you could do that, that'd be great, and we will try to get as many questions answered as possible.

So with that, by way of preamble, Dr. Strawbridge, your opening remarks. Is it visible? Not yet. Maybe we should pause it.

Infant Baptism, Household Baptism, and the Covenant Sign

Great. Well, it's certainly my privilege to be with you this evening. Thank you for coming out. Thanks for all those who organized, Chris and others, for Dr. White being here. I want to say, I think with Dr. White, God saves sinners and God washes sinners.

We both believe that in common. It's my burden to present to you that the case for baptism in the Bible is that it goes to you and your household, including even infants. And so I will argue that the Bible authorizes infant baptism.

Now I want to give this argument basically in four considerations. I'm sure we'll get into many other things as we continue. The first one being this, to define the issue. What is the issue when we talk about the question of infant baptism?

Secondly, let's look at old covenant baptisms. Thirdly, what are the new covenant baptisms? And fourthly, what about Gentile baptisms? So in the first place, number one, defining the issue. What the debate is not about is adult conversion baptism.

For example, in Acts 8, 37 and following, we read about Philip evangelizing the eunuch. And it's very clear, although there is a textual variant on this text, that the eunuch professes his faith prior to his baptism.

But of course, the profession of the eunuch's faith prior to baptism doesn't tell us much about what we do with believers' children. I'll call this the eunuch fallacy. Assuming that an adult conversion or example or command settles the case of the children of believers, I don't think it does.

Now of course, there's no explicit case of an individual child's baptism in Scripture. But there's also no case of a believer's baptism of a child or someone that grows up to be an adult from a Christian child.

So there's no explicit case in either direction. I hope that could be admitted. But what we don't want to assume is because there's no explicit case, that settles the matter. Not at all. I think the status of children is clear.

Now we're told in Matthew 3, 7 that when those went out to the baptism of John, that he saw the Pharisees and Sadducees coming, and he said to them, you brood of vipers, who warn you to flee from the wrath that comes.

Many people take that to be a change in covenant administration so that no children may be admitted. Rather, only adults who can confess their faith and confess their repentance can come. However, the status of children is stated fairly straightforwardly in 1 Corinthians 7, 14, where it speaks specifically that children are not unclean of a believing parent, but rather they are hagios, holy, a term that's translated more than 50 times in the New Testament to mean saints.

A .T. Robertson speaks of this hagiozo, this sanctification of the husband to wife and wife to the husband, as being simply the marriage that is set aside, but the children are in the status of being saints or holy.

So I want to call this fallacy of assuming that children do occupy the same place as adult pagans as the vipers in diapers fallacy. Assuming that the status of a covenant child is the same as a pagan adult or an apostate adult in the case of John the Baptist.

Assuming that adult Pharisees who are covenant breaking, Christ denying, are in the same place as the faithful and their children. Now, also, the new covenant, I think, also will play into this debate, and I want to just point out a text that's very influential on me, and that is that the new covenant itself involves stipulations for judgment.

How much severer, that is an argument from the greater to the lesser, how much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, has regarded unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

For we know him who said, Vengeance is mine, I will repay again, and again the Lord will judge his people. Those are covenant members in the new covenant. The Lord will judge his people. It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Just before this, the new covenant passage is cited. So I think you may look out for three fallacies in this argument. The eunuch fallacy, the vipers in diapers fallacy, and the baptizing of the invisible church fallacy.

That is, the idea that everyone in the new covenant is regenerate, so we only baptize those who profess the faith. So we only baptize those who are regenerate, only those in the invisible church. Well, okay, I hope you can do that, but I don't think you can.

There is no way to baptize only the invisible church. Now here's some substance in my argument. First of all, baptism is not new. There were baptisms, as it turns out, in the Old Testament. If we think about baptism as an event, it is a sign of covenant, I will say, and there were previous signs.

I would say in the Adamic administration of covenant, there was a tree of life. There was trees in the garden. In the Noahic, the rainbow. In the Abrahamic, circumcision, and even meals to the patriarchs.

In the Mosaic, Passover, and the entire sacrificial system. In the Davidic, possibly the throne is a visible action, who's sitting on the throne. And in the new covenant, baptism and the Lord's Supper.

That's the question. Are descendants included in the new covenant? I hope we can answer that by the end of this evening, but certainly in the previous covenants, there can be no doubt that they were included in covenant and covenant signs.

Now, baptisms does not show up with John the Baptist. Doesn't show up in the new covenant only. Really, in a certain sense, it shows up in the Eden example of Genesis chapter 2. Now, rivers flowed out of Eden.

These four rivers flowed out as boundary markers, and water was in Eden. And we hear that there's water above the heavens. There's a water of the firmament above, even. I think that shows up over and over in the Bible.

In other words, the Edenic types that we see show up in the tabernacle and temple, which include washing and ritual cleansing events. Now, such scholars as G .K. Beale, in his Revelation commentary, Alan P. Ross, in his work on recalling the hope of glory, and the fine commentator Gordon Wynnum on Genesis, point out that the garden imagery shows up over and over again in the Bible, especially in the tabernacle and the temple.

So let me summarize, then, this Old Covenant baptisms idea. From Eden flowed rivers. Noah's household was saved through the flood. There were springs in the patriarch's narratives. Israel passes through the Red Sea.

A laver is at the entrance of the tabernacle for cleansing. Joshua leads Israel across the Jordan into the land. In the Temple of Solomon, an ocean and basins of water on chariots create a stylized river flowing out to cleanse the nations.

Ezekiel and Zechariah see this in visions. Washings in the tabernacle, as well as the crossing of the Red Sea, are explicitly called baptism in the New Testament. There are many references to baptisms in the Old Testament.

And Messiah was prophesied to come to Israel and baptize, not only Israel, I will sprinkle clean water on you, give you a new heart, but also the nations. He will sprinkle many nations, Isaiah 52 .15.

The water flowing out to baptize nations is prophesied in the Old Covenant and especially in the New Covenant prophecies. Now this sets the stage for John the Baptist's ministry. In the Exodus, Israel passed through the Red Sea.

Paul describes this as baptism. They were all baptized into Moses and in the cloud and in the sea. They also crossed the Jordan, same term in Hebrew, avar, to possess the land. This crossing happens again when Elisha is given a double portion of the spirit of Elijah, 2 Kings 2 .8.

Remember, John came in the spirit of Elijah. So this idea of the river boundary of the Jordan River is significant in John's ministry. Now, enter John the Baptist with all that background and there's much more to it.

Colin Brown, the theologian, wrote, John was organizing a symbolic exodus from Jerusalem and Judea as a preliminary to recrossing the Jordan as a penitent. Consecrated Israel in order to reclaim the land in a quasi reenactment of the return from the Babylonian exile.

The purity and quantity of the water, which is an issue in critical studies, were of less significance than the historic symbolic significance of the Jordan as a boundary and point of entry. So then we say, what happened then?

What did Jesus command in the New Covenant baptisms? Well, I believe Jesus commanded the baptism of the nations. The grammar of the text of the Great Commission was to disciple all the nations and baptize them.

And nations were predicted to be baptized in the Old Covenant, especially just before the stage of the New Testament. And nations, of course, include children, do they not? Now, if someone had come and said, like a Pharisee, let us go circumcise the nations.

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, circumcising them in the name of Israel's God. Would they have meant exclusive adult circumcision? I don't think so. And in fact, we kind of have this in Acts.

They speak of the conversion of the Gentiles in Acts chapter 15. And the Judaizers said, unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be circumcised. Sorry, you cannot be saved.

It is necessary to circumcise them. Notice to them is the converted Gentiles. Certainly the Pharisees and those of the Judaizers didn't think that was exclusive adult circumcision. In other words, these commands, in the nature of the case, include the children.

This did not exclude their children. Now, just briefly, and I'm gonna finish with this in these notes, the New Commandment that Jesus, the covenant of baptism Jesus gave, Great Commission Baptism, when the apostles go out to do it, what do they do?

Well, we could categorize it this way. There were adult conversion baptisms. 3 ,000 men at Pentecost, Samaritans, men and women, Simon the Sorcerer, Ethiopian eunuch, Paul, the disciples of John in Acts 19.

But there were also household cases, Cornelius in household, Lydia in household, the Philippian jailer in household, Crispus in household, Stephanus in household. Please note there, Paul says, I baptize no other, 1 Corinthians 1 .16, and the other reference there is household.

Paul was in the habit of baptizing households. And then Gaius in household, possibly because in the text, it represents Crispus and Gaius, but it doesn't mention Crispus' household. But we know Crispus' household believed in the Lord with him in Acts 18.

So Crispus may have well had a household, and certainly it may be the case that Gaius had a household or not. So what I'm trying to point out is baptism is not new. And when we get to the New Testament, it doesn't show a pattern of excluding children, but rather baptism goes to you and your household.

Thank you, Dr. Stokers, appreciate it. Dr. White.

New Covenant Regeneration and the Limits of Baptism

All right, well, good evening. It is excellent to be with you this evening. I'm not sure if we can put any particular meaning into the Noahic flood taking place outside, but we will hopefully be able to press on all the same.

This evening, I simply want to begin by saying we've been here before. In fact, in the debates that I have done, Dr. Strawbridge and I did a debate, I believe it was 2007, if I recall on this particular subject.

And so what I want to do this evening is to try not to do what we've done before. I mean, there are plenty of Baptist Presbyterian debates that have taken place over time. I'd like to move this discussion forward if I possibly can.

In previous debates, we get to the end of the debate and we conclude, you know what? We have different methods of hermeneutics on these key texts. Well, that's where I want to start because I think that really is the fundamental issue in the debate this evening.

As Reformed Christians, we use the same hermeneutics to define and defend such things as the inspiration of Scripture, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the person and work of the Holy Spirit, the incarnation, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, justification by faith, future judgment, the final state, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

We share together the conclusions that we have on these matters. So the real issue that we have to ask is how can we come to such different conclusions on the subject of baptism? And obviously, both of us pretty much are gonna say the same thing, but I will assert here that we differ here because of the presence of uninspired, unbiblical tradition, which determines the outcome of our interpretation of those baptism texts.

Now, both sides will claim this evening consistency, so we must test that claim thoroughly and we must test it fairly. Now, here is my thesis. My thesis is no one believed what Calvin taught about covenantal infant baptism before John Calvin.

And so that makes it a theological novum and it places it in a place in history that must be examined. You see, when we look at history, we realize that Calvin inherited a sacral church from the first generation reformers, he was a second generation reformer, and sought to establish a theological framework to defend that sacral state church relationship in light of the break from Rome on one side and the challenge of the radical reformation on the other side.

As a result, he developed a position that uses a different hermeneutical platform, so plainly seen to most of us anyways, by comparing book one of the institutes with the relevant sections later in book four.

This was due, I believe, to outside cultural concerns, not due to the biblical revelation itself. The presence of this unbiblical tradition interrupts the consistent application of reformed hermeneutic.

By demonstrating this inconsistency, I believe that the debate is decided. Now, the reformed Baptist position is this, a consistent hermeneutic will allow the new covenant scriptures to define the manner, means, and extent of the fulfillment of old covenant types, shadows, and prophecies.

The new covenant scriptures define that, not the old covenant scriptures. Now, while there may be formal agreement upon this principle, at least there was in 2007, in practice, there is, I believe, strong disagreement.

As all past debates on this topic demonstrate, and as the discussion that will follow in this debate, I believe, will of necessity illustrate. Hence, we assert that the meaning of children, for example, and seed must come from the New Testament writings and not be forced upon the New Testament writings from Old Testament paradigms.

For example, look at Isaiah 53 .10. But Yahweh was pleased to crush him, putting him to grief. If he would render himself as a guilt offering, he will see his offspring, his zera, his sperma in the septuagint.

He will prolong his days, and the good pleasure of Yahweh will prosper in his hand. Now, obviously, seed, zera, sperma here, is clearly spiritual. It is not physical. The Messiah did not have offspring in his line.

These are those who would believe in the offspring. He would see his offspring. That is, the father-son family paradigm in the new covenant will not be cultural or ethnic. It cannot be limited to the paradigm of national Israel, but has a broader, greater fulfillment, and that is exactly what the new covenant scriptures teach us.

For example, when we look at the new covenant interpretation in Romans chapter four, Paul says, for this reason it is by faith in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, the spermati, not only to those who are of the law, but also those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.

So Abraham is our father by what? By lineage? No, by faith, so that the next verse says, as it is written, a father of many nations have I made you. There's Genesis 17. You want the inspired interpretation of that?

In the presence of him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls him to being that which does not exist. So here we see the new covenant interpretation of what seed, of what that promise, is all about and it comes about by faith, not by family lineage.

Nowhere is this principle more important than the definition of the new covenant itself. Reformed Baptists believe, we insist that only the new covenant documents can properly interpret and apply the old covenant prophecies about the new covenant.

Hence, when Hebrews eight makes the supremacy and present reality of the new covenant part of its very apologetic argument, no amount of old covenant sameness argumentation can be allowed to undo the author's primary point.

I think that's very, very important to emphasize. When Hebrews eight tells us that the new covenant is currently present, it is here, it is the very essence of his argument about going back to the old ways, we cannot then change the nature of the new covenant when we try to force old covenant paradigms upon the New Testament church.

We must allow the explicit teaching of the New Testament on the nature of the new covenant, its central place, and then reason downward from this clear revelation to the application of covenant signs, et cetera, not the other direction.

You don't come up with an idea of covenant signs and then reason from there to the nature of the covenant. You start with what the Bible teaches about the covenant and then move downward from there. Excuse me.

We cannot begin with old covenant paradigms and applications and then force them onto the fuller new covenant reality. For in so doing, we end up fundamentally compromising the fullness of the new covenant and altering its essential perfection and its completion.

Reformed Baptists begin with Jesus' own assertion that the new covenant is in my blood, Luke 22 20. We are consistent believers in particular redemption. So the blood of the new covenant is specifically intended to redeem the elect.

And so when we look at Hebrews chapter eight, the argument of the writer of the Hebrews is very, very compelling. In the new covenant, God's law is written upon the heart of every new covenant believer, not just some, not a certain percentage of this generation.

We hope a little bit more than we hope a little bit more. In the new covenant, God's law is written upon the heart. There is a fulfilled relationship with God. I will be their God, they will be my people.

Everyone from the least to the greatest of them in the new covenant knows God personally. Unlike the old covenant where you had people who were circumcised, but they did not know Yahweh, this is not the case in the new covenant.

And every member of the new covenant has full forgiveness of sins. Their iniquities, I will remember no more is the promise that is cited in Hebrews chapter eight. So the Reformed Baptist, based upon these direct teachings on the new covenant itself, not by good and necessary inferences, but upon direct didactic teaching, reason from the nature of the new covenant to the application.

The guiding principle is the proper nature of that covenant. Hence, if baptism is one of the ordinances of this covenant, then it follows that the record of the New Testament will show a consistency in the subjects of baptism.

They will be repentant believers. And that is exactly what we will see this evening. You will never see the apostles purposefully baptizing an unrepentant unbeliever. It simply doesn't happen. And that flows from the nature of the new covenant itself.

The church will seek to follow that apostolic example and will not purposefully give an ordinance of the new covenant to those who do not fit the description of the new covenant. Those ordinances will be given to those who profess faith in Christ and repentance toward his name.

I think that's vitally, vitally important. And so I'd like to contrast that with a statement made by Greg Strawbridge. Yesterday morning, you put up your stuff way too fast. Yesterday morning, so this should be very fresh.

I mean, you did sleep since then, but this should be very fresh. Yesterday morning about the new covenant, quote, although what we hope is that in the new covenant, there is more and more renewal, there is more and more spirituality, there is more and more renewed people.

It's not like the old covenant in that sense, in that most of them were lost in the wilderness generation, end quote. Now, is that what we have in Hebrews chapter eight? A new covenant that will get better and better over time.

We hope that in the new covenant, there is more and more renewal. Is that what Hebrews eight is actually promising? With all due respect, this view of the new covenant would utterly, in my opinion, overthrow the apologetic argument of the author to the Hebrews.

And it is fully inconsistent, I believe, with Jesus' teaching that the new covenant is in his blood. That is, if we believe in particular redemption, that means it is with the elect, and at least for the reformed exegete, I can't see how we can put these two perspectives together.

And here, I believe, is direct evidence of the impact of tradition upon hermeneutics. Your job this evening, well, aside from the moderator who's going to make the final decision and end all of this discussion by his very fair and unbiased decision being a Presbyterian, but your job, lest he fail in that task, is to listen very carefully and find out who is consistent in their hermeneutics this evening.

And if you find a place of inconsistency, that may well indicate the presence of tradition. Thank you very much.

Well, to thank you both very much for your opening statements. Dr. Strowbridge arguing that you cannot understand the New Testament outside the Old Testament categories, and Dr. White arguing that the New Testament must control our interpretation of the Old.

So you both are grabbing the same stick from the opposite end, and it'll be very interesting to see how you meet in the middle. So your 10-minute response, Dr. Strowbridge. Don't start it yet, it's not up.

Hold on. All right, well, first of all, I'm very impressed. That was an impressive quote from yesterday. Keep listening, brother, keep listening. Keep listening. I want to continue with my argument. I will deal with that New Covenant objection, but I want to say, as I said in my first few points here, Gentile baptisms.

Acts, Households, and the Inclusion of the Nations

So what we ask is, given the Great Commission to baptize nations, and as I pointed out, if an Old Testament person had taken the challenge, circumcised all the nations, that wouldn't have excluded children at all.

That's what they were doing, in fact, in the New Testament. So when we get to the Book of Acts, we find out how the apostles interpreted and applied the commission to baptize. So I want to go with the New Testament, too.

I think we formally agree on the question of hermeneutics. What turns out to be the problem is, how do we then apply it? Well, let's look how the apostles applied it. And what we find is the whole Book of Acts focuses many times, I think there's over 25 statements about the inclusion of Gentiles in the New Covenant in the gospel.

And so in Acts 1, 7 to 8, we find that the purpose statement of the Book of Acts is that you will receive this kingdom, authority, and power when the Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my eyewitnesses in Jerusalem and all Judea and Samaria and to the last nation, the Eschatos nation of the earth.

And what we find out is that when we look at then how this is done, the outline of the Book of Acts follows that very pattern, and the baptisms follow the pattern of that. There are Jerusalem baptisms, 3 ,000 men.

There's Samaritan baptisms. The Samaritans and Simon, and then the eunuch. The farthest parts of the earth, we have in this transition to Gentile baptisms. And first, there's a baptism of Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles.

And then we have all of the Gentile baptism cases, beginning with Cornelius, Lydia, the jailer, Crispus, Stephanus, Gaius, already mentioned him and the 12 men in Ephesus. But when we look at this, there are a few Jews in there, but the main idea is that the gospel goes to Gentiles, and how does it go?

By way of household. Now, let's take one example of that. The passage where we have sushi in the Bible. Remember that passage? God told Peter, get up, kill and eat. It'll come to you. There's no cooking in that, okay.

He says, go kill and eat, and that's an image, a vision of going to the Gentiles, going to these unclean people. He has to tell them three times. And what we see is that as the gospel goes to the father's part of the earth, when it first goes to Cornelius, the language set up covenantally, Acts 11 .14.

A man is gonna come to you, Cornelius, says the angel, and he's gonna speak to you words of salvation to you and your household. Why would that be the way it's set up? If it's now individualistic, I don't believe it is individualistic, or the Philippian jailer.

What must I do to be saved? You believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. No, you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for you and your household, and you shall be saved, right? Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, he says, individual, but then you and your household are included.

That's exactly the way the first Gentile baptism is set up. Now, I appreciate Dr. White's ministry very much of debating Muslims and unbelievers, and if he were successful in perhaps evangelizing a Muslim, if the Muslim said, well, what must I do to be saved?

I think Dr. White would say, well, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. But what I would say is, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, you and your household. That is, the gospel is to go by way of households, and that is exactly what we see in the book of Acts repeatedly.

A simple way to capture this is this. There are nine individuals, hold your hands up, nine individuals. I can tell who's a paedo-baptist by, because they're holding their hands up. Baptists are not going to do this.

There are nine individuals that are named in the New Testament baptism cases. Five are household cases. The other two do not have households. For example, Saul or Paul, and the eunuch. Why aren't the eunuch's children baptized?

Hmm, that's the eunuch baptism. And then you have Simon the sorcerer and Gaius, and Gaius possibly had a household. He's spoken of as an elder, if it's the same Gaius, and he's spoken of as being host to all the church.

Very likely that he had a household, but Paul simply represented him as a household head. So when the gospel goes to Gentiles, it goes by way of household. How is that a radically different picture of the gospel coming to the world?

How does that exclude children? How is that different? The first Gentile case that so much is made of in the book of Acts, read Acts 10. Then you see the same thing again in Acts 11. Then you see the same thing again in Acts 15.

There is a repeated emphasis. The gospel goes to Gentiles, and it goes by way of household, to you and your household. That is plain. And this is what the text says. He will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and your household.

I don't see how the Reformed Baptist should expect this to be written in, except to say, well, this is extraordinary. This is amazing. This is very unusual. This is an exceptional case, except that there are nine individuals.

Five are household cases. Two don't have households, Simon the sorcerer and Gaius. The best bet for the Baptist position is Simon the sorcerer. And then the jailer's house. It's set up and repeatedly emphasizing, I would say, covenantal conception of the household.