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.

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.

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 Quran 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, that'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 Reformed 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 Kamara, and he is pastor of River Oaks Presbyterian Church in Lake Mary, Florida.

And I'm turning over the proceedings now to Pastor Kamara. Thank you very much. Let me add my welcome to that.

We ready now? There we go. 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.

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.

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.

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. 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. There we go.

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 severe, that is an argument from the greater to the lesser, how much severe 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. It 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 and his revelation commentary, Alan P. Ross, in his work on recalling the hope of glory and the fine commentator,

Gordon Wenham 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 baptism's 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 the 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 should not exclude their children. Now, just briefly, and I'm gonna finish with this in these notes.

The New Commandment that Jesus, the New 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 and 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. Strokos. Appreciate it. Dr. White.

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 going to 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 Zerah, his Sperma in the

Septuagint. He will prolong his days, and the good pleasure of Yahweh will prosper in his hand.

Now, obviously, seed, Zerah, 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 4,

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

Spermatae, 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 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 into 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 8 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 8 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, 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. 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 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, my first few points here, Gentile baptisms.

So what we ask is, given the Great Commission to baptize nations, and as I pointed out, if an

Old Testament person had, you know, 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 it 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.

I've 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 farthest part of the earth, when it first goes to Cornelius, the language set up covenantally.

Acts 11, 14. A man is going to come to you, Cornelius, says the angel.

And he's going to 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, 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

Pato Baptist 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?

That's the eunuch house. 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.

What must I do to be saved? Believe in the Lord Jesus. You shall be saved, you and your household.

And again, he and all his household were baptized and then having believed in God with his whole house.

Now I want to take just a moment to introduce the problem of the new covenant. And I know that there's a lot more to say and I'm sure in the cross -examination and all, we'll come out with a lot more.

There'll be a lot more to say. But what about this idea that, okay, let's start with the new covenant and then work back down to baptism.

Well, my first point on that would be this. So the new covenant includes only regenerate people.

Therefore, you shouldn't baptize infants. That is not logically coherent.

It does not follow. It's a non sequitur. That's just as logical as saying the new covenant includes only regenerate people.

Therefore, you should not baptize professors because professing the faith in no way guarantees that you're regenerate.

Does it? No. And everyone would admit that. So the argument that only regenerate people are in the new covenant does not lead to the practice that you only baptize people that say,

I was saved. I know plenty of people that say I was saved. That are not faithful to the

Lord. So the terms of when you apply baptism are not simply profession.

And there will be an equivocation here, probably all night, of baptizing believers, not baptizing unrepentant unbelievers, by which believers is interpreted to mean regenerate people.

But professing believers, if they are really believers, are regenerate.

But people that simply profess the faith are not necessarily regenerate. So again, there is no logical argument that demands that you exclude children from the case being made about regeneration in the new covenant.

Now, let me say that this case, is it true that the new covenant membership includes exclusively regenerate people?

No, there are so many passages in the New Testament that teach the possibility of apostasy from the visible covenant community.

There are passages that teach the new covenant has stipulations for judgment. I've already alluded to one and read through it in Hebrews chapter 10.

There are many passages which teach the kingdom includes both regenerate and unregenerate.

So at the end of the kingdom age, he's going to take those out of his kingdom. What does that mean? Except that there were unregenerate people in it.

In the new covenant, see it's similar to the old covenant ministrations. And so the Pato Baptist, not the anti -Pato

Baptist or the Baptist view possesses explicit warrant for the inclusion of children in the new covenant.

And we'll get to those passages in our next section, as well as in the church. Remember Paul writes to the

Ephesians, you saints in Ephesus. And in chapter six, he says, children, are children saints or not?

Well, I think that's what 1 Corinthians 7 .14 means. Children are saints. They're haggis. It's the same idea, same conception.

They are told, we're told that they're in the church. We're told to raise our children in the Lord. And we're told that they're in the kingdom.

For such toyotas, that is these and those with like characteristics are part of the kingdom.

Thank you. All right.

Well, thank you very much for that. Let's continue on. Both of us are sort of doing the same thing. We have more than we can fit into 12 minutes and that's pretty obvious.

So let's continue on. The best examples that I know of, of how tradition has impacted the consistent practice of reformed exegesis in the defense of infant baptism usually comprise the very texts that Pato Baptist turned to with regularity in defense of their position, such as Acts 2 .39

and as we just heard, the household baptism texts. The simple assertion of the reformed

Baptist is this. There is absolutely no evidence that the apostles of Jesus Christ gave purposefully the ordinance of baptism to any individual who was unbelieving or unrepentant, period.

One must argue by inference from old covenant paradigms to arrive at a different conclusion.

And we have certainly already seen that this evening. Let's see how what I believe is a backwards hermeneutic functions in two of the absolutely key texts,

Acts 2 in the day of Pentecost and Acts 16 and the Philippian jailer, which we've already seen referenced.

In Acts chapter two, we read, therefore, let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both

Lord and Christ this Jesus, whom you crucified. Now, when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, brethren, what shall we do?

Peter said to them, repent and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.

You will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit 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. And with many of their words, he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them saying, be saved from this perverse generation.

So then those who had received his word were baptized. And that day there were added about 3000 souls.

Now, a consistent exegesis will take note of the indications given in the text itself.

These are Jews who realized that they as a people have rejected and crucified their own

Messiah. And they ask what they must do in the light of this horrific sin.

Peter's response is to call them to repentance and faith, including the obedience of baptism.

The promise noted is recorded earlier in verse 33 and includes forgiveness and the gift of the

Holy Spirit. The controlling phrase that must determine those to whom the promise is given is hasus on proskalesetai kurios hathaios haimon.

That is whoever our Lord God shall call to himself. Any reformed hermeneutic would immediately see this as a clear and necessary reference to the expression of the sovereign decree of God in electing a people from every tribe, tongue, people and nation and race.

This clearly refers to God's sovereignty in salvation. Hence, the as many as the

Lord our God shall call is then defined for us in the text as Jews, you and your children, as well as Gentiles, those who are far off.

The very same language that Paul uses in Ephesians 2 verses 13 through 17 of the

Jews and the Gentiles together being made one in the purposes of God for the church. The emphasis that we constantly hear from our

Presbyterian brothers, you and your children, you and your children may well be due to the words of the

Jews in Matthew 27, 25. Remember when they said the crucifixion of Jesus, his blood be upon us and our children.

Now, what is certain beyond all question is that this is not an enunciation of a family household concept.

For who then was baptized in this text? As many as had received his word, those who received the gospel message were baptized.

The new covenant scriptures must define the fulfillment. And when they do so, their intention and scope is clear and I would argue absolutely unmistakable.

The next text is the household baptism of the Philippian jailer. And once again, we see what we would assume to be true given the nature of the new covenant is true right here.

There is absolutely zero evidence that anyone other than believing repentant people were baptized in Acts chapter 16.

Let's look at it. And after he brought them out, he said, sirs, what must I do to be saved? They said, believe in the

Lord Jesus and you will be saved. You and your household. And they spoke the word of the

Lord to him together with all who were in his house.

Please notice those words. And he, the jailer, 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, I suggest the following would be a consistent reformed exegesis.

The apostles proclaimed the gospel to all who were in the household.

The natural reading of verse 34 would be that while the man rejoiced and the term there is singular,

Panoikai in the Greek makes it plain that the entire household had believed.

Otherwise, there's no reason for it to be there. Yet, Pato Baptist interpreters will actually suggest that the baptism took place solely upon the faith of the head of the household.

And they will emphasize the single rejoiced as well. They will say, only he rejoiced.

It was only him. And therefore, you have the the one head of the household and now everyone else being baptized because he believed.

But think for just a moment what this actually means. That the man and his house were rejoicing even though his family had rejected the gospel.

It plainly states that the apostles presented the word to everyone in the household.

Do people generally rejoice when people convert to Christ while they reject the gospel?

That does not make a bit of sense. That is not a consistent reformed interpretation.

We would never come to those conclusions using the same kind of hermeneutics that we together use to defend the deity of Christ or justification by faith.

And yet I have heard that kind of argument used many times and it screams to me tradition not exegesis.

It screams it to me. And so what do we conclude? Baptism and the supper both are ordinances of the covenant that was made in the blood of Christ.

If we believe in particular redemption, if we believe in the unity of the

Father, Son, and Spirit in the accomplishment of the decree of God of salvation, then this becomes the central aspect of what we must affirm.

There is no biblical basis found in the nature of the new covenant nor in the new covenant scriptures for giving these ordinances to unrepentant, unbelieving persons.

Now let me lay aside the argument that was just made immediately because we need to understand this.

What was just said was, well, there's no difference between baptizing an infant and you baptizing a professor because you don't have infallible knowledge of the professor's heart.

The difference, my friends, is very simple. The differences between purposefully giving the ordinances of the new covenant to individuals for whom you have no warrant whatsoever to believe that they are repentant and believing and being individuals like the apostles who required a confession of faith and repentance before giving the ordinances, even though in one instance, which was actually made to be the best instance for Baptists, Simon the sorcerer, even the disciples were misled by his false profession.

One, you purposefully give the ordinance to individuals that you can have absolutely no way of knowing whether they make a profession of faith where they are repentant or following the apostolic example, which is to ask for that profession of faith and repentance in the same way that in giving the ordinance of the supper, that likewise requires discernment and understanding on the part of the person that receives those elements to discern the body and blood of the

Lord. And so in both instances, we are being consistent with the apostolic example.

And there is a huge difference between purposely giving the signs to unrepentant people who make no profession of faith and accidentally doing so, which brings great condemnation, not upon us, but as Hebrews chapter 10 says, upon the false professor.

That's what makes the sin of apostasy so very, very dangerous and dreadful.

Thank you very much. Dr. Sturbridge, five minute remarks.

OK. Again, I want to emphasize once again this problem of thinking the new covenant is different in its administrative function in the

Old Testament by pointing out that there is simply no reason to believe that given the

New Testament's teaching that apostasy from the visible covenant is there. This is a repeat.

I'm just reminding you that there are passages which include both regenerate and unregenerate in the kingdom and the church.

And so, therefore, we should reconsider this idea that the new covenant in some way teaches against infant baptism.

Actually, it is the paedo -baptist who believes and has warrant that children are included in the new covenant, church and the kingdom.

Now, what does the new covenant mean? I think this is a burden for someone who holds my point of view.

And I would want to point out that first of all, the new covenant passage in Jeremiah 31 does at first look to the post -exilic return of Israel.

There was an initial fulfillment. I will bring them back into the land that I gave to their forefathers and they shall possess it.

That happened in the post -exilic time. Read the verses before and after Jeremiah 31 to 34 and it's very clear.

I think there was a falling away. We don't know very much about this part of history, but there was a falling away after they came back and they installed a corrupt priesthood, a non -Zadokite priesthood, as it turns out.

The phrase then when you find this, sometimes a lot is made of the least to the greatest, they will all know me.

Now, what Calvinistic Baptists want to do is equate that phrase to regeneration.

But in the original context, that phrase is used in two other passages. From the least of them to the greatest of them, everyone is greedy for gain, even from prophet even to priest,

Jeremiah 6 .13, as well as 8 .10. Therefore, I will give their wives to others, their fields to new owners, because from the least of, even to the greatest, everyone is greedy for gain.

From the prophet even to the priest, everyone practices deceit. Does that phrase in those contexts mean every single individual?

No, it doesn't. It's very plain. In the first case, it's talking about those that are greedy for gain.

That hardly means infants, first of all. But secondly, it's very clear, those who have wives and fields. Really, in the book of Jeremiah, he's talking about the access to God, the knowledge of God that comes.

Can the knowledge of God be restricted in the priesthood, in the old covenant forms?

No, in the new covenant, it's going to be available to all. Now, the phrase,

I will forgive their iniquity. Well, does that mean perfect redemption, perfect atonement, limited atonement?

I believe in limited atonement. But is that what Jeremiah is talking about? Well, that's not the way the writer of Hebrews interprets it.

He says this. He says the first order of shadow sacrifices have been replaced by a second order of once for all sacrificed in Christ.

And the shadow sacrifices, there's a reminder of sins year by year, Hebrews 10, 3.

But now you see in the new covenant, their sins will not require an annual day of atonement.

Rather, their lawless deeds, I'll remember no more. Please just read the verses before and after.

It does not refer to elect people and limited atonement. It's talking about the change of priesthood.

In fact, chapter seven expresses this very plain. This is right before the citation of Jeremiah 31 in chapter eight.

And the argument is being continued. Now, if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood, why is he talking about the

Levitical priesthood? Because Jeremiah was saying there's going to be a time in chapter three when you won't remember the

Ark of the Covenant. It won't even come to mind. That's the new covenant era. That's a change of administration in the sense of no more temple, no more

Ark of the Covenant, no more Levitical priesthood. Now, if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood for on the basis of it, the people received the law, what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?

For when the priesthood is changed of necessity, there takes place a change of law also.

And my final point about the new covenant is whatever you make of it, and there's a lot to say about it.

There's many components of it. In fact, it's part of new creation,

Isaiah 65. It has the new heart, Ezekiel chapter 36. There's a visionary temple in Ezekiel and Zechariah.

There's a lot to say and a lot of Old Testament theology could be done. But one thing that we can't avoid is that it explicitly includes children.

Look at the verses before and after. Chapter 31 starts with that very statement. They shall be my people.

That is women with child. Thank you. Dr. White, five minutes.

I will confess that I am very concerned about what I just heard. And let me explain why.

I'm an apologist first and foremost. I try to bring the gospel message into other lands and into connection and contact with world religions.

I have debated Roman Catholicism and its idolatrous doctrine of the mass many, many times.

What I just heard in regard to the book of Hebrews and the new covenant troubles me greatly.

It troubles me greatly. If you have your Bible, look at some of the references that were just made to Hebrews chapter seven.

Well, this is talking about the change in Levitical priesthood. Yeah, it is. And here's what is said. And so much more in verse 22.

Also, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. Is the covenant in Jesus' blood better because it gets better over time when there's more regenerate people in it?

The former priest, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing. But Jesus, on the other hand, because he continues forever, holds his priesthood permanently.

Therefore, he is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through him since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Don't tell me that is not the work of the high priest. And don't tell me that is not particular redemption.

Don't tell me that's not the exact same audience of his offering and his intercession being brought together.

And this is exactly what's before Hebrews chapter 8. This is the better promises. And that is our very guarantee of why every person in the covenant has all of their sins forgiven.

And that is the very basis of our peace before God. And so we get to chapter 8.

A better ministry. How is it a better ministry? How does verse 6 say? But now he has obtained a more excellent ministry by as much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant which has been enacted on better promises.

Well, the issues we're gonna have to discuss this evening is what does Jesus mediate to non -regenerate members of a new covenant community that is created by the purposeful giving of new covenant signs to people who have never professed faith in Christ?

What does Christ mediate to them? Because the only ground of mediation he has is his shed blood. So what does he mediate?

For if the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second for finding fault with them, he says.

And then you have the Jeremiah 31 quotation. And my friends, when you argue what the writer here is saying is not for the perfection of the new covenant in comparison to the old, you are arguing as the

Jews would have argued against Paul or whoever it was who wrote this themselves. And so when it says the days are coming, it says the

Lord will effect a new covenant with the house of Israel, with the house of Judah not like the covenant, which

I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand, lead them out of the land of Egypt, for they did not continue my covenant and I did not care for them, says the

Lord. Interesting textual variant there. For this is the covenant that will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the

Lord. I will put my laws into their minds and I'll write them on their hearts and I will be their God and they shall be my people.

Is that not where regeneration is? Is that not the fulfillment of taking out the heart of stone and giving the heart of flesh?

Is that not the wind blowing over the valley of the dry bones? Are we not talking about regeneration here?

And when it says, 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.

We just had it argued. That doesn't mean everybody. I don't know how the author could make it more clear.

He has just said, they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen. Every phrase has to be interpreted in a context and the context here is the extensiveness of the what?

Better work of this new covenant based upon better promises and what's most important, a better mediator.

He has a better ministry 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.

Is that not the promise that every believer who comes to Jesus Christ takes as his own?

It most assuredly is and that then becomes the foundation where in Hebrews chapter 10, you have the once for all sacrifice and what does it do?

It perfects for all time those for whom it is made.

Why am I so passionate about this? Because I see this as directly striking at the very core of what

I must present to the Muslims and to the Roman Catholics and to the Mormons.

This is the message I bring to them and I believe it is very clearly enunciated for us in the text of scripture itself.

Thank you very much. Thank you both very much.

At this point, we are going to take a 10 -minute break. And before we reconvene again, let's pray.

Our gracious God and loving Heavenly Father, what a privilege it is to gather together as your people under your word and we thank you for these two, your servants.

And we thank you for the wisdom that you've given them and the discipline that they have applied in their lives to study your word and to make it clear.

And we ask that as we give to further their ministries that you would multiply the blessing to them and to the people to whom they minister.

We ask that you would help us even as we debate your word to relish it and to cherish the blessings and the promises that are ours in Jesus.

May his name be honored in the remainder of these proceedings tonight in Jesus' name.

Amen. All right, if I could have the ushers come forward, we'll receive an offering that will go.

If you need to write a check, you can write it to the Spurgeon Fellowship and they will divide the monies out to each participant.

So if you would give and make sure that you put your questions in the offering basket as well and those will be delivered to me and then

I will direct them to the debaters near the end of our debate. And with you with seven minutes of remarks before cross -examination.

Once again, I want to thank you for being here and for this time. Thank you for coming out and organizing all those organizing, especially

Dr. White for his ministry, which I appreciate very much. We disagree about this, but as I said, we would say

God saves sinners, God washes people, and now we're working out the details of that.

I want to finish with, again, a push on the nature of the new covenant, because I do think that Dr.

White is right. If we start with the nature of the covenant and then work down from there, we end up at two different positions,

I believe, but that is a good place to start. What is the nature of the covenant? And what I want to point out is that in Hebrews chapter 10, when this is cited the second time, it's also cited in chapter eight in the argument about the change of priesthood, as I already alluded to.

Here we have him commenting on the reason why he cites it. He says, this is the new covenant and so forth.

He says, then he then says, and their sins and lawless deeds

I will remember no more. Now, where there is forgiveness of these things, there's no longer any offering for sin.

Why is he talking about that? He does not cite the text here, the writer of Hebrews, in order to say in the new covenant, no one can fall away.

That's obvious through the whole book. He doesn't cite this text to say in the new covenant, everyone has what we might call limited atonement in that sense.

I don't think that's what he means when he's talking about an offering for sin. Now, why do I know that?

Because in the next few verses, he says, for if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment.

The fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Here in this context, he's telling them that there is a change of priesthood they better get with the program.

This change of priesthood, this change of once -for -all sacrifice now is the only opportunity that they have.

Just so you're clear, we're all Calvinist here, I do not believe people can lose their salvation. I do not believe elect people can lose their salvation, obviously.

Is that what this is talking about? I don't believe so. And again, it becomes perfectly clear in chapter 10 verses 28 to 31.

Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severe punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the

Son of God? This is a contrast of covenant and it's not a contrast which says in the old covenant under Moses, they could depart and be judged.

But in the new covenant, hallelujah, you can't. That is not the argument in this passage. He says, how much severe punishment.

And notice the phrase, has regarded as 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. And again, the Lord will judge his people.

It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. The argument of the book of Hebrews is not in the new covenant, you can't fall away.

Every member of the new covenant is regenerate and can't lose his salvation. That's not what he's saying. He's saying everyone under the terms of the new covenant, which also includes stipulations for judgment, can be judged just as it was, but even more so.

Now to the direct point that the new covenant somehow excludes children,

I don't think so. In the text of Jeremiah 31, we find the reference. I would love to hear

Dr. White just take Jeremiah 31 and walk through it and explain what these things mean in light of his view of the covenant.

And I've heard a great deal of reference to reformed hermeneutics and reformed people and a put down of tradition.

But I'm the one talking about the text of the Bible and I'm hearing Dr. White talk about reformed hermeneutics and the reformed view of things.

I'm not appealing to reformed tradition. I'm talking about what the text says. My people, the families of Israel, they shall be my people.

Thy people, the remnant of Israel, the women with child and she who is in labor with child.

That's the context of the very passage cited. Does that exclude children? No, it does not.

Your children shall return. This is the definition of my people in Jeremiah 31.

And before that, the promise was God will circumcise the heart of you and your descendants to love the

Lord your God. Jeremiah 31, 35, remember the citation ends at 34, but 35 makes this perfectly clear.

If the fixed order departs, the offspring of Israel shall cease to be a nation before me.

Does the new covenant exclude children? Or as David Kingdon says in his book, Defending the

Reformed Baptist Point of View, the in thy seed principle is nowhere in the new covenant.

Yes, except for the next verse and the previous verses to it. The in thy seed is explicitly stated all the way through chapter 31 and it is recurring in the new covenant statements of Mary in the

Magnificat. His mercy is upon generation after generation. Oh, but that's the Old Testament.

Actually, it's not the Old Testament. It's the New Testament. It's the mother of Jesus. Acts 2 .39,

for the promise is for you and your children. Let's suppose I buy

Dr. White's interpretation of that, which is essentially this means the elect. How does that follow?

The previous verse says you should be baptized for the promise is for some of you that are elect.

That doesn't follow. This is Israel. Would Israel have thought that their children were included?

They would have, believe me. I agree this looks to Gentile inclusion and that's what we see in the baptism cases of the book of Acts.

The gospel goes to you and your household. I would like for Dr. White to explain how that is possible given his point of view.

Why does it repeatedly say that about the inclusion of Gentiles at the first case of Gentile inclusion and at the case of the

Philippian jailer who is the first pagan? Remember the previous cases of Gentiles were

God fearers. The first pagan that we record that we see that's baptized that's not a God fearer, a worshiper of God is the jailer.

What must I do to be saved? You shall be saved you and your household. Why does he say that if that is to be interpreted individualistically?

I might even suggest when you do Muslim apologetics don't tell them to believe in Jesus is to become a

Western individualist because that's not what the Bible says. It says the gospel goes to you and your household.

Tell them what must I do to be saved? Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved you and your household.

Thank you. To being very confused as to what

I just heard I am to tell Muslims I'm to tell the individual

Muslims I'm speaking with if you're to be saved and you confess Jesus the rest of your family will be too when they know their family will attempt to kill them for confession of faith in Christ.

When we live in a day where we are seeing Christian believers dying around the world because they profess the name of Christ and it's their family that comes after them we see exactly what divided the early church.

We see what was actually behind 1 Corinthians chapter 7 and the divided families there and we're supposed to say well if you believe your whole household is going to be saved as well are we really saying that as long as one person in a family is of the elect they're all of the elect?

I'm really confused about this. I want to know on what basis we can avoid the false teaching of baptismal regeneration if we push these things to their logical conclusion.

I need to hear where this is because it was just said to me well Acts 2 .39

I don't understand what James is saying. Is he saying this is just to the elect? I thought I was fairly clear when a reformed person hears the phrase as many as the

Lord our God shall call to himself we sort of go oh that sounds like Acts 13 .48

sounds like John 6 sounds like Romans 9 and we go on from there and go into the cage stage so on and so forth. We hear those things and we know that the promise is to a specific people that is defined by the calling of God by his own electing grace and then he defines who that is to the

Jews you and to your children and to the Gentiles those who are far off. That is the natural reading of the text but only when you so emphasize the old testament paradigm the old covenant paradigm of national

Israel and the lineage from father to son and down only when you bring that in and ignore what

I said before and that is Jesus the Messiah Isaiah 53 saw his offspring.

Oh on that we can recognize well that's spiritual. How do you know the difference? Because when

Paul interprets the promise in Genesis 17 in Romans chapter 4 what does he say?

That we are the children of Abraham how? By lineage? By faith.

That's the new covenant definition of these things and that's why we give the new covenant signs to those who are of faith not to those who are of lineage.

That's where the difference is. Now again I was very concerned about what

I just heard from Hebrews chapter 10 because once again my friends maybe it's just because if you want to say well he's imbalanced because he's always having to deal with all these false religions and things like that okay you should take that in consideration but the point of Hebrews chapter 10 is this he starts off talking about how in the old way under the old covenant you had these repetitive sacrifices year by year and what does he say?

Those could never take away sins instead in their repetition you had a what? Anamnesis a reminder of sin when you had to come back every year you were reminded of the fact that you had not been perfected the year before because here

I am again this year and the next year and the next year and the next year the contrast is with the once for all once for all sacrifice of Christ he gives his life once for all and the result according to verses 10 and 14 is the perfection of those for whom he gives himself so there is no need for the repetition of the sacrifice in the new covenant we have an anamnesis we have remembrance but it's not of sin it is of the sin bearer that's the supremacy of the new covenant and are we to believe that you have that in verses 10 and 14 and then less than a dozen verses later he's saying ah but you can be in the new covenant and yet lose your salvation not salvation lose your covenant standing and all of a sudden the one who was once your mediator now becomes your judge so the one who once mediated see this is something we're really going to have to ask questions about because you see the work of Christ as sacrifice and the work of Christ as mediator are one that's the whole argument of Hebrews so let me ask you something in this new covenant that has unregenerate people in it which sometimes is called the new covenant community then other times it's called the new covenant we just had it being told well there are kids in the new covenant well of course

I believe there are kids in the new covenant I was saved at a very early age but not because my parents were Christians it was because God was gracious to me and drew me to himself but I've heard inconsistency about well we've got this covenant community or we've actually got the new covenant

I'm not sure which it is maybe in a cross -examination we'll figure out what it is but whoever Christ dies for and it's the covenant in his blood he intercedes for so is

Christ interceding for the individual who is not in the new covenant and if he's interceding for a person who's in the new covenant who falls away from the new covenant did his intercession fail what was he interceding for and when does he switch from being intercessor before the father which is the very grounding of our salvation to judge who brings wrath

I don't see that in Hebrews chapter 10 the point of Hebrews chapter 10 is this and this is what really touches on our situation here what makes the sin of the apostate so great what makes the sin of someone who has made profession of faith and entered into the church and yet they're not truly believers they're willing to go back they're willing to profane the name of Christ that's what the concern of the book of Hebrews is all about there are false professors we agree with that and they are not properly baptized they've been baptized upon a false profession but the difference between us is what makes them tremendously guilty is the fact that they made profession and now they trample underfoot the blood of Jesus from the other perspective they were made partakers in a new covenant as infants they never made profession but they were sealed in a covenant by the giving of a sign to them that we have yet to see a single apostolic command to do is that really what

Hebrews 10 is about I don't believe that it is I think it's really important let's keep talking about it thank you gentlemen we're going to take a two -minute break to remove the podium and then we'll begin with 10 minutes of cross -examination from you

Dr. Strawbridge okay can

I call you James just for short okay all right great appreciate that and you can call me

Reverend Dr. Strawbridge no just kidding just call me Greg please all right thank you for your presentation and your work and I want to follow up with a few direct questions and I would appreciate just a short quick answer but in Acts 2 when it says you and your children is your position that children there means only children who are of the age to confess the faith actually

I don't think he's addressing that at all I think the backgrounds as I said Matthew what 27 I gave the reference in my presentation 52 as I recall and in that chapter does it mean only people who are able to confess the faith

I believe that is referring to the Jews you and you to your children are the children only those who are have the capacity confess their faith

I don't think he's even addressing it my point is he's not addressing age of capacity to confess anything he's saying he's giving us two indications you and your children the

Jews who had said his blood be upon us and upon our children and all who are far off the Gentiles okay to a specific people you said this is all who are called is to a specific people do any of those specific people include underage immature children well at the time there could have been that would be of the elect who would be saved eventually but that day the only people who were baptized is those who received his word so those would be individuals who were capable of hearing his word and understanding and acting upon it

I understand your view of that I'm asking you whether the statement of the promise included underage children or not not who was baptized again

I can't answer it any other way than saying he's talking about Jews and he's talking about Gentiles as many as the

Lord God shall call but you explain that as a specific people called yeah they are the elect are any people called that are not capable of confessing their faith are you talking about are you talking about infants dying in infancy mentally retarded children

I didn't think we were raising raising that issue because that's obviously a subject that we that even amongst reformed folks you have discussion of elect infants you have those that don't see that I don't see that as as relevant to defining infant baptism

I think it's very relevant to infant baptism but I believe whether you believe as much freedom to save infants and infancy and those who don't have the capacity that he has to save adults and so I do believe there's such things as elect infants can

I prove that I don't believe the bible addresses it with enough clarity to prove it can anyone disprove it I don't think they can either

I just don't believe in the automatic as long as you're not a certain age you go to heaven idea

I don't see a basis for that and I don't see a basis for the other extremes saying that there is no way for God to be free in his giving of grace to those who die in infancy

I think he has the same freedom to save those as he does anyone else do you think it would be a pastoral comfort to believing faithful Jews that the promise said that I will be

God to you and your children and the promise of the new covenant comes to you and your children would that be a pastoral comfort are you talking about Acts chapter 2 to Jews period that are faithful all of the promises

I'm just saying that's one statement of it there's plenty of other promises God to you and your children throughout the old testament in Acts chapter 2 throughout any part of the bible well does that promise give pastoral comfort to anyone who's lost a child in infancy the pastoral comfort to anyone who's lost a child in infancy is the

God of all the earth will do right it's not not being God to you and your children so you would say it does not the

God being God to you and your children the promises to you and your children in no way is relevant to a person who loses a child in infancy you and your children in the new testament

I've already mentioned is defined the seed and the offspring are those who are according to faith that's not that's not an issue in regards to coming up with pastoral concern in a hospital room

I do not believe you can say well on the basis of how God treated the old testament Jews that means you can assume upon God's grace no

I do not believe that I'm going to move to another topic why are there so many household cases in the new testament in your view oh

I don't think there are so many I think the I think there are so few because the the reality was it was division that was the normative experience of the early church and hence when there were entire households that was a tremendous witness to God's grace but the reality is in every single situation where you have a household where enough information is given to make any conclusions upon it all the gospel is preached to everyone in that household and they all believe so there is no warrant for assuming that in any of those situations you had an unbelieving individual who was baptized upon the profession of faith to someone else but that's not the question my question is if the bible is telling us a radical change on this point why do you in your understanding this is nine individuals five are household cases and two don't have households then you've got

Simon you've got Gaius that's a very unpromising set of statistics a set of statistics for someone who's claiming a radical individualistic change in my view but I'm asking you why do you think that is?

I don't accept the language of radical radicalistic individualistic change I don't accept those numbers there were 3 ,000 individuals who were baptized on the day of Pentecost nothing about infant baptism and nothing about household baptisms and all of those so that becomes 3 ,000 versus 5 now the numbers are on my side see it all depends on how you count it

I mean seriously so it was radical for example to go from the circumcision of men to the inclusion of women on the very basis of baptism that was a radical thing but I don't remember seeing all of the protestation at that time so I'm sorry

I don't accept this idea you can ask me about that in a moment but in the case of the Ephesian argument the argument

I've referred to is children are called saints Ephesians 1 saints in Ephesus Ephesians 6 children are children saints in the book of Ephesus if they profess faith in Christ of course so you think

Paul is excluding little children that could be told obey your parents I think it's I think it's almost ridiculous to assume that when

Paul is writing especially as Ephesus is a circular letter to a number of different churches to expect him to write with such detail that he's going to make differentiation based on something he could not possibly know and that is the spiritual state of everyone he's addressing so in so many of his letters he addresses groups of people in no other place do reformed exegetes assume that we can derive something from that that would be anywhere parallel to the point that you're trying to make in regards to Ephesians but it does say children obey your parents a little child maybe two years old not able to confess the faith credibly probably in most

Baptist churches are they to be told children obey your parents of course are they saints in terms of chapter one not even addressing it it's simple wisdom it's like it's like reading proverbs to your kids you don't have to know what the state of their heart is if you're a good parent you want them to know what

God's truth is saints in chapter one husbands wives children and slaves are they part of the church or not if they profess faith in Christ yes they did okay they were sorry does the new covenant have stipulations for judgment yes what text are you referring to well i just finished pointing out that in Hebrews chapter 10 a person who has made profession of faith in Christ brings tremendous judgment upon himself when he okay i get you but is new covenant are they in the new covenant then no these are individuals who have made false profession to the new covenant if under Moses were they under Moses in the covenant well again that's the difference between the old covenant new covenant the old covenant was to a specific people you were to circumcise your infants because it's to a particular nation etc etc that's not what the new covenant is that's the whole point so the new covenant only includes regenerate people in your view the new covenant does yes certainly okay there are people and is that a distinctive of the new covenant i'm sorry that's a distinctive of the new covenant that's what hebrews chapter 8 says yes was

Abraham regenerate of course how how so he wasn't in the new one he's in he's in the covenant of grace i mean this is this is this is a well -known position we we're not saying that the only people who are regenerate were in the new covenant there are regenerate people under the old covenant the point is that those individuals under the old covenant were called the remnant there is never a remnant of the new covenant is

Abraham called the remnant in the bible no but the remnant are those people that are differentiated from those in israel who do not have a true faith the remnant becomes part of the later history of israel when various things fall away i believe that but what i'm saying is if new covenant membership if what's new about the new covenant is regeneration no it's not you've misunderstood our position i'm sure you know that reformed baptists believe that there were regenerate people under the old covenant the point was that the old covenant did not guarantee the regeneration of everyone that received its signs when hebrews says 10 and 10 28 the lord will following 10 28 to 31 the lord will judge his people who's his people the ones who've made profession there in chapter 10 they're the ones who the whole the whole address of the book of hebrews is to people who have made profession of faith but there are some in danger of going back to the old ways it's a visible church okay thank you very much let me just remind you both that in the cross examination the one cross examining should ask questions rather than make statements so let's stick to questions dr white 10 minutes to you on cross examination dr strawbridge could you could you clarify for us um are there non -elect people in the new covenant yes and so they have jesus as their mediator jesus is lord he is master he functions as mediator in the new covenant that mediatorial role like moses in the old covenant was to both lead as well as to bring about the law or the stipulations for judgment for example and i can go on but the the definition of mediator i'm reading from thayer's new testament lexicon under used of moses as one who brought the commands of god to the people of israel and acted as a mediator with god on behalf of the people well he did that but he also brought judgment right that was part of his mediatorial role so jesus as mediator in the covenant in his own blood will judge individuals in wrath who are in that covenant well once again hebrews 10 28 mentions that those terms specifically it says those who have counted unclean or regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant so yes so so could you explain the contradiction that then exists between hebrews 10 10 and 14 and your interpretation that you just gave us 10 10 says let me find it here that by this will we have been sanctified set apart through the offering of the body of jesus once for all yeah i think that's collect i think in general that's collective language but as i tried to present the case and verse 14 i'm sorry okay verse 14 for by one offering he has perfected for all time those have been sanctified could you explain what perfection means i believe that he's talking about the setting apart of the people by a one -time offering i think that's why he cites the text of jeremiah 31 there's a transition to covenant now i believe there's an application of this truth as well as jeremiah 31 many other statements that does i would say i can i can make application from this on in terms of election and limited atonement and those kinds of things i think a better text for limited atonement actually would be say revelation 5 9 out of every tribe and tongue and nation he has bought them with his blood this text is really talking about the covenant change to a different priesthood and to no longer repeatable sacrifices and again that's what the writer of jeremiah is saying as well so perfection means just being set apart not actually what jesus says on the cross to tell us died is finished it's not it's not it's not actual forgiveness of sin well i would i would if if verse 28 and following and hebrews 6 and about five or six other passages in the new testament weren't clear that you can be judged as a new covenant member he will judge his people then i would probably hold what you're saying right now the trouble is is there are apostasy passages in the new testament the best way to understand those in my view is that they are under the terms of the new covenant they're covenant members and they become covenant breakers not that they lose their eternal salvation but they're covenant breakers so wait a minute they're sanctified by the blood of the covenant but then they are judged because they're covenant breakers but they keep their salvation no okay so so perfection is not actually salvation how about in hebrews chapter 7 when he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw an eye into god by him the drawing nine to god by him is clear the new covenant so his intermediating intermediatory position allows him to save perfectly what about those people that you say are in the new covenant that he fails to say i think that covenant is the the word the the document okay the document that stipulates blessings and cursings just like we read about in all the bible and clearly in the book of hebrews there are cursings there are stipulations for judgment now every time you talk about a covenant you don't always specify every detail of that covenant you sometimes talk about the blessings and god will do this for you and sometimes you talk about the judgment so clearly in hebrews 6 and 10 it's judgment so what are the better promises why is this a better covenant if it what you're saying is you had elect and non -elect under the old covenant you got elect and non -elect under the new covenant uh we just got more we do agree right no we do not no we're not under the new covenant i'm sorry you believe in the new covenant people in the church in the visible church and i think i think i've been pretty clear about that but this is my question am i asking you the questions right now so uh what what makes it better can you restate the question for me okay what when it says that this is a better covenant what makes it a better covenant jesus jesus okay and what makes jesus better than moses he just saves percentage -wise more well i can think of a lot of reasons why jesus is better than moses um but you know if i need to detail them out i'll be happy to start you know but but obviously he has a promise he does the work it's a once -for -all work he accomplishes the redemption that's only pictured and forecast in the old testament that priesthood change that covenant change that change of law that fulfillment that's pouring out of the spirit that entering into the presence of god with equal access jews and jews jews and gentiles that's all envisioned in the new covenant change when you talk about household baptisms you said in referring to first corinthians chapter 1 that paul's normative procedure was to baptize households is that correct i was drawn upon first corinthians 1 16 the text says that i did also baptize the household of stefanos beyond that i do not know whether i baptized any other the pronouns alas the referent is household as far as i can tell in fact haven't you said elsewhere that that's that's grammatically established that seems to be what it says as far as i understand the grammar yes okay so given that right before that in verse 14 he is giving the names of individuals yes when you have a list and it says any other isn't it true that almost all translations of the bible say any other person or anyone else well i'm reading from the new american standard not a pato baptist publication and it says other right but given that we understand in greek grammar that when you have a list that is mixed you cannot make the limitation that you've made isn't that a rather challengeable statement that you've made i now i did baptize the household of stefanos beyond that what's the reference to that when it says tina if i any other when you look back there's there's a mixture households and individuals are you saying individuals are irrelevant okay christmas was christmas household baptized well it notice it says christmas and gaius i baptized christmas and gaius and then you you have don't remember if i remember any uh any others also the household stefanos oikon is only used with stefano the point is but christmas did have a household and it was baptized that's the argument how do you establish an assertion that it was an apostolic standard practice by saying well this has to be household when there have been many commentators have recognized that because of the mixed list that you cannot know isn't that an overreach i think you're missing a component of the argument christmas in acts 18 has a household and his household believed in many corinthians were baptized so it's clear that christmas household was baptized but it doesn't say that in first corinthians 1 does it no but if his household was that i am making an assumption making assumption okay i just wanted to make sure that that we've we've got that there when you spoke of rivers flowing out of well let me back up just one one one before that you said one of your charts went all the way back to adam could you tell us what the sign of the covenant that was given to infants is from adam to abraham well i think the point of signs is not that it is given specifically to infants but there were sacramental signs for the adamic administration a brockel for example or formed theologian points out that the trees in the garden functioned as signs of covenant i think that's true they're sacramental trees i think also the the rainbow functions that way for noah then when you come to abraham you have the sign of circumcision so from adam to abraham there was no specific covenant sign for children right the household well again adam was to be given access to these trees they were kicked out of the garden so yeah precisely you're right there was no covenant sign for infants then they were there were sacrifices right that included their children okay dr charters you get to go back on the offensive and start asking the questions but don't be offensive just take the initiative go ahead okay james um did your when you debate muslims do you pray with them pray with them yeah no would you object to someone asking a muslim in your debate to join with us in saying say the lord's prayer would you object to that i would okay do you have your children in your former baptist church pray the lord's prayer well they certainly join in the in the congregational prayers in the sense of showing respect for them we certainly don't ask them to lead them but certainly would you ask a muslim to join in with you in the in the no because they've already made a profession of faith that is in opposition to jesus christ so if they haven't made a profession of faith in opposition they're in the status of covenant children i don't i don't there's no such thing as a covenant child in the new testament so i don't even know how to answer that question when well you just said parallel a muslim with it really makes me very if a muslim if a muslim were here and we were saying would you pray with me the lord's prayer you would object but if a child of a christian is here and we pray the lord's prayer would you go to him and treat him the same way the muslim and again i i pointed out i think very clearly that a muslim has made a specific profession of faith that is contrary to the lordship of jesus christ they are worshiping a different god so the children are worshiping the same god then i don't know what the children are doing we are told to instruct them in the way of the lord and to hope and pray for god's grace upon them but they have not made a profession of faith in another god do you have children in the church saying things like jesus loves me holy holy holy bless me the tie that binds in christian love confessions of christian fellowship yes why because we hope for god's grace in their life would you do that with any adult unbeliever an adult unbeliever is welcome to come in and sing we don't sit there and go excuse me don't sing we don't have any walks anybody walks around does that wouldn't you say that's a false profession i'm sorry isn't that a false profession for an unbeliever to do that it depends on if it's done in ignorance or in knowledge i know god used that in my life to bring me to him so i like the means of grace personally do you catechize such children sure do you teach them to confess the faith and teach them what the faith is and we call them to repentance and faith in christ and very clearly tell them that until they make that confession of faith in christ that these promises are not theirs that's why we do not give the lord's supper to anyone who has not made a profession of faith and been baptized don't they regularly confess the faith in the course of public worship i don't know if you say the apostles creed or something but don't they regularly say things that are a confession of faith well maybe in seeing some of the hymns they might or praying the lord's prayer yeah and that's what we hope god will use to make it real in their lives but we very clearly explain to them that simply saying these words if there is no repentance if there is no faith that these words have no meaning we make it very clear to them and every time that those elements pass by them in the pew they are reminded that there is something that they have not yet done in closing in faith with jesus christ so do you say to little children that are saying the lord's prayer praying the prayers of the church singing the songs of christian music do you say to them you are going to hell you are going to hell you are going to hell what is the language you use i think most parents in the room know exactly what we say we warn of god's judgment and we call them to faith and repentance in jesus christ and we want to be used as the means of grace in their life to see god draw them to himself and the sad thing is he doesn't always do so but at least in our church we have not given them covenant signs that have nothing to do with the reality of their profession that then cause them to think that they're righteous before god when you speak to such children do you confirm them in an identity of being an unrepentant unbeliever though they are saying all the things like i love jesus reciting catechism catechetical questions and answers all of these sort of things do you say to them that's a lie you're lying of course not why not because we want to be used as the means of grace to bring the reality of those promises to them we trust that the holy spirit of god can make that clear to his people and sadly we see sometimes the hardening of individuals against those things but that's what god's electing grace is all about you include little children in his people we include little children in the services i'm not including them in the new covenant no you just said his people was that just a i don't remember i don't remember what the context what was what do you mean when a child says these sorts of things of christian identity you tell them they're liars you say you're lying you say jesus loves me this i know you are a liar is that what the identity i personally think that it would be much better if we got back to some biblical argumentation here i think this is becoming extremely emotionally based and i i really find offensive i'll be perfectly honest with you it's it's not every person in this room including yourself has to deal with pastoral issues dr strawbridge and the difference between us is i'm saying to my children repent and believe in the lord jesus christ and that's what they need to hear and we make that very clear to them and we want them to know what god's truth is and we don't stand there and say you're a liar but we make it very clear that if they never close with christ and continue saying those words those words will become a lie they weren't alive then when they first said them i don't know when god's grace is going to be brought to any one of my children god has been merciful to both of my children but before that i didn't call them liars i just clearly called them to repentance and faith in christ when you ask a child in church do you believe in jesus like say maybe a two you know a relatively young child that can speak but but very immature if you ask them the question do you believe in jesus do you think they would say yes in your church very often they will why don't you believe in them well we've learned over the years that it's very easy for parents to cause little ones to say things that little ones realize mommy and daddy want them to say and then they get to their teenage years and all of a sudden they're not interested in any of that stuff anymore and so we examine their lives and if we see evidence of god's grace we want to encourage that in any way shape or form that we can but it is wisdom to recognize that for example in the southern baptist convention the average southern baptist is baptized 2 .73

times in their life i was baptized twice well you almost you almost got there once in youth once in youth once in teen years and then when they really get it in adult years and we don't want to put someone through that because we think too highly of what baptism really means so in the case of you made it the story there was little children can not be honest perhaps we'll say or say things for false motivations as i said i believe i was saved at a very young age okay but as they get older you find that that they perhaps depart from the faith or question it it's your experience then that adults when they confess the faith they never depart from that of course not but obviously when you speak to a person when the elders gather with an individual you ask them why do you think you're a christian are you trusting solely in jesus christ you're able to ask about their profession of faith their knowledge of the gospel you're able to examine their lives maybe even talk to family members and things like that that's a completely different situation than when you have say an eight -day -old infant i think there's a big difference between the two how much of a conversion experience must a child have before you would admit them to baptism that's not a that's we don't have some kind of a standard obviously if a very young person comes to us we're going to talk to their parents and we're going to encourage them to speak honestly to us but there's no there's no number or some kind of booklet that tells you one way or the other but if a little child said i believe in jesus you would not permit that be to be a credible profession we will talk to the parents about the individual's life and how do you approach that to confirm that it's a legitimate what would you say conversion profession of faith well in the same way we would do it would with with adults we want to ask about the person's love for the word of god their desire to be obedience to the lord live in obedience to the lordship of jesus christ which of course is going to manifest itself differently for a very young person than it would for an adult but it's still the same spirit that works in each one and with a mentally handicapped child i i have absolutely no idea what this has to do with our topic this evening but uh since our time is is is up i'll simply say that again we would leave that up to the parents and to the elders of the church i've got a feeling i've got it coming yes you do dr white 10 minutes of cross -examination and then we'll proceed to five minutes each of closing remarks dr strawbridge you mentioned that the administration of the new covenant is no different than the administration of the old covenant does that not indicate exactly what i said at the beginning of my presentation and that is that you are not allowing the new covenant documents to define the fulfillment of old covenant types and shadows no no when you have the idea of jesus as mediator and yet your definition for how jesus mediates is not derived from the new covenant documents but from moses would that not prove that you are utilizing the old covenant paradigm to determine the new covenant reality no would you like for me to elaborate i would because i would like to ask you to show us where in the new covenant documents you ever find a use of mesotase related to jesus mediating wrath the wrath of the lamb is spoken of in revelation in regards to whom in regards to covenant breaking people and that's also in in hebrews chapter 10 28 and following where in the book of revelation um because i think it's chapter five isn't it um i will find it hide us from the wrath of the lamb right yep um six where call it out somebody follow us and hide us from the presence of him who sits on the throne into the wrath of the lamb for the great day of their wrath has come who's able to stand my interpretation of revelation would be that it's largely fulfilled in the destruction of jerusalem jesus whether that's true or not jesus predicted wrath to come upon covenant breaking jerusalem in matthew 23 and into chapter 24 so whether you take that view or not there is wrath from the son of god the lamb coming on covenant breaking people especially israel okay so when you come to wait a minute wait a minute revelation 6 15 then the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and free man hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks and mountains they said the mountains into the rocks fall on us and hide us in the presence of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the lamb for the great day of their wrath has come and who is able to stand so the kings and the commanders are new covenant members they're they're covenant breakers of i think probably the old covenant there we're talking about destruction of jerusalem they were covenant how does that how does that fulfill what i asked and that is where jesus is a mediator of wrath against members of the new covenant i've cited it several times hebrews 10 28 to 31 okay so the lord will judge his people is that new covenant people or not i think it is in hebrews 10 28 could you show me where the term messetace is used well you know it's not used in those verses okay so his role i concede on that point okay so his role as mediator is never found anywhere in the new testament mediating wrath well the parallel is very striking under moses under the set aside the law of moses that's under moses under so the ministry of the better covenant and better mediator with better promises is defined by parallels to moses that's the language is parallel to moses all the way through the book of hebrews is parallel to the old covenant if how much more how much more that is a perpetual argument through hebrews that is a comparative you don't see the how much more you see the how much more as a defining parallel rather than a disjunctive parallel i'm not sure what you mean by that well it sounds like you're saying to me that the the mediatorial work of the son of god based upon his perfect atonement is to be defined within the categories of moses's role as mediator for the people of israel rather than completely transcending and exploding those categories well i believe it's transcending but the point i'm pointing out is when hebrews is written it says bear with a word of exhortation don't shrink back to destruction 10 30 don't come short of the grace of god 12 15 don't be like esau who rejected was rejected and found no place for repentance 12 16 and following don't neglect no so great a salvation chapter 2 verse 3 those who have once been enlightened have tasted the heavenly gift have been partakers of the holy spirit and have tasted the good word of god and then have fallen away 6 um not to be like the ground which yields thorns and thistles it's worthless and we know there we know there are apostasy passages we know there are positive passages i'm talking about jesus's ability to save his people and you're talking about what sounds like the ability of people to be in the new covenant and not be saved by their mediator and i'm not seeing the connection here in hebrews chapter 7 we are told he is able to save forever those who draw near to god through him is it your assertion that there are members of the new covenant that do not draw near to god through christ yes because they are judged the lord will judge his people they're called his people they're sanctified by the blood of the covenant and they're warned throughout the book of hebrews as i was just reading not to be like those my only argument from those texts i said before is the argument that if you say the writer of hebrews is saying the new covenant you can't apostatize from it then the argument is the writer is saying you can't apostatize from a covenant you can't apostatize from since he always lives to make intercession for them who's the them the new covenant members those that have the blessings of the new covenant because there are stipulations for judgment and blessing he intercedes for those who have the blessings of the new covenant that's right the fullest blessings of the new covenant salvation in christ yeah so there's members of the new covenant that he doesn't intercede for there are members of the new covenant that break the covenant and are judged are there members of the covenant he does not intercede for presumably after they are they're covenant breakers yes he interceded for them before they became covenant breakers well that's a general statement his work that's like saying are there elect people that fall away no i don't think there are elect people that fall away the problem is we don't know who the elect are i agree but that's the problem this says that he always lives to make intercession for them would you agree that his living to make intercession for them is the grounds of their salvation his intercession is the grounds of salvation rather than the cross work therefore he is able also to save to the uttermores panteles those who draw near to god through him since he always lives to make intercession for them yeah for those who draw near and if you want to say savingly draw near yes that's true so it's their drawing near that makes the difference well they draw near because of the grace of god i'm a calvinist etc okay so the them that he can save perfectly is who just the only people that are saved in the perfect sense are the elect we think we agree about that the question is whether there are any stipulations for judgment and condemnation for people under the terms of the new covenant i think there are i think the book of hebrews makes that clear very quickly i don't recall you you mentioning i responded to some of the statements you've made in regards to acts chapter 16 could you tell us do you think that the jailers uh entire family believe i think that this is a covenantal structure the head of household leads his family that's why i think that in both the case of chrispus in acts 18 and in 16 in chapter 16 the jailer it's the jailer the head of household is leading the family and so on singular verbs of action then why proclaim the word to why even emphasize verse 32 and they spoke the word of the lord to him together with all who were in his house well i think that you can preach as i do every sunday and i think you probably do too to a whole bunch of people at various ages little children could have been in there i'm not my argument doesn't rest on little children being there but i am saying that that's not inconsistent because through the old testament especially joel 2 the very passage peter preaches on it's nursing infants that are called into this assembly to hear this word of promise so we do that all the time we speak the word to people who are at various capacities so the point is the word is spoken to everyone in the house and everyone in the house is baptized are you saying that they baptized people who at that time knew the gospel with clarity and rejected it i was asking you the question before you know if little children say i believe in jesus are they lying i think that you lead your family into belief people that were hearing the word were being led by the jailer that's the grammar i think many people had the capacity to hear it and believe it some probably didn't some probably were unsure but they followed the some probably didn't have the capacity in other words they were infants or small children okay gentlemen thank you we are now moving to five minute closing remarks would you prefer to do your closing remarks no i'm just gonna stay here are you good yeah i'm good okay so we will begin uh dr straubridge with you again this is a opportunity for a good exchange of ideas i'm sorry if i offended you by asking those questions i think the pastoral dimension of this is one of the most important dimensions i think that having a covenantal point of view is pastorally rich because i want to raise my children in the identity that they are part of the body of christ and i think early on i would expect for that identity to take root it is true of course we both want a regenerate church we both want a believing faithful body and really practically speaking the question is how do we get that how do we get that and i think the claim of the reformed baptist is we get that by not letting anyone in that we don't know is regenerate but the problem is that's not possible that's an impossible standard okay we're only gonna let people in that profess the faith okay that's better as far as a practical standard but so what i only let people in my church that i really believe will believe i've been practicing patal baptism for about 15 years to my knowledge i have baptized no infant or small child that does not profess and believe the faith today praise the lord it might change i don't know i have excommunicated with our session three individuals from our church in the last 10 years for becoming apostates they were all baptized as believers so the practical case to me is very important i think that again the issue reduces down to if your view of the new covenant is only regenerate people are in it therefore don't baptize infants that doesn't follow that's just as logically unpersuasive as saying only regenerate people are in the new covenant therefore only baptized believer only baptized professors if you could only baptize believers in the calvinistic sense of saving belief then great but we can't do that none of us can do that there are apostasy passages in the new testament about those that were baptized at whatever age those apostasy passages are paralleled with the old testament passages those people are under the terms of the covenant now dr white knight we have the same basic structure here we don't agree about the membership of the covenant new covenant we do agree about the membership of the church we do agree about the membership of the visible covenant community all that's different here is he believes that the new covenant includes exclusively regenerate people and he wants to take all of the saving salvific aspects of the new covenant and pour them on to only those people that's it that's the difference we both have churches that could or may have unbelievers in them we may baptize people who turn out to be apostates that's true the only difference is what is the nature of the new covenant and what i'm arguing for you today is number one the bible is very clear those under the terms of the new covenant could apostatize they're not losing their salvation but they are becoming covenant breakers that's what we would expect if we read the bible from the left to the right secondly if you say well then okay i can't only baptize regenerate people but i need a biblical basis for who i baptize and the bible says only baptize believers well what i've pointed out to you is the bible tells us to baptize you and your household as the gospel goes to the gentiles households can include infants they can include servants they can include wives they can include teenagers households are households that is not in any way in any way a an inconsistency with the old testament form of the administration of the covenant it went to you and your household genesis 17 and all the way through we're authorized by that example in acts 11 14 and following to baptize you and your household that's what they did in the case of the jailer we're authorized to baptize the household of a believer that's what the text teaches us i believe faith comes as there is maturity and as the leader of households as parents teach their children in such a way as consistent with the christian faith with the identity they are to teach yes even infants little children that's all the way through the bible isn't deuteronomy 6 in the reformed baptist bible i hope it is it teaches us to teach our children to love the lord your god from their infancy all the way through timothy the great example was told it was told of timothy you have learned sacred scriptures in infancy that are able to make you wise into salvation that's the covenantal view thank you thank you dr white i hope you don't mind but i am far too peripatetic to sit so besides that with my glasses on i can't see the timer i believe that we have seen this evening the fulfillment of what i outlined in my opening statement we have seen for example just now in regards to the issue of the mediatorial work of jesus christ in the new covenant we have seen these strong and and beautiful promises of christ absolute capacity to save because he makes intercession for the people for his people redefined on the basis of paralleling his work with moses and what did i say in my opening statement reform baptists believe that the new covenant scriptures define how the old covenant texts are to be interpreted in their fulfillment we all do this when you try to prove jesus is the messiah and you look at psalm 22 which is a messianic psalm you allow the new covenant to fulfill which aspects of psalm 22 are fulfilled in jesus you don't take psalm 22 and demand that everything in there be fulfilled in jesus right now you don't do that nobody in here could ever prove the messiahship of jesus or the suffering servant passages or things like that if you did not agree that fundamentally the new covenant passages define the fulfillment of the promises of the old what we have seen this evening is the exact opposite of that on the subject of baptism by dr strawbridge that is the sign that what happened in the 16th century is continuing to have impact to this very day because calvin came up with a system as a second generation reformer to defend the sacralism of his day both luther and zwingli had at for brief periods of time played with the idea of a free church and questioned that concept but the princes wouldn't allow it and so calvin comes along and he systematizes this concept of covenant infant baptism now infant baptism been around for a long time but not in this concept not in this way it was a new thing and the hermeneutics that he utilized to defend that are not the same hermeneutics that we share together when we demonstrate the messiahship of jesus when we defend the trinity the deity of christ etc etc that's the only way folks that we can practice sola scriptura is to examine our beliefs and see if we can find evidence where tradition and it may be very heartfelt tradition and on this subject wow the emotions oh my the emotions on both sides but the only way that you and i can do what we we claim to do which is practice sola scriptura is to test our beliefs and look for signs of where tradition is causing us to do things to interpret things to see things that we shouldn't be seeing and i believe that very clearly we have established where the inconsistencies are this evening so what do we where do we go from here well i don't believe that we're ever going to have perfect unanimity until christ returns but it is always our calling as reformed believers to be constantly in our own lives in our churches as we have communion with one another to be pressing one another to think about these things and to not become apathetic so as to embrace traditions without asking about them i'm gonna be perfectly honest with you my presbyterian brothers are gonna be offended but listen up we reformed baptists read all your stuff most of you never read a word we have to say that is my experience there's some good books out back you might want to look at but my experience has been that we know all about the northern presbyterian and the southern presbyterian and everything else because we read all of that stuff we don't get it from the other direction i hope this evening maybe you will think you know i need to think through am i being consistent in my hermeneutics at this point and at the very least you'll be more convinced after the process than you would be otherwise my hope is all of us will be driven into the word of god not our emotions but to test our beliefs on the basis of what is inspired and sure and that is what's been given to us by our god the scriptures thank you very much for being here this evening okay well we're not going to give you a break just yet and we're going to move to some audience questions that we received during the break and we'll start with you

Dr. Strawbridge and then we'll give you two minutes to answer the question and then

Dr. White will give you one minute to engage that question and then we'll switch to a question for you

Dr. White so first question when you say children when baptized or in the covenant family what does that really mean knowing that baptism does not save baptism is a sign of the covenant it's a seal of the covenant drawing upon Romans 4 11 so it means that they are made members officially of covenant and that god works through the means of grace to bring about all the blessings of salvation in that child's life it does not automatically save them if I can kind of read into the question a bit it's not an automatic magic water thing that's the difference between say

Roman Catholic and other communions views on baptism and a reformed covenantal view

I've emphasized the fact that we have an objective sense of covenant here tonight that we can know who's in the covenant and we can also know when we need to put them out when they are disobedient and unwilling to repent but we can bring them in and bring them under the terms of the covenant and use the means of grace to bring about all the blessings in the covenant by the grace of God that's the way

I believe the Lord works that was established very early in the history of redemption that's the way it culminates in the new covenant let me say it this way to give a picture someone would ask well does baptism save a child?

I'll say baptism functions like a wedding functions to a marriage does a wedding marry a couple?

yes it marries them but that's not to be confused with the wedding itself is the good marriage a good marriage may result from a good wedding it may not a good wedding if someone obeys it follows all the vows does what is represented in a beautiful wedding then a great marriage will result however we all know that just a good wedding doesn't produce a good life of a marriage and so it is a good baptism if everything was perfectly said whether in adulthood or in infancy a good baptism doesn't necessarily create a good faithful life but what it does do is it does begin the process and I would say the best way to understand that is covenantally well

I'm awful glad I remember my wedding and the vows that I made because they've been foundational to the faithfulness that I've exercised toward my wife ever since then and if I think and if that was arranged for me and I didn't even know it happened

I think that would fundamentally impact how I viewed my responsibilities in wedding so I think that that concerns me a lot what also concerns me is that unfortunately what we need to be emphasizing is that we need to be calling our children to repentance and faith and I have seen far too many people say you're questioning

God's promises if you call your children to repentance and faith they're saints so you assume they're regenerate until they give you reason otherwise that is disaster it is disaster we call everyone to repentance and faith and that includes our children and otherwise we are we are truly not serving them well thank you

Dr. White question from the audience if only repentant new covenant believers are to be baptized then why were entire households circumcised in the old should not only repentant old covenant believers have been circumcised well there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the old covenant the new covenant the old covenant was with national

Israel it was meant to define the people who would bring about the messiah there were land promises involved in the old covenant that was very very important to possession of the land which tribes had which areas etc etc there were all sorts of people who received the covenant sign appropriately that very clearly were not regenerate there were many kings you had those that were those that were not the whole point of the supremacy of the new covenant is that while you had regenerate people in the old covenant the old covenant was a mixed covenant this is what makes the new covenant so wonderful and unfortunately what we've seen sacrificed for a something that does not come to us from scripture where the apostles never even practiced it and the result is that you have this this breakdown of the newness of the new covenant so if you just recognize that God was doing a specific thing with the people of Israel that there were land promises involved that there were all sorts of things involved that have been both fulfilled in Christ or done away with in the finishing of the nation of Israel and bringing about the