June 29, 2006

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona, this is The Dividing Line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is Dr. James White, director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now at 1 -800 -602 -973 -4602 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is James White.

Opening Remarks and the Day's Topic

And good afternoon, welcome to The Dividing Line on a Thursday afternoon, a warm and somewhat muggy afternoon here in Phoenix, Arizona. Muggy for us, certainly not muggy for the rest of you. But actually we're, our monsoon arrived early, so what can I say?

In fact, they just issued a severe thunderstorm warning for us and according to the radar thingamabobby-wobber I have on my desktop, there's a nice big line heading for us. But never fear, we live in the heat island effect.

As soon as those big thunderclouds start hitting all the asphalt, which we have surrounded ourselves with, they just, they just crawl up in the fetal position and die right then and there and nothing ever happens.

So anyway, what can I say? Yeah, someone's saying muggy is more than 10 humidity. Actually, it's 20 right now. And the dew point, the dew point yesterday was like 64, which 55 and above is monsoon. And so it was, it was getting there.

And I, you get up into about 72 and it's the same as New Orleans. So that's, you know, I know, I know. We're not supposed to talk about this. The Chamber of Commerce wants everybody to think it's a dry heat all the time.

And so I'll just stop talking about that. I was sent an article that I didn't get to last time from, what is this from? Baptist Standard. Roger Olson from the professor of theology at Baylor's George W. Truitt Theological Seminary.

Sovereignty, Free Will, and the Charge of Making God the Author of Sin

God is sovereign over his sovereignty. I think about that one for just a moment. God is sovereign over his sovereignty, but that'd be sort of like God is holy over his holiness or God is loving over his love.

That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. But you know, it's being said and that is following, he's describing the various positions. He says, following Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius, who died in 1609, Arminians believe God is sovereign.

In fact, God is so sovereign that he is sovereign over his sovereignty. And that, of course, becomes the foundation upon which he then says, those of us who believe in real freedom of will, liberty, and power, you always hear that, you know, we're the ones who believe in real freedom of will because we believe in autonomous will.

Now, God can't have an autonomous will. God can't even have an eternal decree that determines actions in time. But man has an autonomous will. So those of us who believe in real freedom of will, liberty, and power of contrary choice, that's libertarianism, see that as the only escape from making God the author of sin and evil.

A God, and I would say, and the only consistent way to hold that is to become an open theist. But anyway, a God who determines people to sin, even if only by efficacious permission, is the ultimate sinner.

And that's why you keep asking these folks, okay, could you explain, then, Genesis 50? Could you explain Isaiah 10? Could you explain Acts chapter 4? And you don't get a whole lot of discussion of that kind of stuff.

A God who could save everyone because salvation is unconditional but passes over many, setting them to eternal damnation, is morally ambiguous at best. No, he's not morally ambiguous at all. No one gets injustice.

Everyone gets justice or mercy. As John Wesley commented, if this is love, it is such a love as makes the blood run cold, which, of course, is also where Dave Hunt gets his stuff. But again, that's only, you know, since that's been responded to a million times, you can't find these folks dealing with those things.

How, you know, I don't know how to deal with it. Anyway, admittedly, he says, he just goes on from there. He then, of course, cites the only verses cited in the whole article, and it's a short article, but the only verses cited, guess what, are John 3, 16, 2nd Peter 3, 9, and 1st Timothy 2, 4.

And we all have gone over those repeatedly many, many, many times. Now, just recently at the Southern Baptist Convention, there was a discussion that had been looked forward to for a long, long time between Dr. Albert Moeller and Dr. Paige Patterson.

We have discussed Paige Patterson's sermons at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary from a couple of years ago, and we have noted that at least Dr. Patterson is on a completely different plane, though we disagreed with his statements and did not find them to show a whole lot of interaction with Reformed apologetics and Reformed writings.

At least they did not partake of the same level of, how should we say, rhetoric, empty rhetoric, that we find in so much of material that is out there. And so a lot of folks had been really, really looking forward to this great debate.

And I knew it was not going to be a debate. I knew that it was not going to be a point-counterpoint. It was going to be a an expression of how much each person appreciates the other and how we should all work together in unity and that really the things that people want to hear.

For example, just from that article, I was just looking at it, they want to hear both sides dig into Acts 4, 27 to 28. They want to hear both sides dig in the text of Scripture, and let us see who is consistent here.

Let us see who applies the same standards of exegesis. Let us go to the Word. And I knew that there is just no way that could happen. There was not enough time for it to happen and that just simply was not the wasn't the context for it to happen.

And so as I have listened to it, it was almost exactly what I expected it to be, and I appreciate the fact that there was no rancor and and I didn't expect there to be. I did not expect two presidents of Southern Baptist seminaries to be going at it fork and tongue in a debate.

Didn't expect that at all. So it was exactly what I expected it to be. Of course, Dr. Moeller was there right after eye surgery and you know, we pray for Dr. Moeller and I more than most can at least have some idea of what he has gone through given the eye problems I had a few years ago after my LASIK surgery and and the concerns about that and I could tell you stories that will turn your stomach about the stuff that I went through.

So I have some idea about what what you know goes on there. But anyway, I didn't expect a debate. It wasn't a debate. It was a discussion and it was it was a good discussion. And a lot of folks are looking at that going, boy, it's just too bad you couldn't do that with Ergon Kanner.

Well, you know what? I would have loved to have. And as I said in the blog today, I would have loved to have had a debate at least that had that at least starting point with it. But I was not allowed to do that.

And when I tried to establish some level of collegiality in regards to, for example, dealing with with Muslims, every attempt that I made on as a fellow apologist or someone who's who's taught in Southern Baptist seminaries for many years or over a decade, that was all rebuffed.

I that simply was not allowed. And so, are there places this kind of discussion? Yeah, but if this is as far as it ever goes, nothing's ever going to be decided because there was really no, you know, one opinion versus another opinion, but never any real cross-examination.

You didn't get into the text. You didn't deal with with the tough issues. And and there was a great fear of saying, but you're being inconsistent here. That's where you're that's where you're wrong. And and you're just not going to you're not going to decide important issues by just going, well, we both have two opinions, but let's just all get together and let's just all cooperate.

Well, yeah, okay, that's fine. But eventually there has to be a place for this kind of discussion to take place and has to go deeper than than something that's just surface level. And so I did want to play a good portion of this.

We do have a couple phone calls, but I wanted to at least get started with this in the first half hour. Then we can go off that topic if we if we need to and then move on from there. But I did want to play these these sections.

And so, let's let's begin. I I'm not gonna play Dr. Moeller's presentation. It was a it was a fine presentation, but I wanted to go with with what Dr. Patterson had to say, respond to some of that, and then listen to some some of the questions.

It seems like the Calvinists were unusually represented in the in the questions. They seem to be primarily questions asked from a Reformed perspective. And there are some interesting things that were said during the course of that that part, too.

So let's let's listen start listening in to Page Patterson's presentation. By the by, you know, as I as we know, Page Patterson's an excellent speaker. He's very humorous.

He's very interesting to listen to and he starts off in that way. Well, thank you so much, my sweet precious brother, Dr. Moeller. And we were expecting eight or ten of you. And the question we are here to debate this morning is very clear.

Did you come here by free choice or were you elected to be here? Across the years, I have come to have the most profound respect for my colleague, Dr. Moeller, my much much much younger colleague, Dr. Moeller, who oftentimes I listen to him as a much younger man and think, dear God, why didn't you give me that kind of a mind?

And I bless the Lord for him in every way. He has actually, there are two assignments that we are given this morning, as I understand. The first is to say how our particular view may accentuate the spread of the gospel.

The second is to answer the question, how is it that two people who do disagree somewhat on this subject, though not as extensively as some imagine, can get along together like we do and be as close as we are.

And I do hope, and I know Dr. Moeller joins me in this hope, that we will provide at least an example on that point, if on no other. Further, we'd like to say how much I respect him because we were with him last night in the seminary president's meeting.

We always have before the convention, and he had just come in from surgery. He was miserable with the agony of the eye surgery. It was fine while it was going on. It's what happens afterwards. It's a little bit of a problem.

I couldn't believe he even came to that meeting, let alone showed up this morning. And that's one reason I respect him so greatly, is because of the incredible courage that he always exhibits in every way.

I want to begin with why it is that I appreciate so many of my Calvinist friends and brothers, and every one of these is applicable to Dr. Moeller, but to many others beside. There are certain things that I always think of when I think of my Calvinistic brothers.

First of all, I think of men and women who normally live very pious lives, and I thank God for that. Number two, there are people that know theology is important. I have very little patience with those who sometimes come among us who say, hey look, we just need to follow Jesus and stop talking about this theology.

Which Jesus is it that you're going to follow anyway? As soon as you begin to say that, you begin to theologize. That's not an honest approach to life, and I appreciate the fact that my Calvinist friends invariably know that theology is important.

Number three, invariably, until very recent times, they have rejected the theology of the charismatic movement, and certainly true of Dr. Moeller, and I appreciate that about my Calvinistic friends. Number four, they have understood that the purpose of everything is to glorify God.

Number five, you will not find a Calvinist, at least not very often, that questions the full inerrancy of God's Word of the absolute substitutionary nature of the atonement of Christ. Number six, I appreciate them because they are absolutely clear on the doctrine of salvation by grace.

That which we tend to take for granted among Southern Baptists is at major issue. It is the continental divide of all religious thinking. On one side, you have the overwhelming majority of people in the world of every conceivable religious faith, including those who claim to be Christians, who actually believe that there is something we can do to make ourselves acceptable to God.

Over against that, you have a very few people who understand that salvation is by grace through faith alone, and I appreciate the fact that my Calvinist brethren never fumbled a ball on that issue. What concerns me about some of the present discussion with some Calvinists, not all Calvinists by a long shot, and in fact, hopefully with the fewer of them, but with some of them.

Number one is the logic that I often hear, if you are not a Calvinist, therefore you must be an Arminian, and I was grateful that Dr. Moeller said that I was not an Arminian. I am in fact a Texan.

I'll just stop that there for the laughter, because you heard him change his pronunciation to Arminian, and we've had some fun with that one as well, but there is no question about the fact that when you identify a position as being primarily Arminian, the vast majority of the folks you deal with in the Southern Baptist Convention are going to be people who are inconsistent Arminians.

That is, on the fundamental definitional issues, they're going to agree with the Arminian perspective in regards to the nature of the will and the nature of grace. Okay, now if you don't like Arminian and Calvinist, then let's use a much better term, which unfortunately got thrown out the door when I suggested it on the correspondence with Ergen Kanner, and that is monergist versus synergist.

A monergist is a person who believes that there is one force or power that accomplishes salvation. It does so without the necessary cooperation and addition of a second power. It doesn't deny there's a second power that exists, that second power will become dependent upon its operation to be itself operational.

It is a monergistic thing that brings about salvation. It's God and God's power, God's grace, God's will alone. A synergist believes, God's grace tries, God's grace enables, prevenient grace, grace empowers, however grace cannot in of itself, it must work synergistically.

Synergy, by the way, is a biblical term. It's a term Paul uses of fellow workers. It's not in this context a biblical term, but the term itself, sunergon. And so a synergist is a person who would give to the fallen will of man the capacity of making the final decision in regards to whether the death of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit of God will be successful in bringing about salvation.

Now, that allows for all sorts of, there's all sorts of different kinds of synergists out there. You've got Roman Catholic synergists, and you've got all sorts of Protestant synergists, and you've got the Church of Christ, and you've got all these groups.

They're all united on synergism. Monergism then becomes the dividing line, and it's a nice clear distinction. And for some reason, I would suggest to you, if someone does not want clear distinctions to be made, there might be a reason.

You want clear distinctions made in theological discussion so that people can understand exactly where the two sides are coming from, and then once you have the understanding of the two positions, then you can bring them to the Word of God, and you can examine them.

If you can't figure out what the positions are, then how can you ever get to that point? And so clarity in discussion is very, very important at that point. And so.

It is not true that you must be either a Calvinist or an Arminian. Those are not the only options. If not A, then necessarily B is a philosophical fallacy. Number two, it is not true that all Calvinists do not accept the doctrines of grace.

Sometimes it is led, people are led to believe that if you're not a Calvinist, you don't believe in the doctrines of grace.

I certainly do. Number three, well, I'm going to stop right there. The doctrines of grace are generally being utilized to describe the five points of Calvinism. Now that may be a broad description, and so maybe what he's saying is, I certainly believe in grace.

I believe doctrines that refer to grace and things like that. But doctrines of grace is shorthand amongst Reformed folks for the five points. And so I'm just not sure if he's unaware of that or just what that particular complaint there was.

If you're not a Calvinist, you don't believe in the sovereignty of God. No, as a matter of fact, I believe God is so sovereign that he's able to make men free to make a response to him.

Well, again, that sounds very good. And we've heard this from Dr. Patterson before. But what does it mean to be so sovereign? Is that actually a, you know, that's what is what does that mean? What is that actually a meaningful statement?

Does it does it carry any any weight to it? Can you can you fill that out? I don't know that you can. Now, I know what he's saying. He's saying is God is so powerful and God is so wise that in my perspective, he he has somehow made a way for for autonomous man to exist.

But I just want to back up at that point and say the primary emphasis on the sovereignty of God is upon that divine decree that results in he being glorified for all that takes place in the context of his own creation.

And if you take away that divine decree, if you change God into one who passively responds to what takes place in time rather than the the creator of all time itself and the events within time, then now you're going to have to answer all the tough questions that you want to ask of us.

But you're not going to be able to then refer to purpose. Now, Dr. Patterson knows all of this. There's going to be a question asked later where an individual is going to ask him about Mullen ism, about middle knowledge.

And he gives seemingly off the top of his head a very good description of the Jesuit theologian, Luis de Molina. He didn't give the background of which I thought was somewhat important. He mentioned William Lane Craig and he mentioned he doesn't really think that it works.

But he talked about counterfactuals and and he says it just moves the mystery back one step and it really doesn't solve the question. And he did off the top of his head. So if he knows all of that, then he's got to know what we mean by sovereignty at that point and that we're connecting this with the issue of the decree.

But that doesn't necessarily come out in this particular response and not be challenged in his sovereignty.

Number four, I am sometimes concerned about the antinomian tendencies that I find in a few Calvinists. These are people who so emphasize the doctrines of grace that apparently the doctrine of separation from the world has eluded them.

And sometimes they will even advocate, for example, that it is perfectly OK to imbibe an alcoholic beverage regardless of what that industry does to stagger our nation and its families. And I don't appreciate that antinomianism wherever I see it.

Now, that's interesting in light of the passage of the of the motion and the resolution in regards to the consumption of alcoholic beverages. But it's it's probably I would guess at that point that was a bit of a of a shot toward like the white horse in and folks like that.

And, you know, you I can understand the fact that sometimes there are some reformed folks who may they wear it as a badge of honor, OK, that they can sit around and talk about this or the other experience they've had with alcohol.

But I understand what he's saying. But at the same time, I don't know that's really anything to do with Calvinism per se. I mean, get together with the Lutherans or something. And, you know, I mean, is that really a reformed issue?

Are there not? Are there not Methodists who drink, too? I mean, I just I just found it really odd that that somehow becomes connected with a discussion of Calvinism and non-Calvinism. This just didn't make much sense.

And then I am concerned about our full revelation of ourselves to churches that wish to consider us. This is an admonition not only to Calvinists, but to people like me who are dispensationalist or to some of you who may be charismatic.

Whatever your viewpoint and perspective is, it is absolutely a matter of integrity and honesty when you are dealing with a call to a church that you make that crystal clear. Where do you stand? Where will you take the church?

Otherwise, you become the cause of dissension in the churches of the Lord Jesus Christ. These are some of the concerns that I have about Calvinism, about some Calvinists. Now, there is a reason why I am not a Dorsian Calvinist.

The Senate of Dort met from 1618 to 19, and they came out with the five points in reaction to those who were teaching otherwise. Some of the things that they said I cannot go along with. I cannot go along with the doctrine of irresistible grace, for example, because I think it makes salvation coercive.

It means that God coerces people to be saved.

Now, immediately, when you hear people using force, coercion and all that, especially at this level of discussion, there has to be some means whereby somebody, Dr. Mohler or somebody else, could stop and say, no, wait a minute, are you saying that resurrection is coercive?

And just let that, you know, that is what cross-examination is about. That is why you have to have that in a debate for it to be a debate. Is resurrection coercive? Is regeneration coercive? Is the removal of a heart of stone, the giving of a heart of flesh, coercive?

That is what has to be asked. I do not think that that is the case. I find no scriptural evidence for that in God's word.

And again, when I say my opponent has no biblical basis for saying what he is saying, I am then going to say, now, here are some of the passages that have been misused, okay? And if we are talking about free will, you know, I am going to go to the various texts they are trying to find and things like that.

I am going to go to the best they have to present. Now, again, this is just a discussion. Looking at the time indexes here, it looked like they each had somewhere around 20 minutes at the most each. It looks to here that Moeller took about 17.

And so, yeah, it almost looks like Patterson went longer. But anyway, Moeller may just may not have used up the whole time that he did, but that he had been given. But I recognize this is short. But to just simply say, I see nothing.

That is, again, it just did not accomplish anything because there is plenty of things we can talk about. There is all sorts of stuff we can go to and look at that. But it does not get discussed in a context like this.

Number two, I also believe that the biblical case in favor of universal atonement is overwhelming. I shall present a little bit of that in just a few moments. Number three, I believe that there are two clear statements in God's word linking God's electing providence to the foreknowledge of God.

Dorsian Calvinists did not accept that foreknowledge was a matter as such. They redefined that.

Well, back up the truck there. Redefined that? You mean because they recognized the difference between the philosophical definition of foreknowledge, the acceptance of the reality that God has knowledge of all future events.

Now, why he has knowledge of all future events becomes an issue. But the acceptance of that, but then the recognition that for God to foreknow, active verb, is different than for God to have foreknowledge, substantive, to recognize the difference between a verb and a noun, and to recognize if it is an active verb, it means God is doing something, not receiving something, but doing something, and that every single time God does this action, the object of the action is personal, not facts, not history, not events, but personal.

It's people that God foreknows, not what people do that God foreknows. How is accepting that biblical reality redefining something? The redefinition is what we have in, well, Dr. Patterson's viewpoint of foreknowledge, and not in Dort's view of that particular issue.

Yet the Bible says, elect according to the foreknowledge of God. Finally, to me, it is necessary that God's justice be proclaimed and defended. R .C. Sproul, for example, in his book, Almighty Over All, says, quote, God desired man to fall into sin, God created sin, end of quote.

That sort of Calvinistic expression, to me, is inconceivable, because it puts God exercising a form of justice entirely different from that which he reveals in his holy word. Again, Sproul said, quote, it is his desire to make his wrath known.

He indeed then, he needed then something on which to be wrathful, he needed to have sinful creatures, end of quote. This makes God, in some sense, the author of sin, and I cannot sustain that in the light of God's precious word.

Now, again, this kind of argument, as common as it is, you know that if you would go back and you would read the context for Sproul, and you would read the context of these statements, that there is much more to it.

There's going to be an extensive discussion of both ends and means. There's going to be a discussion of primary and secondary causes. There's going to be all sorts of discussions, because if you go to the key texts, there are the very same issues, especially when you go to Isaiah chapter 10, and you see God bringing Assyria against Israel as his instrument of bringing destruction and punishment upon Israel.

This is his means of punishing a sinful people in light of the covenant that they made with him, and yet he then turns around and punishes Assyria, because of the attitude of their heart that they had when they were being used as the instrument of God's judgment upon Israel.

And so these things are there in scripture. You have to deal with them. It's not a matter of just trying to hide something. It's not a matter of trying to sneak something in. Those issues are right there.

And we immediately turn the question around and have to, again, ask Paige Patterson, when God created, did he know that evil would exist? So how do you avoid saying that God is, in some sense, the author of evil?

If God created all things and evil exists in his creation, then there's got to be some sense in which you don't just dodge this and just keep asking the question of other people. How do you deal with it?

And free willism isn't going to do it. I'm sorry, but that has never succeeded to say, well, God created man with a free will and therefore evil came into the world. Okay, that sounds wonderful, but there's only one consistent way of holding that viewpoint.

And that is to say God created man with a free will and he didn't know man would fall. He didn't know man would fall. So what does that lead you to? To open theism, of course. So that's why I say open theism is the only consistent way, I think, to be an Arminian.

I think open theists are consistent Arminians. If you're an Arminian, if you're not a Calvinist, if you're a synergist, whatever terms you want to use, and you want to assert the idea that God knew exactly what was going to take place when he created, then you have to answer the question that did he create for a purpose or did he create for a purpose that was not fulfilled?

And believe me, I think the philosophical mire that you fall into to try to defend that kind of viewpoint is far worse than anything the Calvinist has to deal with. I mean, you know, the Calvinist, someone just quoted in Channel Isaiah 45 .7, the Calvinist will talk about the fact that God is sovereign over all things and there is that sense in which he brings shalom and he brings rah.

He's big enough to take those accusations while saying I am not the one who creates in the sense of originating sin. It's man who loves his sin, not God. God's never taken some morally neutral agent, stuck a gun to his head and said do evil.

Didn't have to do that. There's much more to be talked about here, and surely, again, since Patterson is who Patterson is, he knows this. And so it's one thing to make this kind of objection, but it's another to make the objection and demonstrate that you have seriously listened to the responses to your objections.

See, that's what makes a powerful presentation is when you can make a presentation that demonstrates you've heard what your opponent is about to say and you respond to his best arguments in your positive presentation.

That's the best way to make an argument and to really convince people where you're coming from. Let's listen just a little bit more and then we'll start taking our phone calls because we have three folks online right now.

The Debate Over Calvinism, Monergism, and the Doctrine of Grace

There are many other reasons why I cannot be called a Calvinist. Richard Muller, in his very fine article, How Many Points that appeared in the Calvin Theological Journal in 1993, makes the point that if a person is actually a Calvinist, that he must embrace the whole portion of Calvinism, which includes church-state relations that we would not agree with and even the covenantal baptism of infants and the whole question of elect infants.

And Richard Muller, I believe to be exactly correct and that's the reason why I cannot make myself out to be a Calvinist.

Now again, and that's actually a good place to stop because it leads us into our first phone caller, but in essence, isn't it ironic? Here we have a Southern Baptist over on one side of us saying you can't be a Calvinist because you need to buy the whole system and that's church-state relations so you need to believe what Calvin believed about a magisterial reformation and then you also have to buy the entire concept of paedo-baptism so you can't really be a Baptist and a Southern, obviously I mean a Southern Baptist and so you're just being inconsistent.

And then on the other side, you have the Presbyterians saying the same thing but the other direction and that's always the position that reformed Baptists find themselves in, attempting to explain, depending on who it is you're talking to, exactly where it is in that spectrum that you wish to identify yourself as existing.

So we will pick up with that. I will try to hopefully remember the specific point we were at. I'm not using the uber-cool cue list that I was using with various of the other things in earlier programs so I'll hopefully remember where that is and be able to pick up with that particular point.

877 -753 -3341 is the phone number for you to call to be involved in the dividing line today and that is the number that Randy called. Hello, Randy. Hi, Dr. White.

How are you? Thank you for taking my call. Yes, sir. Enjoyed your show so far this afternoon. Very well done. Uh-huh. Let me start by saying, actually, that I have a question with regards to infant baptism and I know, without a shadow of a doubt, you're perfectly capable of taking me out to the theological woodshed on any topic, on the Bible, I would include this one here, so I'm just going to ask you to go easy on me because I know you're capable of it.

So, Randy, you didn't write to me this week?

Oh, yeah, I did. I thought so, yeah. You had said to me that Presbyterians don't use or base their viewpoint of paedo-baptism on the oikos formula and I had written back to point out to you that, as I said in my sermons, you had listened to my sermons from last Sunday, that the individual that I am debating on October 19th, Pastor Bill Shishko of the Franklin Square Orthodox Presbyterian Church, a large portion of his presentation, in fact, he doesn't even like the term paedo-baptism, he likes the term oikobaptism, is based upon the oikos formula.

I was just listening two days ago to his debate that took place during one of his classes for, I believe it's Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, against a Reformed Baptist elder and that was central to his affirmative presentation.

I am well aware of the presentation from John Calvin in the Institutes of the Christian Religion, Romans 4 .11, Colossians 2 .11 -12, which is what I'll be addressing this coming Sunday, the whole issue of circumcision and baptism and fulfillment and all the rest of those things, but I have to respond to the argumentation of the individual to whom I'm going to be responding in debate, first and foremost, which is why I began with those particular texts.

So I hope you understand this is not the first debate I've done on paedo-baptism, it'll actually be the third, and I have found differences in every one of the paedo-baptists that I have debated. Now that, of course, would be the same with lots of Baptists.

I would imagine, surely, that Dr. Patterson would defend baptism in a different way than I would because I would come at it from a covenantal perspective, but the fact remains I do know where my Presbyterian friends are coming from and I wasn't trying to in any way avoid their primary presentation, which, from Calvin, is based upon the fulfillment of circumcision seen in baptism.

No, and I can appreciate that. I apologize for taking you out of context. I really didn't know where you were coming from with that. I assumed, of course, that you were working with the premise that that was actually a major part of the argument.

For him, perhaps, it is. Yeah, for Bill Shishko today, it is. Just one sec.

Yeah, okay. We'll see you tomorrow. Yeah, I've studied this through R .C. Sproul and through his mentor, Dr. John H. Gerstner, and, of course, I think it's safe to say they would probably agree that there's a lot of strength in those passages, so I can't deny that, but at the same time, I don't think that they would put too much value in them.