The Baptism Debate (White vs Shishko)

Good evening, and welcome to the long-awaited baptism debate for infants or believers only. We've been waiting for this so long. Actually, I was hoping that Mr. Shishko would be a Baptist by now, and this would be unnecessary.

But we finally have the opportunity to see these two men, two good friends and brothers in Christ, two scholars, and two men more than able to handle the job at hand for each of them. First of all, I want to thank Pastor David Knapp of the Full Gospel Christian Center here in Port Jefferson Station, for allowing us to use these beautiful, spacious facilities that we have here for the debate.

Let's have a round of applause. I particularly love the architecture of this building. It's quite beautiful. In fact, I wonder what they do with this thing over here. Looks like one of them little kiddie pools or something.

I guess they just cool off in the hot sun of these. I'm not sure, but anyway. By the way, I am Chris Arnson, formerly of WNCA Radio, and I'm hosting a new program that I hope you tune into called Iron Sharpens Iron on WNYG Radio, 1440 AM.

It's a live calling program. Today, we didn't have that many calls during the program, and I found out later that my listener died. So... No, but really, the program is quite an excellent program, not because of me, but because the Lord has just, in his providence for some reason, given me so many friends and acquaintances over the years, that I've had some of the most brilliant thinkers in the world on this station, on the program.

So I hope you keep tuning in to that program. It is also available on the internet. You can hear it live. And there's also a flyer out there in the hallway for that program. But we have today, here at the debate, our competitors, if you will, Dr. James R. White, who needs little introduction.

Dr. James R. White is the Baptist debater, and he's going to be defending the proposition, baptism is only for those who have personally repented and believed in Christ. Dr. White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona, and is an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

He is a professor, having taught Greek, systematic theology, and various topics in the field of apologetics. He has authored more than 20 books, including The King James Only Controversy, The Roman Catholic Controversy, The Same-Sex Controversy, The Forgotten Trinity, The Par is Freedom, The God Who Justifies Dangerous Airwaves, Harold Camping Refuted, and Christ's Church Defended, and the soon-to-be-published Pulpit Crimes, The Criminal Mishandling of God's Word.

He is an accomplished debater, having engaged in more than 50 moderated public debates with leading proponents of Roman Catholicism, liberal Protestantism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, Mormonism, and that was just a WMCA staff luncheon.

But here he is, ladies and gentlemen, Dr. James Weiss. My other very dear friend, who is here to oppose that proposition that we just mentioned, Pastor Bill Shishko of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

His thesis is, baptism is not only for those who have personally repented and believed in Christ. Bill Shishko has served as pastor of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Franklin Square, New York, for over 25 years.

During his time as pastor there, the church has been blessed with significant numerical growth, and has overseen the formation of two mission churches, one in Mount Vernon and one in Bohemia, New York.

He is also one of the instructors at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Taylor, South Carolina, where he teaches in the Department of Applied Theology. He has written numerous articles for the Orthodox Presbyterian Church publications, New Horizons and Ordained Servant, as well as magazines such as the Banner of Truth.

His public ministries have taken him to such foreign mission fields as Suriname, Cyprus, Egypt, Uganda, China, and Wales. And his conference ministries have been carried out in a number of states in our own nation.

Ladies and gentlemen, Pastor Bill Shishko. Our moderator, who is a mutual friend of all of ours, Pastor Richard Jensen of the Hope Reformed Baptist Church in Medford. He is also the, I believe the youngest, he was the youngest, Suffolk County homicide detective, correct?

And was involved in the Amityville Horror murder case. Not as a participant, as a, as a, as a officer of the law. He is the moderator, and I'd like to introduce you to him, Pastor Richard Jensen. There are book tables, I just wanted to let you know, during breaks, if you'd like to go outside and see the different books.

Both sides have a book table up there. We have the Reformed Baptist side has a book in particular, The Baptism of Disciples Alone, A Covenantal Argument for Credo-Baptism vs. Paedo-Baptism by Fred Malone.

And there's also a book that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is offering by Greg, it's edited by Greg Strobridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism. And there are other books and tapes and so on as well at these tables.

A very good friend of mine, Gabe Grossi, has written a brilliant book, Preaching with Biblical Passion, a Scriptural and Historical Study. And Pastor Grossi has a book table out there as well. And speaking of book tables, it reminds me of when I was manning a book table one year at a Christian Reformed church that was having a conference.

The Christian Reformed church, as you know, also believes in infant baptism, as do the Orthodox Presbyterians. And this was in the basin of the church during a break and I was manning the book table. And a Christian Reformed pastor approached me and said, I understand this book table is being run by a Reformed Baptist church, is that true?

I said, yes. He said, are you selling anything conflicting with infant baptism here? I said, I don't see any Bibles. Just kidding. But I think you've had enough of me. I am going to hand over the debate to my very good friend, our moderator, Pastor Richard Jensen.

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

Debate Format and Rules

Good evening, everyone. And just a couple of words on the role of the moderator. The first role that the moderator takes in this is to keep the debate moving along in an orderly fashion. And so my first order of business will be to keep this microphone away from Chris as much as possible.

Also what I will be doing is making sure that each of the debaters has the adequate time period that's allowed to them. It's part of my function to keep order and ensure that the audience behaves properly as well.

And I'm just going to let you guess whether I'm carrying my piece or not. That's up to, you know, let your conscience be your guide. I'm also to see that the rules of debate are followed. And you need to know that the rules, which I'll state just in a moment, have been agreed upon by the two debaters.

And there will be a strict adherence to the time limit, including the 15-minute break. Okay, that's very important. As I give you what the format will be, there will be a 15-minute break more in the center of the debate.

It's important that you come back in within those 15 minutes so we can continue. The whole debate will take under, including that 15-minute break, will be just under three hours. So that's why it's important that we move this along.

One other word on that note, during that break, please do not approach Dr. White or Pastor Shishko at that time. I know many of you are going to want to speak to them and ask them questions or give them advice.

They need that time to prepare for the upcoming questions and the rebuttals and their closing statements. So please, you'll have to wait until after the debate. The rules for the debate are given both for the benefit of the debaters, that they have the adequate time, and also for your benefit as well, that you can derive the most benefit.

As far as the decorum is concerned, it should go without saying in an audience such as this, where both sides are orthodox in their theology, that Christian conduct is expected. No boos, no catcalls, none of that should take place.

And I would also say this, if the side that you are rooting for makes a good point, please don't applause, because if you applaud, you're going to take time away from him. I will not stop the clock to allow for applause.

So you're only hurting your side. Wait until the end of each time period, and then you'll have ample time to applaud your side. I would also ask you to turn off any cell phones, beepers, or put them on the vibrating mode.

The only acceptable interruption in this debate will be an announcement that the Mets have won the NLCS. That's the only acceptable exception. Where are the Yankees? No, we're just stating facts. This is not a debate.

There will be a time for questions at the end of the period of time that's allotted. Questions will be written. They must be written on three-by-five cards. We're not going to have questions from the floor, and that's because most people, especially here in New York, don't know what a question is.

These cards will be collected during the break. If you don't have a card, just raise your hand. If you want one, just raise your hand. We have people who will pass these cards out. The questions should be addressed to one of the debaters, and then the debater will be given a minute and a half to respond, and then the opposing side will have 45 seconds to respond to that.

Then we'll alternate. We'll go back and forth. Again, the definition of a question is this. It's an inquiry asking for an answer, clarification, or added information. It's interesting. I did find one alternative definition in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

It was definition 2C, if you want to look it up. It says, torture as part of an examination. We will not be using that definition tonight, except for those of the audience who don't obey the debate rules.

Then we might bring that one into play. I will be the one who would be selecting the questions, so if it's not in the form of a question, I will not take it. And while James and Dr. White and Pastor Shishko will not be available during the break, I will be, for any inducements or encouragements to use your question, I can be bought.

Okay, here's the format that we will be using, so you know. Here's the resolution resolved that the subjects of Christian baptism are only those who have personally repented and believed in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

Dr. White will be presenting the affirmative of that position. He will have 20 minutes. Then there will be a 3-minute cross-examination, followed by the first negative by Pastor Shishko, and that will be for 20 minutes.

There will then be a 3-minute cross-examination by Dr. White, and that will be 3 minutes. Then Dr. White will have his second affirmative statement, which is 15 minutes, followed by a 3-minute cross-examination, and then Pastor Shishko will have a second negative for 15 minutes, followed by a 3-minute cross-examination, and at that time we will break for 15 minutes.

Following the break, Pastor Shishko has 10 minutes to question Dr. White, and following that, Dr. White has 10 minutes to question Pastor Shishko. Then Pastor Shishko will do a 10-minute rebuttal, followed by Dr. White with a 10-minute rebuttal, and then Pastor Shishko will do closing remarks for 7 minutes, followed by Dr. White, and he has a 7-minute closing as well.

Following that, we will allow about 20 minutes for questions and answers. Just one quick word. There is definitely an art to following a debate, and if you've never done it, perhaps if you are taking notes, the best way would be to take your paper, put it sideways, or as they say in the computer, in a landscape position, and draw columns down, one for Pastor Shishko, one for Dr. White, and then for rebuttal and cross-examination, so that you can follow it across and in a logical fashion down, kind of like a flow chart, and that might help you follow the debate.

Now that's all the announcements that I have. Is there anything that I missed that you fellows would like me to speak to? Give me just a minute to go back to my place, and then it will be Dr. White will be presenting his affirmative statement.

James White's Affirmative: Baptism for Professing Believers Only

It's indeed a pleasure to be with you this evening. I would like to begin by emphasizing what Pastor Shishko and I have emphasized in our personal conversations about this debate, that this is an intramural debate.

This is a debate between two Christians who believe that the Bible is the word of God. We believe that God's truth is vitally important for God's people, and that is really what has brought us here. This is not like many of the debates that you may have seen me do here on Long Island, where I am debating someone who is opposing the Christian faith.

Here we are illustrating that within the bonds of brotherhood, within the bonds of love, we can come to the word of God, and even though we have a firm and strong disagreement on this particular issue, we can come to the word of God, and we can trust God's people to look at what the word of God has to say.

Baptism is a topic of great importance, because as our Confessions of Faith say, the Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, which is the one that my congregation utilizes, that baptism was appointed or ordained by the Lord Jesus Christ and is a positive and sovereign institution.

It is a divine truth, something that we need to understand. God has given to us baptism for a purpose, and therefore to have the differences that we have should force us to the word of God to understand what God's wisdom in this matter really is.

While we fellowship in the Gospel and in its defense, I was just speaking last evening at Brother Sisko's church on Islam and how to respond to Islam, while we fellowship in the Gospel and in its defense, due to our disagreement on this issue, our fellowship is divided ecclesiastically.

We are both Reformed, hence sola scriptura is a very precious truth to both of us, and we should have a shared Reformed hermeneutic in allowing all of the Scriptures to speak to all of life. Now that hermeneutic brings us to harmony on the wide body of Christian theology, the Trinity and the deity of Christ and the resurrection and justification and so on and so forth, yet on this topic we are divided.

I have a challenge for the audience this evening. You must listen and decide for yourselves who remains consistent with the hermeneutic they use in all areas of theology. Which one of us does that? When one alters one's hermeneutic, this is clear evidence, a red flag that you might say, clear evidence of the fact that one's tradition has entered into one's thinking.

The existence of some outside tradition is interfering with the proper practice of sola scriptura. Now I am forced by the consistent application of hermeneutic methodology to believe that baptism as a positive ordinance established by the New Testament and exemplified and defined therein is a sign of the New Covenant, signifying one's union with Christ, death, burial, and resurrection in Him, and one's new life in Him.

As such, it is given only to disciples, those who have professed faith in Christ and repentance from sin. It is the consistency of the teaching of the New Testament regarding the nature of the New Covenant, the atoning work of Christ, the fact that Old Testament circumcisions, New Testament fulfillment is regeneration, not baptism, and the clear establishment of baptism as an ordinance related directly to faith and repentance that precludes my acceptance of any other understanding of this New Testament ordinance.

Further, I believe that there were clear historical contexts and pressures which led men like Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli to continue the practice of paedo-baptism, and Calvin, as a second-generation reformer, gave a new form to the practice that, as far as I have been able to tell, no one before him in history of the Church had ever fully held as he did.

And I believe this is the source of the tradition that disrupts the practice of the consistent hermeneutic of reformed theology. Now, you as the audience this evening have the task of weighing the claim to consistency that will be made by both sides.

We're both going to make the same claim, that it is the consistency of the New Testament that forces us to our position. Now, let me lay out my case in three steps. We have very little time this evening, and the clock goes very, very quickly when you're up here and very slowly when the other guy is.

First, as we agree that baptism is an ordinance of the New Covenant, I believe we must begin with a biblical understanding of the nature of that covenant, for an ordinance of the New Covenant will not have a wider, proper application than the New Covenant itself.

Next, we must establish a consistently interpreted understanding of how the apostles practiced baptism. There is little dispute, honestly, that there is no clear and undisputed example of the baptism of a non-believing, non-repentant person in the New Testament, at least a baptism knowingly performed upon such a person.

There are plenty of examples of baptism of unbelievers, but every one of them professed faith and repentance at the time of baptism, only to later demonstrate, as 1 John 2 .19 puts it, that they were not truly of us, as they later left the external church in rebellion and apostasy.

But never do we find the apostles purposely giving this ordinance to an unbelieving, unrepentant person. And since we agree that this is an ordinance of positive establishment, arguments from silence or analogy are insufficient to fulfill these requirements.

Then, I must examine the texts that are commonly put forward to defend paedo-baptism, and tonight, in particular, those used to defend oikobaptism, or household baptisms. Baptisms, here my consistency of interpretation and my hermeneutic, can be tested for all to see as it should be.

So let me begin our time this evening by clarifying a common misunderstanding in this debate. First, I believe that one enters the New Covenant by regeneration, not by baptism. I believe a consistent and in-depth interpretation of Colossians 2, verses 11 -12, rejects a sacramental interpretation, and instead indicates that the New Covenant fulfillment of circumcision is the circumcision made without hands, that is, regeneration itself.

For the Baptist, then, both ordinances, baptism and the Lord's Supper, do not look forward to a hoped-for fulfillment, they look backward to a past fulfillment and a present reality. The two sides tonight differ fundamentally on this point, though only one side treats both ordinances in the same fashion.

That is, as a Baptist, I protect both baptism and the Lord's Supper by asking the same for both. I ask for a confession of repentance and faith before baptism, just as I do before giving the Lord's Supper.

For I believe both ordinances look back upon what Christ has done in that person's life, so if that person remains in an unbelieving and unrepentant state, the ordinance is not for them. We must keep this difference in mind tonight.

One side says both ordinances must be given to repentant, believing individuals alone, and that the elders of the Church, just as the apostles of old, should seek to the best of our ability to protect these ordinances in that light.

The other gives the ordinance of baptism to unrepentant and unbelieving individuals on the basis of family units, though, I would argue, a differing definition of family units than that found under the Old Covenant.

My brother protects the Lord's Supper by asking for a confession of faith on the part of the one participating, but he does not do so for baptism. Now, having laid this out, let me emphasize that as a Baptist, I do not believe every person I baptize is automatically a part of the New Covenant.

Nothing I can do joins a person to the Covenant in the blood of the Son of God. That is God's work. Instead, my job is to seek the same evidence that my brother seeks when giving the Lord's Supper. Whatever level of confession and assurance he finds suitable for the Supper is what I find suitable for baptism.

This does not require infallibility on my part any more than it does for my Oikobaptist brethren. If I baptize an unbeliever, I do so against my desire and only upon the basis of a false profession of faith, just as with Simon in Acts 8, all those who attempted to sneak into the fellowship, noted by Paul, and those referenced by the Apostle John, who had left the fellowship, having been once baptized and a part of that external church.

So once again, I view baptism as an ordinance only given to those making a profession of faith so that it points back to an accomplished reality in their lives I do not believe we can establish. Any example of baptism in the New Testament that is given in hopes of a future fulfillment to an unrepentant and unbelieving person of any age at all.

Those in the formal membership of a Baptist church who are unbelievers are so by false profession and are not by mere membership in the church part of the New Covenant. This does not mean that the two sides actually agree, for we do not give the ordinance properly to anyone who is an unbeliever, while the Oikobaptist position believes that this to be perfectly acceptable, hoping that the sign will eventually be fulfilled by a future act of grace in bringing that person to true salvation.

Now with that, I wish to turn your attention to the nature of the New Covenant. Jesus described the New Covenant in Luke 22, 20 as the covenant in his blood. As Reformed believers who, I assume, accept the truth of what's called particular redemption, that is, that Christ's death was specifically intended to atone for the sins of the elect, there must be a consistency between our belief in this doctrine and our views of the New Covenant in his blood.

I believe baptism, as it is a New Covenant ordinance, has as its recipients those in the New Covenant, just as the supper does. I further believe that when we examine the full explication of the New Covenant in Hebrews 8 and 10, we discover that there is a fundamental difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant regarding the nature of the members of each.

Hebrews 8 is a part of an apologetic defense, if you want to look at that text. The entire book of Hebrews is demonstrating that those under pressure to go back to the old ways truly have nothing to go back to.

It is a lengthy demonstration of the supremacy of what's new in Jesus Christ. As such, the argument of Hebrews 8 is simply this. The New Covenant, established in the blood of Christ, is better than the Old.

The only way this argument could have any relevance in the context of Hebrews is if the New Covenant has, in fact, already been established. All interpretations that try to put off the establishment of the New Covenant in the future do so, I assert, for extraneous, not textual or exegetical reasons.

Now, what does the text say? Very briefly, Hebrews 8, 6 -13. 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.

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, Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will effect a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.

For they did not continue in my covenant, and I did not care for them, says the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws into their minds, and I will write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen and everyone his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for all will know me, from the least to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.

When he set a new covenant, he has made the first obsolete, but whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.". Now, please note the consistency of interpreting the new covenant as being coextensive with the number of the elect in this administration.

The law is written on the mind and the heart. That is, it has become internal through regeneration. They know the Lord, just as Christ said, He knows His sheep, and His sheep know Him. It is extensive, and this is key, for all know the Lord from the least to the greatest of them.

This is vital, for we must remember that the old covenant was a mixed covenant, given the nature of the sign itself. The sign of circumcision was given on the basis of genealogical relationship to all male Israelites.

It was properly given to those whose hearts were changed, like David, but it was also properly given to those whose hearts were always corrupt, like Ahab. The new covenant is not a mixed covenant. All in the new covenant know the Lord.

All, not some, not most, all. There is no textual reason whatsoever to say that this will only be true in a future fulfillment. In fact, to say so destroys the apologetic argument of the writer to the Hebrews.

Remember, he is telling people in his context, in his day, who were under great pressure to return to the old ways, that the new covenant now is better, now is greater, now is superior. It is not an argument, an apologetic argument to say, well, someday the new covenant will be better.

No, it is better now, in the same way that Christ is a better mediator now, and the sacrifice of Christ is better now than the sacrifices of the old covenant. Note as well that all those in the new covenant have their sins forgiven.

How are sins forgiven? The atoning work of Christ. For whom did Christ atone? For the elect of God. Once again showing the consistency of the inspired text on this point. And therefore, how do we know who the elect are today?

Only by their profession of faith. We have no greater means, so to whom should the sign of this perfect covenant be given? The answer is clear. Should we knowingly give the sign of a perfect, unbreakable covenant to unrepentant and unbelieving individuals, infants or otherwise?

In no way is this consistent with sound exegetical practice. Now, my second point, which I only have a few minutes to address, and we'll probably have to continue in the next portion. The apostles established a clear and consistent example of baptizing repentant, believing individuals only.

Since faith and repentance is so consistently noted, it is unreasonable to demand that it be explicitly cited in every single instance of baptism. This would require that every time scripture noted faith, for example, it would note its object in the accompaniment of repentance.

Now, it clearly does not do so, nor does it have to do so. We do not need to have a specific name and address and personal testimony of every person baptized in the New Testament to establish an apostolic pattern.

So let us look at the text. Remember very briefly the fact that in John's baptism, he baptized those who repented. Jesus, in his baptism, in the baptism performed by his disciples, continued that pattern of baptism of those who were repentant believers, not of infants.

Would it not be a radical change for the apostles to move from the baptism that Jesus taught them to practice household baptisms thereafter? Let's look at the key text, Matthew 28, verses 19 -20, where we have an establishment by the Lord Jesus of baptism itself.

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

Here, in reference to the making of disciples, we are given two commands. What's the means? In the original language here, we're talking about the means, the participles of means that describe the process whereby these disciples are to be made.

Well, we have baptizing and we have teaching. I would like to assert to you that you cannot put a wall between those two. Whoever you're baptizing, you have to be able to teach them. If you can't teach them, you shouldn't be baptizing.

Now, you can talk about baptism being the means of making disciples all you want, but the text puts the two participles together. If you divide them, you're violating the text where the Lord Jesus Himself indicates to us that those who are to be baptized are able to be taught.

And the teaching there, of course, is not just, well, yes, my infant learns to love God by loving me at the age of one week. No, we're talking about teaching them to do what? To observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

There is an ability to understand that is inherent in the text. And this comes out very clearly in the first example of baptism in Acts chapter 2, verses 38 through 41. Peter said to them, Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.

And 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 other 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 3 ,000 souls. Now, what do we see in this text? Well, it has been rightly said that very often our Paedo-Baptist brethren are so sensitive to the old covenant echoes in this text that they miss the new covenant fulfillment.

Very often, as I hear this text being discussed, what you hear is, For the promise is for you and your children. And it stops right there. Actually, it says, For you and your children and for all who are far off.

Now, who is this? Well, there are differing interpretations, I believe, that what the reference here is. For you and your children, Jews, and for all who are far off, Gentiles. But what is the controlling phrase in Acts 2 .39?

The controlling phrase is, As many as the Lord our God will call to Himself. Now, Reformed people especially sort of catch that word called. We sort of notice that word and we sort of zero in on that because we have here the electing grace of God.

Even if you say, Well, this is just the general call, it's still something that is discriminating on the part of God in this particular text. Now, some have suggested, Well, there might be another reason why you have the children mentioned here.

Remember back in Matthew 27 .25, we have those chilling words that had been spoken only a few weeks before in this context. When Pilate sends Jesus to be crucified, what do the Jews say? And all the people said, His blood shall be upon us and on our children.

Possibly, maybe, this is an emphasis in Peter's part that no, you may think that you've been cursed because the Messiah was crucified under your yells and screams, but God has proclaimed forgiveness in him.

But the point to make sure you see is that when the apostle preaches the message, who was baptized? Were households baptized in Acts 2? So then those who had received his word, to receive the word of God is to receive the message of who Jesus Christ is and what he has done.

We know that they were struck to the heart, so they received his word, the instruction, these are the individuals who are baptized in Acts 2. So no matter what, the text indicates to us that the interpretation of Peter's words were that those who received his word were baptized at that time.

And so with that, we will stop at that point looking at the particular apostolic text and my next opportunity, I would like to pick up from there with Acts chapter 8, Acts chapter 10, move into the text to talk about the quote-unquote household baptisms and continue to establish the apostolic parameters, the apostolic paradigm of the giving of baptism to those who are repentant and have faith in Jesus Christ.

Thank you very much.

Dr. White, is everyone who is baptized in the new covenant on your model? Is everyone who is baptized?

No, sir. There are those clearly who make a false profession of faith, as I mentioned in 1 John 2. Paul talks about the people who snuck into the fellowship unawares and so on and so forth. So no, baptism is not what joins you to the new covenant.

Can the new covenant be broken in terms of its administration in the church?

I don't... The question denies the position that I just announced. The question assumes that the external church is the administration.

Of the new covenant, which I would not say is an accurate statement. I do not see any evidence. You would not say that the external church is the administration of the new covenant? No, I would say that the new covenant is what the elect, the external church, very clearly, as I just mentioned, has those who make false professions of faith and that it is God's purpose that we struggle against those who would seek to draw a witness on us.

So you have people.

Who are baptized who are not in the new covenant, even though it's new covenant baptism, the new covenant being with the elect only. Because of the fact that they make a false profession of faith, they make a profession of faith to us as elders, that they believe in Jesus Christ and are repentant, a person who, right now, I would not have any knowledge of who they are, we're not kicking anyone out of the church at the moment, that there is the possibility that there is someone in the fellowship who has made a false profession of faith who is not a part of the new covenant.

That is correct. But has been baptized. Are there any infants in the new covenant? Well, you'd have to define infants. If you mean a person prior to the ability to be taught, obviously, all of us, the elect in the new covenant are the same people.

And so, when you say in the new covenant, do you mean in the new covenant from an eternal perspective or currently as professors?

Are there any infants who can be in the new covenant in which there is forgiveness of sins? Any of the elect, any of the elect who are in the new covenant will be brought to faith in Jesus Christ. At the point in time, it is up to God.

But I don't know how to answer that question. Is there any evidence in the new testament.

Of delaying baptism to find out if people are regenerate? Well, I think you, we were just looking at Acts chapter 2. And as soon as people asked the question, the disciples, the apostles asked them. They gave them further instruction.

And those who received his word, they were the ones who were baptized. And they were baptized immediately. It wasn't a long delay, but it was, there was, there was a clear desire that those who received baptism.

Have the knowledge of what baptism meant. Yes. Is the new covenant the same as the everlasting covenant? The term,.

Berith olam, in the old testament, I believe is used about 25 times. I would say that there's too many uses of it to make a direct equation. Thank you.