Bill Shishko's Closing Statement

The essence of the New Covenant is not that children are excluded.

If there has been a change in that principle of a household dealing with God's people, it should be absolutely clear in the

New Testament, and it is not. My opponent in this debate begs the question by saying that only those who repented and believed were baptized, that's what he's assumed, yet he's not answered the question, why are there mentions of households in which there is no specific mention of each one repenting and believing before they were baptized?

Why the household reference at all if that principle has been abrogated in the New Testament?

But I have a much more fundamental concern, and in a real sense it's the biggest concern

I have in this entire debate. Under the rule of sola scriptura, only scripture, and tota scriptura, how do you regard the children of at least one believing parent in the

New Testament? See, my experience as a pastor with not a few people who've come out of Reformed Baptist backgrounds is this, they ask the question, what do

I do with my children? And as they get a grasp of the unity of Holy Scripture, they realize they cannot fit the view of what the scriptures in toto teach with the way they have been taught to view their children.

Let me ask specifically these questions. How does my opponent say of the children of believers, of such is the kingdom of God, that kingdom which our confessional standards identify as the church of the

Lord Jesus Christ? Notice he did not specifically say of such are the kingdom of God, although Jesus did.

If he can't say that, why not? If so, what does he mean? And does he mean what

Jesus meant? Can my opponent speak of these little ones, including infants, who believe in me?

If so, why not baptize them, especially if baptism is a badge of faith?

If not, why not? And if he waits for mature or adult faith, or whatever he would like to call it, isn't he turning

Jesus' words upside down? Unless you receive the kingdom of God as a little child, you will by no means enter it.

Can my opponent say to children in the church of which he is an elder, obey your parents in the

Lord? If not, why not? If so, what does he mean by it?

Can my opponent address children as saints, as Paul did? Where in the

New Testament are children of believers referred to as something other than of the kingdom of God?

Or for that matter, other than believers, when our Lord has spoken of children as believers?

Where is the New Testament warrant for baptizing children of believers later in life?

And how long do you wait? What does the Bible say of that? Are there any objective promises for children of at least one believing parent who die in the womb or in infancy?

Are there any objective promises for special children or for handicapped children who may for whatever reason be unable to confess their faith?

Can they be in the New Covenant? Can they receive a sign of the New Covenant? Are they spoken of at all in Holy Scripture?

Or are they excluded in the New Covenant when clearly the Old Covenant did address such?

And if they are not included, where is the expansion of the grace of God in the

New Testament? Is it a more gracious covenant when children are somehow excluded?

In short, how does my opponent treat children of believing parents?

Draw the data from the New Testament. And I challenge you tonight, dear friends who are here, that is the big issue.

We can go on and on and on all night long dealing with the subjects of baptism. Baptism, we've agreed, marking out people as part of the visible church.

But what does my opponent say about children? What does the Bible say to you about children, especially in the

New Testament? We do not presume the regeneration of our children. But in the words of our

Lord Jesus, we give a judgment of charity regarding our children. Jesus speaks specifically of these little children, of such are the kingdom of God.

What about those who are unregenerate? That's a tension in both of our systems and I'll grant that.

My opponent has already granted they will baptize people who are not elect even though he and I both agree that the

New Covenant is only with the elect and I'm still trying to figure why that's such a strong argument for baptism of believing adults only on his system if he admits that the non -elect are baptized.

But however we look at it, the resolution is not by excluding children, specifically when

Old Covenant prophecies such as those cited in the New Testament to explain the

New Covenant include children. The resolution is not by excluding children, but by proper church discipline, especially when the

New Testament data, direct and indirect, prophecies of the Old Testament in the

New Testament demonstrate inclusion among the people of God of children and that's signified by Christian baptism.

I challenge you again as I have throughout the entire debate, you've got to do justice to all the data of scripture.

Radical change in the New Testament on my opponent's viewpoint. After 2 ,000 years of God's dealings, beginning with Abraham and a redemptive covenant of children of believers with a sign of the covenant, that's done away with.

That basic principle is done away with. Burden of proof is to show it is abrogated.

I submit to you my colleague has not even taken up anything like that burden of proof.

See if he could, he would not be able to, because the reason he doesn't is because he cannot explain why there are references to whole households being baptized.

When at the pivotal point the Holy Spirit could make clear only those who personally repent and believe in Christ are to be baptized, because those texts specifically under the inspiration of God, in most cases only say there was the faith of one believing adult, just as in the case of the

Old Testament parallel with Abraham. Circumcised in belief, baptism in belief, but the sign also applying to children.