The Pilgrim
Coram Deo
Bill
unworthy1
brother Michael
Paedobaptists would agree that Jesus Christ is the Mediator of the New Covenant, and therefore by extenstion that He is also the Mediator for all persons in the New Covenant community.
Yet precisely WHAT does Christ mediate to those who are baptized as infants and grow to adulthood, but who never come to faith in Him? Listen to the debate below to hear the shocking response to this question by infant baptism apologist Dr. Gregg Strawbridge, editor of “The Case for Covenental Infant Baptism”.
This helpful debate serves to shed much light upon the scripturally inconsistent and unbiblical practice of infant baptism.
- James White
“As I noted, we pre-empted our normal Thursday evening Dividing Line so as to bring you the two hour debate on baptism between myself and Dr. Gregg Strawbridge. This is the first time I have been involved in a debate using Skype as the mechanism, and I must admit, that outside of one or two break-ups (at least from what I heard on my end), it worked quite well. The sound quality was very good. Of course, we live webcast it as well. I have seen some very interesting comments on the web concerning it. Some were surprising, most were exactly as you would expect.”
Here’s the program (Part 1 – 64 MIN; Part 2 – 73 MIN).
Matt,
If you notice, your comment has been deleted. I did so because it was nothing more than a rehash of this thread as well as this thread. If you want to know why we reject infant baptism but offer communion to women, then go back and reread those lines of dialog.
I’m not surprised. I couldn’t get an answer then; why should I think I’d get an answer now?
The truth is there is no answer, fourpointer. To accept communion of women as a valid practice and yet reject infant baptism because “it’s not in Scripture” is simply inconsistent and intellectually dishonest.
I invite you to demonstrate otherwise.
matt,
Here are a few points from Scripture.
1. In the Book of Acts, chapter 2:41-47, we find that there were added about 3000+ souls to the church. Interestingly enough, this was AFTER gladly receiving the Word of God and then they were baptized thus showing no entrance to a local church without A) regeneration and B) baptism. Second, they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine AND in “breaking of bread” which is a phrase for communion as so defined in the Syriac. There is NO indication this was ONLY or exclusively men and did not include women.
2. Paul speaking in 1 Corinthians nowhere limits partaking to men only. He addresses the church in regards to the errors when they were partaking of the Lord’s Table and the only command he gives is that they are to judge themselves before partaking. To assume that he means ONLY men would have to logically follow that only men are to judge themselves and that only men had been judged by God as having partaken unworthily within the local assembly and some were sick and others had died. It is not possible to even remotely assume that only men had died within the local assembly.
So to conclude, your question of not accepting women at communion to be in the same vein as not rejecting infant baptism falls flat.
The Desert Pastor
To accept communion of women as a valid practice and yet reject infant baptism because “it’s not in Scripture” is simply inconsistent and intellectually dishonest.
I invite you to demonstrate otherwise.
It has been demonstrated otherwise by myself and Desert Pastor in the other thread. If you want to reread it, go ahead. If those answer do not suffice, then we shall agree to disagree.
However, one question I do have for you–not out of a desire to argue, but simply to understand where you are coming from: if infant baptism doesn’t save, why do you defend the practice so passionately? I, personally, don’t care if someone wants to dunk their infant. All you wind up with is a wet kid. But, as I said in the other thread, I do not agree with the premise that it is commanded in Scripture. You do. And we disagree. I think an understanding of why you are so devoted to this issue would help us understand your position better.
Good points TDP and FP. A simple reliance upon the revealed Word of God is always best.
According to the scriptures were the sacraments (The Lord’s Supper and Baptism) given by the Lord in order that they should be kept by His Body, His Bride, the church of Christ to the praise of His glory? Yes.
According to the scriptures are believing women part of His Body, His Bride, the church of Christ? Yes.
Case closed.
A regenerate, spirit filled, born-again believer can understand such basic truths by grace of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but the unregenerate cannot understand these things because they are spiritually discerned, and the carnal (unregenerate) mind is at enmity with God. Since Matt has professed his adherence to another gospel in direct violation of Galatians 1:6-9 it stands to reason that he is spiritually blinded to these simple scriptural truths.
I’m praying for you, Matt. You must be born-again.
In Christ,
CD
Why is Matt not regenerate is he Roman Catholic or something? I assume he professed another gospel in another thread…
Desert Pastor,
“There is NO indication this was ONLY or exclusively men and did not include women.”
You’re willing to accept that as grounds for allowing communing of women. But you flatly reject the argument that There is NO indication that baptism was ONLY or exclusively for adults and did not include infants?
And you see no inconsistency in that at all? Sorry I’m not convinced.
fourpointer,
I’m not sure if you realize this–it probably wouldnt’ matter anyway–but those of you who refuse to bring infants and young children–and anyone else for that matter who is otherwise unable to articulate a satisfactory expression of faith in Christ–into the Body of Christ through baptism–in other words, those of you who refuse to acknowledge as Christians anyone who cannot reason their way through Christian doctrine to your satisfation…you are in the vast minority. In fact you didn’t even exist in any real numbers until after the Reformation. Why is that, do you think?
Infant baptism isn’t some new thing that medeival Roman Catholics came up with just to be troublesome. It has been with the Church from the beginning, undisputed until someone decided that their way was superior to the Church’s way; until some sixteenth-century European decided that he could outthink a millennium and a half worth of eastern theologians and scholars.
Do you, fourpointer, really think that you know Christian Scripture and theology better than Ireneus, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Gregory Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Augustine?
I do not. I don’t pretend to. I don’t claim to.
What I do know is that Christ promised to send His Spirit of Truth, which would guide His Church in all truth. His Church has determined that infant baptism is a valid practice. It would be foolish and arrogant for me to think I know better than Christ’s Church. Wouldn’t you agree?
CD,
I agree that reliance upon the revealed Word of God is always best.
Christ Himself said do not hinder the children from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.
Are you sure it’s a good idea to deny them entry into His Body the Church?
It isn’t a lack baptism that denies unregenerate human beings entry into the Body. According to the scriptures it is a lack of saving faith that denies unregenerate human beings entry into the Body of Christ, the true church which is comprised solely of God’s elect.
“Matt has professed his adherence to another gospel”
I have professed adherance to the original, undistorted, undefiled, undiminished Gospel as revealed to and preserved within His Body, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. I don’t know what “gospel” you’re professing belief in; it may be the “gospel” of Calvin or Zwingli, but it certainly isn’t the Gospel of Christ.
Not according to your own profession of faith. You claim to be engaged in a process of justification by cooperating with God by your good works (daily repentance) in order to bring about your justification which is directly contrary to the gospel preached by the Apostle Paul and upon which thing he pronounces anathema in Galatians 1:6-9. In this teaching the EOC does greatly err, just like it’s spiritual harlot sister, the RCC.
Also the EOC isn’t “the Church. The true church invisible, they Body and Bride of Christ is made up solely of God’s regenerate elect who are miraculously saved (born again) by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the praise of God alone. This is the gift of God, and not of works, lest any man should boast. It isn’t a physical institution with a sign out front, it’s a spiritual reality.
You’ll be in my prayers.
M
Matt,
So then you do believe along the lines of the Roman Catholic system, that baptism brings the infant into a “state of grace” and that the infant is saved simply by being baptized?
those of you who refuse to acknowledge as Christians anyone who cannot reason their way through Christian doctrine to your satisfation…you are in the vast minority. In fact you didn’t even exist in any real numbers until after the Reformation. Why is that, do you think?
Because although those people existed (Men like Hus, Wycliffe, Tyndale, and many others were well-known some 200-500 years BEFORE the Reformation), they were careful about how loudly they declared their belief in sola scriptura, lest they be arrested and murdered by the Pope. (Since you profess to be Roman Catholic, I assume you do not believe in sola scriptura.). Contrary to Romish belief, the RCC does not own a lock on church history. In fact, if you go back and study church history, you would find that many of the early church fathers’ beliefs did not square up with Romish teachings as much as Catholic apologists like to claim. In fact, I would encourage you to listen through this 49-part series on church history presented by Dr. White himself, in which he counters the arguments made by men like Sungensis, Matatics and others.
matt,
As you have not yet been able to or are unwilling to answer the questions already previously posted, then our discussion will remain where it is. I am convinced that when you are doing nothing but spouting what your church believes instead of looking to the Scriptures which are the ONLY rule God has given to direct us how we may glorify Him and enjoy Him, then it is more than probable that you are NOT able to give a true answer which lines up with Scriptures. You have done a passable job at parroting church dogma and the traditions of men, but sadly my friend they do not line up with Scripture.
We have shown clearly that baptism is for believers only and even in my illustration taken from Acts, the FACT remains that those who were baptized FIRST gladly received the Word of God as it was being preached. The Holy Spirit brought them to the point where they were convicted of their totally depraved nature and in need of a Saviour, Who alone is the Lord Jesus Christ. After repentance took place, THEN they were baptized. The same took place with Lydia, the Philippian jailer, and in the other accounts of Scripture including the apostle Paul.
Your religion offers dogma and tradition, but it sadly does not offer the ONLY hope of eternal life which is proclaimed clearly in the Scriptures. The apostle Paul made it clear that those who do not proclaim the gospel as he presented it and tried to add to the finished work of Jesus Christ was to be accursed. This is true whether it is a false prophet, an organized church or denomination, or even an angel.
The Desert Pastor
Fourpointer,
I do not profess to be Roman Catholic. Go back and read our previous exchange, please.
Desert Pastor,
If there are some questions I have not answered, please tell me what they are and I will be happy to try my best to answer them
Seems to me there are five questions I have asked over and over and not received an answer to, as well (I’d repeat them here, but my comment might be deleated again)
“Scriptures which are the ONLY rule God has given to direct us how we may glorify Him and enjoy Him”
Where is this found in Scriptures, please? Do the Scriptures refer to themselves as the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth”? No, that distinction belongs to the Church. So, given the choice between following the Church’s interpretation of Scripture and yours…ah, I’ll go with the former, thank you.
And one more thing, Desert Pastor, since you are a pastor and all, I’d like your opinion on the fact that John MacArthur misquotes Scripture several times in his sermon. Does that bother you at all? Do you mind that someone would distort God’s “ONLY rule” in order to make a point? Just curious.
CD,
“According to the scriptures were the sacraments (The Lord’s Supper and Baptism) given by the Lord in order that they should be kept by His Body, His Bride, the church of Christ to the praise of His glory? Yes.
According to the scriptures are believing women part of His Body, His Bride, the church of Christ? Yes.
Case closed.”
I’m afraid you’re missing my point, CD. I’m not suggesting that the validity of communion of women can’t be inferred from the context of Scripture. I believe it can.
What I am saying is that if you apply the “regulative principle” (which according to John MacArthur is “If Scripture doesn’t command it, it is forbidden.”) to infant baptism, then either you must apply it to everything including communion of women, or have the integrity to admit that you’re okay with applying the “regulative principle” to some things and not others. Or, option 3, you can show me where in Scripture communion of women is commanded; not implied, not suggested, but commanded.
If you can do one of those things, then I will leave you alone and never comment again on the “regulative principle.” Deal?
I’ll be leaving town for vacation this afternoon, so I’m afraid all your challenges and warnings and anathemas will go unanswered until the 9th. Sorry. Your prayers for a safe journey would be most welcomed and appreciated.
Thanks.
M
CD,
Thank you for posting this. I listened to part 1 this morning. To sum it up in three words–it wasn’t fair. Dr. White tore apart every argument Mr. Strawbridge laid out, and it was obvious that Strawbridge knew he was on shaky ground. While Dr. White simply laid out Scripture, matter-of-factly, toward the end Mr. Strawbridge began resorting to a childish, sarcastic, peevish tone when addressing Dr. White. When that happens, you know your arguments have been effective.
Matt, I would encourage you to listen to at least part 1 of this debate, so you could see why your position is teneble at best. As for this exchange, I belioeve at this point it is over.