I'm glad you all could make it. My name is Byron Starkweather. I'm one of the Elders here at the Sovereign Grace Family Church, and I'd like to thank you for coming to our debate this evening. The individuals we're going to be presenting are Young Smith, who is an ordained minister, and a teacher at White House Christian School, and he is a graduate student at Fordham Commonwealth. He's trying to continue his education. And our pastor, Keith Hossie, who is a graduate of the Jacksonville Baptist Theological Seminary. Mr. Smith will be trying to prove or demonstrate the validity of infant baptism. And Pastor Hossie will be trying to prove or demonstrate the validity of what we call credo-baptism, or believer's baptism, that is baptism based on a profession of faith. Neither individual would tell you that baptism is not important. That's not the issue tonight. And neither of these individuals would try to in any way limit the importance of the covenant. That's not an issue tonight either. The issue strictly is who is a candidate for baptism specifically. Is it biblical to baptize infants? And so if you've got one of the programs, the format is pretty well outlined for you. Each of the candidates will have 15 minutes to make an open statement. And then they will have rebuttal statements. And then they will get to examine each other. They'll get to question each other and probe further, I guess, if you will, into the positions that each holds. And then each will have the opportunity to make a final closing statement. As you see, there are two break times, and out in the foyer, there is a place for you to write down questions. And at the end, time permitting, we will try to get to as many of those questions as we can. If you would like to direct them to a specific individual, please note that. If you want to have it directed toward both of them, please note that as well. If it would be alright, let's open with a word of prayer and we will begin. Father God, thank you for the opportunity to be here and have fellowship one with another. Thank you for the opportunity to come around your word and to discuss, to think, to be inspired, Lord. Cause us, Father God, to aspire to excellence, to study your word with diligence, that we might be faithful servants of you. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to share with you and just a little bit that wasn't shared is I was a chaplain at a prison and have dealt with many different theologies and a number of different things. But I'm excited about the opportunity to share with you what I understand the Presbyterian theological answer on baptism. So for me, again, I would like to start with prayer. And I would like to pray a psalm. It's good to pray scripture. So if we could bow your head and close your eyes. Psalm 25 of David. In you, Lord my God, I put my trust. I trust in you. Do not let me be put to shame, nor let my enemies triumph over me. No one who hopes in you will ever be put to shame, but shame will calm those who are treacherous without cause. Show me your ways, Lord. Teach me your ways. Our God, my Savior, and my hope is in you all day long. Remember, Lord, your great mercy and love, for they are from of old. Amen. Now, slightly tongue-in-cheek, you may have caught a discussion about enemies. And my true prayer is protection from enemies that would be divisive within us, that my brother and I here could have could have unity in the body of Christ, even though we differ on this point. And that is my goal, that we can both come to understand each other, so that you can have an opportunity to minister to people that may be from a different denomination, because people have different levels of understanding. I'm here to defend my answer to the question, is an infant an appropriate candidate for Christian baptism? And to clarify, my yes answer to this question does not mean that I believe in infant baptism. Do I believe that infant baptism causes a child to be saved? And a note, Presbyterians have no problem with adult baptism after a profession of faith. And along the same lines, Baptists have no problem with infants that pass away before the age of understanding, having never had a bath. Humor there. As a whole, denominations should, the Presbyterian, and I've spent many years in the Episcopal Church, the theology of Baptism should come from Scripture. And I wish to point to scriptural support, and note that I did not say scriptural proof, and my joke in the beginning of trying to prove. It is a try, because it is not a proof, that otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate 2,000 years after Christ, if there were not this misunderstanding. This unclear understanding. And I would say to you that the reason that there is this difference of understanding is for the purpose of people that don't agree to demonstrate the love of Christ, to show love by coming together in situations like this where they disagree and need to have love together. I'm going to read from Romans chapter 4, verses 9-11. So my scriptural support for infant or paedo-baptism, or as I prefer to the term covenant baptism, Romans 4-9, chapter 4, verses 9-11, is just blessedness only for the circumcised or also for the uncircumcised. We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised or before? It was not after, but before. And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe, but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is then also the father of the circumcised, who not only are circumcised, but who are also in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. Now, there is a connection between circumcision and baptism. Circumcision is a sign and a seal of faith. The next scripture is Genesis 17, 11-12. And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised, and throughout your generations A servant who is born in the house, or who is bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. So it's talking about the circumcision of the whole household. Whole households were circumcised. The children of members of Abraham's covenant are themselves members of Abraham's covenant. A few biblical examples are Genesis 17-7, Deuteronomy 7, there's a number of examples of that, of the circumcision of young children. So I propose that baptism is a New Testament form of circumcision. The children of Christians should receive the sign of the covenant by being baptized. In Colossians chapter 2, verses 11 through 12, I'll read from this one. And just a note, most of my scripture is coming from the NIV translation. I think I have one from King James in here. Colossians chapter 2, 11 through 12. In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self, ruled by the flesh, was put off when you were circumcised by Christ. Having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. Now my Baptist friends may cry out, but what about Acts 2.38? I actually had a discussion online with someone and they referenced that. And in that scripture it says, repent and be baptized. The explanation was that there was this formulaic order that repentance must be before the baptism. Acts 2.38-9, Peter replied, repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Now some forget to continue on to verse 39. The promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, for all whom the Lord our God will call. So this is another reference to the whole house, to the children, to paralleling circumcision, baptism, In Luke 18-16, Jesus asked us to suffer the little children. But Jesus called them unto him and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not. For of such is the kingdom of God. And if you have kids like I do, you already suffer little children. Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them. For the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." So there's this pointing to two children. Now, I've given you lots of scriptural reference and And things that I'm sure that many people debate and take scripture and they sometimes, I'm not saying keep, I'm saying myself or others, we find what our answer is and then we look for it in scripture to try to support our ideas. And that's not the way it's supposed to be. We're supposed to follow the word of God. And that is my prayer that we seek the Holy Spirit to do that. A simplified answer to my position on infant baptism has to do with Psalm 5519, God does not change. I came to Christ in the Baptist Church as a small child. As a teenager, I was baptized as a child. And I was told about it. I kind of remember it. I remember a lot of just-as-I-am being taught. And it was good. But my parents did not raise me up in the faith. As a teenager, I came back to the faith and found Christ. And I was baptized. again, for the first time, whatever you want to say, and that this was my symbol. So I understand the concept of this faith and wanting people to understand. But while I was in the Baptist Church, I felt a, and this was a much more Southern Baptist, I guess you would sort of say. I'm sure there's a better term. A much more fundamental Baptist church. And I felt such a missing, such a piece missing from the theology. Some people jokingly call it a half-Bible church. There's such a New Testament theology without any reference to the Old Testament. of God working throughout the Old Testament. I think it's helpful that such overemphasis was put on a theology based on scriptures like Hebrews 8. There is a new covenant, and he is made the first obsolete. And these references are without consideration of other scripture and scriptural themes, like Psalm 89, verse 34. My covenant I will not break, nor alter the word that has gone out of my lips." Faith is a gift. Even our ability to choose God is a gift from God. Presbyterian theology states that the faith that we use to choose God is actually a gift. The book, What Presbyterian Believes, What Presbyterians Believe is the name of the book, and it states this. Predestination does not depend on foreknowledge. God has foreknowledge, to be sure. But His purpose is primary. That comes first. If His purpose depended on foreknowledge of what any giver, any person or group of persons would do, it would leave the final word in the universe to a man, and not to God. Man, rather than God, would be sovereign. While therefore God foreknows what men will do, and while He does not destroy their freedom to choose, He does not destroy their freedom to choose, God ultimately rules and overrules to accomplish I find comfort in the idea that God has had a plan before creation. It wasn't the idea that God wanted our works. God needs nothing. He has always wanted our hearts. Psalm 46 through 8. Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have opened. Burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require. Then I said, Here I am, I have come. It is written about me in the scroll. I desire to do your will, my God. Your law is within my heart. God wanted our hearts, not these works of sacrifice. These were tools to bring us back to Christ. Dr. Walter Kaiser. Even in Genesis 4, 4-3-5, God valued the heart condition of the offered more than the gift he brought of the person. He valued what was given from their heart rather than the actual gift itself. Tradition, I spoke earlier about bow your head and close your eyes, and one of the things I wanted to remind us is that when we bow your head and close your eyes, it's not commanded in scripture, it's a tradition that we have developed. The word Trinity is something that we believe, but the word Trinity is not in the Bible. The theology behind it is in scripture. Infant baptism is, I've got the buzzer. Infant baptism is a supported tradition throughout the church in these denominations. There you go. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Mr. Foxman. Well, that's hard to keep for 15 minutes. Can I begin? I want to welcome everyone here tonight, and I appreciate you all coming out and spending time with us studying this very important subject. Because I believe in the doctrine of sola scriptura, that the Bible is our sole infallible rule for faith and practice as a Christian, I will seek to make all of my arguments from the text of the Bible itself, for in the end, neither my opinions, nor the opinions of my colleague, are of any real importance. Neither, really, are the traditions of history. What truly matters is what the Word of God says on any given subject. As such, I want to begin with our Lord's command on the subject of baptism. Matthew 28, verse 19, Jesus says these words, Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. It is important that we understand that both the Credo-Baptists and the Paedo-Baptists agree on what is called Believer's Baptism. That is to say that if either one were to share the Gospel with an unbeliever, and the unbeliever came to faith, that they would seek that this person then be baptized as an external expression of entrance into the New Covenant. As such, both would seek to fulfill the command of Matthew 28 and 19. The difference lies in that the credo-baptist stops there. In fact, this is the only situation in which a credo-baptist would perform the ordinance of baptism. This is where the term credo-baptism comes from. A creed, or a statement of faith in the work of Jesus Christ, is necessary prior to a person's being baptized. That's the credo-baptist position. And apart from a creed, apart from a statement of faith, no one is to be baptized in accordance with that understanding. The pedagogy, however, expands the command of baptism to be given not only to a believer, but also to the believer's infant children. Historically, there are various reasons for this practice. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that it is the sacrament of baptism which removes the taint of original sin. However, I know that this is not the position held by my colleague this evening, nor is it the position held by the Presbyterian Church, so I'm not going to deal with that particular issue. However, the historic Presbyterian view is that family solidarity is maintained when children are allowed to be part of the covenant community. Thus, the belief is that infants enter into the covenant community by virtue of having been baptized, and the baptism is a sign of the promise of God until such time as the child expresses a true and living faith. In this, we see that the ordinance of baptism is administered to a person who is effectively, in every way, an unbeliever, because they have yet come to a place in their maturity where they can hear and believe. Exegetically, I would submit to you that it is the credo-baptist position, and not the pedo-baptist position, which is in keeping with the command of Christ concerning baptism. He tells us to go, therefore, and make disciples. Now, if the command were to stop there, if he simply said, go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, It would hardly be difficult to understand his intended meaning. He wants us to go and make disciples. But I ask, of what groups can disciples be made? Well, certainly adults can be made disciples, teenagers can be made disciples, even small children can come to an understanding of their sin, God's grace, and their need of personal salvation and discipleship. However, certainly infants would not be included in this group of eligible disciples. Infants whose minds are yet undeveloped to the point of hearing and responding to the message of salvation, and would thereby be unable to exercise either repentance or faith, would certainly not be in the view of the command to go and make disciples. This becomes very important when we consider the fact that Jesus goes on to say that it is his disciples who are supposed to be baptized. The text says, go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them. And I would ask, who are the them? Who does the pronoun refer to? Obviously, based on the grammar of the sentence, the them in the sentence is the disciples. On a purely exegetical basis of Matthew 28 and 19, there is no doubt that the command of Jesus was the baptism of disciples. The question I then would ask is when, if ever, has this command expanded past disciples alone. The fact is that we do not ever see this command expanded or changed within the pages of Scripture. The consistent testimony of the New Testament is that one who receives baptism is the one who has made a confession of faith in Christ. Certainly we do see entire households baptized in the New Testament But we will also see, as we examine the text, that there is no exegetical basis whatsoever for concluding that these are baptisms of people who have not heard, repented, and believed in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, before we go further into the text of Scripture, I want to introduce you to a concept which many of you may be familiar with, but some of you may not. I want to give instruction on a principle that is usually considered to be a principle of Reformed theology, and since Presbyterians and our church both support what is called Reformed theology, this is something that I think we could probably agree on. And that is what is called the regulative principle. The regulative principle simply says that if the Bible does not command something to be done in worship, then that thing should not be done in worship. In the sense that the Bible clearly regulates Christian worship. The opposite teaching of the regulative principle is what's called the normative principle. The normative principle goes like this. It says as long as the Bible doesn't forbid something, then it's okay to do. You see how they work. The regular principle says the Bible has to command it for it to be done. The normative principle says as long as the Bible doesn't say you can't, then it's okay. The question is, which one of these is actually taught in the Bible? Do we see in Scripture that it is best to go ahead with whatever we want as long as the Bible doesn't forbid it? Or do we see that God has prescribed for us a specific way to worship Him, and that's the way that He ought to be worshipped? I would appeal to the Old Testament. We've already been reminded tonight that we are not just a New Testament believing church, but that we have an entire Bible. Well, I want to appeal to the Old Testament book of Leviticus and the 10th chapter. In the 10th chapter of the book of Leviticus, you have two men, their names were Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron. The sons of Aaron, the Bible says, offered up to God an unauthorized fire or an unauthorized offering. And the Bible says that because of this unauthorized offering, they lost their lives. And why does Moses say they lost their lives? Because they did not do what they were commanded to do, but rather did something that they were not commanded to do. That's the key. If we go outside of Scripture and begin doing things that we're not commanded to do, we have left Scripture, we have left the regulative principle behind, and we've started just sort of doing what we want to do, and saying, well, the Bible doesn't forbid it, so it's okay. That is a dangerous perch, indeed. The question is, again, if we look at this principle, and we apply this principle to Or rather, not to question, but when we apply this principle to infant baptism, we immediately recognize that we are not engaging in a practice that God has commanded. Nowhere in the New Testament is there a command, either implicit or explicit, to baptize an infant. The Bible simply does not give a regulation for such a practice. Now, my esteemed friend and colleague, whom I love, will likely use certain arguments for the establishment of infant baptism, as he already has. He's going to connect it to the Old Testament rite of circumcision and the concept of household baptisms in the New Testament. However, what he will be unable to do tonight is he will be unable to show any passage of Scripture that explicitly teaches the baptism of infants, because it just simply does not exist. Thus, if the regular principle is followed, that which is practiced in worship must be from the command of Scripture, then we must reject the practices of the Baptist. When we examine the textual data of recorded baptisms in the New Testament, what we see is a consistent testimony for its practice, which follows the command of Jesus. Jesus said, go, make disciples, and baptize them, and that's what we see in the Book of Acts. It follows the command. The apostles go. They make disciples, and as they make disciples, those disciples have been baptized. Acts chapter 2 and verse 37 and 38 have already been read for us tonight, so I don't need to read it again. Peter preaches. The people hear the message. They repent, and they say, what do we do? It says they're pricked in their hearts, which means they actually had a heart condition change. They were pricked in their hearts, and they look to Peter and say, what do we do? And he says, repent and be baptized. So those, and then it says in verse 41 of Acts chapter 2, so those who received his word were baptized and there were added that day 3,000 souls. Note that it says nothing of households, note that it says nothing of any unbelievers being baptized, and that it says nothing specifically of infants. This follows the pattern laid out by Jesus and the disciples were first made and then baptized. We can follow this consistent pattern throughout the book of Acts. The pattern is that a person hears the gospel, they repent of their sins, and they are baptized upon their profession of faith. In fact, the only places in the Bible where we find that this is not the way that that is accomplished, the only places we find it are in the places where we find what is called oikos, baptism, or the baptism of household, oikos being the Greek for household. The only places where they're really debated is where we see the household baptisms. These are the places in the New Testament where a person comes to faith and repents, and the Bible says their entire household joins them in baptism. However, in none of these places are there any mention of infants. Now, I have heard it argued. My colleague did not argue it tonight, but I want to reference something that I heard, simply because I think it's important. I have heard it argued that logic dictates that these households must have had infants in them. And my response to that would be, by whose logic? If I went around and took a poll tonight of how many households we have here that actually have infants, I imagine the vast majority do not. To say that a household automatically indicates the having of an infant is to read something into the text that is not necessarily there. Furthermore, for the sake of examination, let us look at some of these household baptisms and then ask the question, do we see a household that has an infant? Look first at the Philippian jailer. The Philippian jailer, Acts 16, verse 30. We know the story. What's the story? The men are singing, and the earth quakes, and the jailer thinks that they've escaped. He goes in, and he asks them, and he falls under their feet because his heart has been changed, and he says, Men, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Repent, or they said, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, thou shalt be saved, and you'll be in your household. And people have taken that to say, well, see, by the faith of the jailer, his household then receives salvation. And we absolutely understand that that is not the way to read that text, because the Bible says that salvation is by faith alone. Not that your faith can influence my salvation, or my dad's faith can influence my salvation, but that my salvation is based on a relationship between myself and Jesus Christ, which is established through faith. So, when it says, you and your household will be saved, the implication then is by virtue of them hearing the same gospel that he has heard, and by believing in the same Jesus that he has believed in, they too will be saved. This is why it says later that he was baptized along with his household, but I want you to notice one portion of the text. It says, talking about the jailer and taking Paul back to his home, it says, then he brought them up into his house and set food before them, and he, talking of the jailer, rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God. My question, would they have rejoiced with him? Would they have rejoiced with him had they not shared the same faith? Why would they rejoice along with him if they did not also receive? a belief in Christ. Do families normally rejoice along with believers when they convert, if they are yet still unbelievers? No, most families reject that person, because they have yet to come to faith. Another thing that is often said, well, what about Lydia? The Seller of Purple, the woman in the Book of Acts. It says she was baptized and so was her household. Again, I ask the question, where do we find infants in the story of Lydia? Lydia is a woman who is likely not married. How do you get that from the text? She invites men into her home as a hostess, which would have been reserved for the husband to do, were he there in the home. Likewise, she is a traveling saleswoman. She is a woman who is a businesswoman, not likely to be a woman who is nursing an infant. So we see here, to make the argument that she has an infant in the home is to isotope the text, or to read something into the text that clearly is not there. I want to finish with this thought because, again, it'll be a two-minute morning and I'm not near the end, so I'll hurry and hasten to the end. I want to end with this thought. What does it mean when we hear the term household baptism? Well, I want to paint you a picture of what I think household baptism looks like. I will imagine a man, Mr. Smith, coming into Sovereign Grace Family Church, hearing the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ for the first time, and going back to his home and sharing that same gospel which has converted his heart with his wife, his two teenage children, and his mother who lives in the home with him. He's excited about the gospel. His heart has been changed by the gospel. And upon hearing the gospel, his family hears the gospel, and they too believe and are saved. And they come to me and they say, we have believed. And I say, well, based upon your profession of faith, let us now baptize you. That is household baptism. And it happens more often than you might have said. Thank you. Thank you for coming. Each individual will now have ten minutes to make rebuttal statements. Is there a way to make the mic not so hot? There we go. Okay. Thank you. Awesome. Thank you. My brother shared a lot of things that I agree with, and I'm glad that he pointed out some of the points, some of the Presbyterian beliefs. There's sort of two branches of Presbyterian, and one is a little more fundamentalist, and the other one is a little less evil, kind of out there. And also, one point that the Presbyterian Church has a tendency to fall back on is the teachings of John Calvin. And in reality, I was, as a Presbyterian at the time, I was quite surprised to discover that John Calvin didn't really seem to be 100% Calvinist. That his followers were the ones that expanded the theology beyond that. But I say, in my beliefs, that I have found that I am a little more Calvinist, and by the word Calvinist, I'm a little more Calvinist than I'm quite able to understand, to explain why. And what I mean by that is, I really see the sovereignty and the grace of God at work, and how that fits with faith. I don't always 100% understand. I just know that God reached down and grabbed me. I know that I made a decision. I remember my Baptist answer of, when did you get saved? I remember the day that I really felt the love of Christ. But a good Presbyterian answer would be, when were you saved? And the Presbyterian answer is, 2,000 years ago on the cross, when Jesus died for my sins. Even that tongue-in-cheek answer is only a partial answer because really God is outside of time. God existed before he created time, before he created the earth, before the sun and rotation and all of these things. So even that, God gave us everything and the sovereignty of God is in that he knows us before we ever chose him. Let me pause on that point. I'll get back to that point in just a minute. Let me go back to talking a little bit about the sovereignty of God and fall back in line. J. I. Packard states in Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God What the New Testament calls for is faith in, or into, or upon Christ Himself. The placing of our trust in the living Savior who died for sins, the object of saving faith is thus not, strictly speaking, the Atonement, but the Lord Jesus Christ who made the Atonement. We must not, in presenting the Gospel, isolate the cross and its benefits from the Christ whose cross it was. This salvation that I mentioned before, 2,000 years ago, salvation is from the Yeshua HaMashiach. It is from Jesus, the Messiah, the Creator. It is from God in the beginning, the Ruach, the Spirit of God, that hovered over the waters. Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, was, is, and always will be. And bringing us back to the Trinity, I remember earlier I talked about how the Trinity is not a scriptural word, that bowing your head and closing your eyes is not a scriptural issue. The theology of the Trinity is scripture, but that word is not in there. It is a tradition. And I wanted to clarify that traditions are not bad. The worship of traditions are very bad. Jesus came and gave heck to the people, the priests of the day, because they were worshipping the traditions. There's many traditions that we have that are not bad, such as the bowing of the head and closing the eyes. The infant baptism has a long tradition. As early as AD 400, Augustine appeals to the universal practice of infant baptism. Tertullian mentions the practice in conjunction with sponsors who would aid in the child's spiritual training. Though Baptists typically claim a lineage different from the traditions of the world, predominantly Christianity came from four cities. the Greek, the Eastern, the Russian, and the Roman. And when the Roman city, the Roman church, proclaimed itself the authority above all others, and became the Roman Catholic Church, for many years, this was the only denomination, the only church that you were able to be a part of. And that this church, that Origen, Augustine, Cyprian, a whole bunch of other guys that are hard to pronounce, the Council of Melodists, the Council of Trent, Erasmus, they are Tertullian. They have spoken of infant baptism. Some of them have spoken against it. And the point is, that means that it was happening. that they were doing infant baptism. So there is a tradition of infant baptism. And something I discovered in my research, which I thought was interesting, because the Presbyterian church is known for sprinkling, and the Baptist is known for dunking. The Orthodox church actually does full immersion of infants. I was like, wow. So Google it. It's kind of neat to watch. It's kind of cool. My brother Paul said that traditions of history are unimportant, and I understand that. I understand that we are to rely on scripture. I think that we come from the different base of where our belief on salvation is, and I understand that the idea of faith but when you connect it to everything that has happened in the Old Testament coming through the ages that God has done, because God does not change that God adopted children into the covenant, into the Jewish covenant and that the Baptist theology usually makes this rift of this Old Covenant passing and the New Covenant coming that This new covenant, as I've seen in Jesus taking commandments and making them, raising the bar, so that the covenant, I think that Jesus was the fulfillment of this and made it grander and bigger and filled more of God's promises. In the Old Testament, it tells us to not commit adultery. Jesus came along and said, yes, you're not supposed to commit adultery, but you're not even just supposed to lust of the eye, that it is beyond this, that the old covenants have not, they're not just deleted, but it is, Jesus is this fulfillment, and that these, the idea of adoption into the covenant by children is scriptural. and that I agree with my brother that the salvation is in what has been adopted as the tradition where you come forward at an age of understanding and you demonstrate this faith that you have of Christ and you have already been baptized. So I understand both points and I think that's That's it. The regulative principle, I'm probably going to get buzzed out here, but the regulative principle, the Bible must command it. I think there are a number of things that we could look at that aren't commanded that we do. and have no problem with it. The order of our service, the liturgy, which songs are sung, the fact that they're singing. Some churches don't agree, and even instruments in the service, because it's not commanded in the New Testament. There's not talk of instruments, and we use instruments in our worship. I think with reason, we can look at these. And I will end on a good note. I agree with my brother that the purpose of us here, again, is to remind us that we are for baptism, that it is a good thing around. Thank you very much. I did say that the traditions are unimportant. And in fact, when you reminded me of that, I had to go back and look at my notes to make sure that is what I said. And I want to clarify that as I give my remarks. When I say that traditions are unimportant, I guess I should clarify that by saying that I believe that the traditions that we have, which are formulated outside of any doctrinal, or excuse me, rather, biblical foundation, any tradition that is founded on anything other than the foundation of scripture, is a man-made, and thus man-centered, tradition. It is not founded on scripture, and those are the traditions I'm specifically referencing as being unimportant. And it is the same as what Jesus said, that he said that the reason why the Pharisees were in such bad shape was that they were teaching as doctrines the traditions of men. So I feel like I've been keeping the price and saying that about man-centered, man-created traditions. I want to reference in my rebuttal specifically the connection between baptism and circumcision. I agree that in the old covenant, the sign of entrance into the covenant was circumcision. Likewise, I agree that the sign of entrance into the new covenant is baptism. However, as far as a connection between the two goes, I believe that's as far as you can go. In fact, the Bible never makes a direct and clear connection between baptism and circumcision that is often assumed by those who espouse infant baptism. Furthermore, while many propose the idea that baptism has somehow replaced circumcision, I would contend that if such were the case, that that would have been expressly stated in Scripture. In fact, there is a place in the Bible where I would say this would naturally have been included if that were in fact the truth. And at chapter 15, during the Jerusalem Council, the question of whether or not a believer had to be circumcised was raised by those of the circumcision party. At chapter 15, verse 1, it says that some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers that unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. Now, if baptism had replaced circumcision, it seems only natural that that would have been the point. That they would have said, hey, you've misunderstood this entire situation. Your baptism is now your circumcision. Your baptism has taken place. However, the Council did not do this, but instead they demonstrated that the Gentiles would be saved by faith in the work of Christ, as were the Jews. Baptism is mentioned neither explicitly nor implicitly in this passage. It is silent in regard to any connection between baptism and circumcision, and I would submit that if such a connection did exist, that this would be the most natural place for it to be included in the text. Furthermore, I want to examine a passage which my brother referenced, and that is Colossians 2, verse 11, where it says, In him, in Christ, you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. Something that needs to be mentioned about Colossians chapter 2 verse 11 is that it actually mentions two different types of circumcision. Now, most of us are very familiar with the first type, the circumcision made with hands. That is the circumcision that's talked about in the Old Testament. It's a physical circumcision that's done to male children at the age of eight days old. We're pretty familiar with that. However, the New Testament references a second type of circumcision, and that is the circumcision of the heart. Romans chapter 2 and verse 29. And in this passage, Colossians chapter 2, what we are seeing is we are seeing a reference to both circumcisions. The circumcision made with hands and the circumcision made without hands. And the question is, what does baptism symbolize? Does baptism correlate to the circumcision with hands? Or does baptism correlate to the circumcision made without hands? Well, it's clear from the passage. It says, by putting off the body of flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, this is the circumcision that's made without hands. What is the circumcision made without hands, beloved? It is regeneration. What is regeneration? Regeneration is what we commonly call being born again. When a person is regenerated, or born again, The natural accompanying sign is baptism. Baptism has not replaced physical circumcision. Baptism accompanies spiritual circumcision. That's what this text teaches. That's what baptism is. And a person who has not had a heart change, a person who has not been regenerated, which I would contend and submit, an infant cannot, because they do not have that ability. to believe would not be in accord with this particular passage. I do not argue that there is a link between circumcision and baptism, but only in this sense. Circumcision was a sign and seal of physical birth into the family of Abraham. Baptism is a sign and seal of spiritual birth into the family of God. Now, what's my time? Four minutes, wow, time to go on to something else. What about the assertion that infant baptism was the tradition practiced for centuries of church history? That's what we've also heard that presented, that circumcision, or rather, excuse myself, baptism is the way, sorry, infant baptism was practiced For centuries in the church, it was the tradition as such which should be readily accepted. I want to first say that that is an awfully dangerous position for a Protestant to take, because that's the argument that was used by the Roman Catholic Church when the Protestant Reformation first happened. They said, hey, we've been doing this for 2,000 years, 1,500 years. We've been doing this. So long, who are you to say that this is incorrect? This is the tradition, and as such, it cannot be questioned. So for a Protestant to make that same argument in regards to infant baptism seems to be a pretty precarious person. Indeed. Because I've already conceded that the point of baptism is not that it saves an individual, I can also say that no person who has ever been baptized as an infant has had their salvation imperiled as a result. Thus, for the centuries, when it was the only practiced method of baptism, it did nothing to condemn the souls of those who received it. However, I will quickly add that this in no way should be an argument for its continuance. Just because my son does not die while playing in traffic does not mean that I would encourage his further participation in the activity. In fact, once shown the error of his ways, my hope would be that my son would reject playing in traffic and come on into our yard. Oh, that wasn't mine. That was somebody else's. Likewise, I would say the same to my paedo-dietist brethren. Just because the history of the Church overwhelmingly records the practice of infant baptism does not make it correct. The same could be said for the veneration of Mary, the prayers to the saints, the participation in priestly confession, and submission to the Pope. None of these practices would be supported by the Reformed community, particularly the Presbyterian Church, yet all of them have hundreds of years of history. Furthermore, it could be argued that even though there is a historical precedent for the practice of infant baptism, there is no biblical mandate, and the evidence of the early church is tenuous at best. According to the Didache, the Didache being the earliest church manual of instruction that we have outside of scripture, instructions for baptism imply that it was something that was done to believers, adults, well, people old enough to believe. I want to quote from the Dedicate, if I could, on the subject of baptism. It says, before the baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any others who can't. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand." Certainly, no one would argue that this requirement for fasting was not to be met by infants. This was for people who had confessed faith in Christ. And this was for people who could say, I believe I'm going to fast on my profession of faith, meditate upon it, as such when I enter the waters of baptism, I enter the waters of baptism fully understanding and fully prepared for the sign which I am choosing to receive. Thank you. For the cross-examination, each individual has ten minutes to question his opponent. And Mr. Smith, we're going to let you begin the questioning. You'll have ten minutes, and then Mr. Thompson, you will reciprocate. You ready? Yes. Mr. Smith, you may begin. I guess I would start off with, as I expected, my brother Keith has made some very good arguments, and I would say even to the point that many in the Presbyterian Church have had issue with some of the theology that of us, and as I mentioned before about John Calvin not being quite fully Calvinist, is you take some of these ideas and you stretch them farther than they should be stretched becomes challenging. And I would say that We have succeeded already in our goal in many ways of presenting a general idea of the differences in the two, and I hope that you have already come to draw closer and prayerfully through the Holy Spirit have come to a greater understanding of either your belief and or the opposite belief so that you can minister to one another or even to unbelievers. He mentioned that it was adult baptism, and that's why I didn't mention it, because I read that too. But I would say that that is mentioning tradition, and that he brought up how the errors of the Roman Catholic Church, and that by bringing up these ideas of the Roman Catholic Church, bring up the failings of the Roman Catholic Church. And I would agree, but we also have failings in our churches today. My question for Brother Keith is, would you expound on the, and I give you a little freedom with this question of expounding, is, would you expound on the idea of that so many denominations follow infant baptism, that it's such a wide and practiced tradition that, would you expound on your difference of that understanding? I would say that most of the world practices I would agree 100% that the vast majority of Protestant churches practice in the back. So there would be no disagreement. Yet at the same time, for 1,500 years, it could also be, well, let me back that up, for over 1,000 years, It could have been said that the vast majority of the church practiced veneration of the Pope. So to necessarily correlate the idea of majority rule, I think, would be a little dangerous direction to go. However, if you ask me why they practice infant baptism, I would say that it is the, and I'm going to mention this in my closing argument, but I'm going to say it now. I think that infant baptism is the great vestigial organ of the process of Reformation. I think it's the one holdover that we just did not go far enough with. And that's why I believe that we're still reforming. That we're still in the Reformation. because there are holdovers from Roman Catholicism. There are holdovers from tradition, which are not Biblical tradition. You know, the cry of the Reformation was, Sola Scriptura. The Bible alone is the sole and fallible rule for faith and practice for a Christian. And yet, there were traditions that even some of my heroes, one of my great heroes, Martin Luther, I know that Martin Luther said and did things that I would probably disagree with, but he was willing to stand up against everyone of his day, almost, and proclaim truth. And I think that for that he deserves a hero's response. But yet at the same time, there were things that I think were such a traditional hold off for him that he was unwilling to give up. And I want to go further on your question. I don't mean to take all your time, but I do want to go further, because even though You would argue, and I would agree, that the vast majority of Protestant denominations would, or the vast majority of people who call themselves Christians practice anti-Baptism. I would contend that the vast majority of these denominations do not agree as to the reason why Roman Catholicism would say it would be for the removal of the tainted original sin. Lutherans would agree that there is a certain challenge to original sin that happens when infants are baptized. Presbyterians would believe it's because of family solidarity. And the Anglican Church would argue that because the church is officially a state church, that this is entrance into citizenship as a part of being baptized. So I think there are all different kinds of reasons for the reasoning for it. But I think that all of these are anachronistic. I think all of these are looking back into history and saying, well, we baptize infants. Why? And we come up with different reasons for it. And that's why there is no uniformity as to the reason why we do baptisms of infants among prostitutes. Excellent. Thank you. Colossians two, eleven, eleven through twelve. You made a discussion that circumcision of about the circumcision of the heart. Colossians New Testament. That is. that you say that there is a connection between circumcision and a heart with baptism, not just physical circumcision. And I would make my argument, or see if I can put this into a question like Jeopardy, is how does the belief that that's what God wanted us always. He always wanted our heart. He didn't want sacrifice. He didn't want, as Presbyterians would call, the work of faith, the gift of faith. How would you respond to that circumcision of the heart is what God always wanted, and that it wasn't a new thing. And you have two minutes, he said, to answer. I agree 100% that circumcision of the heart is something that is also an Old Testament concept. Circumcision of the heart, this is why I think that in the, if you want to call it the dissensation of grace, I don't know if dissensation was a movie, but if you want to call it the dissensation of grace, when Christ came, He's still preaching in an Old Covenant situation. The New Covenant is not made, of course, and is not fulfilled until it's sacrificed. So when he's preaching, he's preaching in an Old Covenant situation, and he preaches about the He preaches about the fact that you must be born again to Nicodemus and John 3. When he preaches, you must be born again, he's still in Old Testament context. He's still saying, even now, you must be born again. Regeneration is not only a New Testament concept. I believe Abraham was a sinner, dead in his sins, and he had to be regenerated. So yes, I believe circumcision of the heart, which is, I would equate to regeneration. I don't know if you'd agree with that. I guess I'm going to ask you that in my context. But the point is, If circumcision of the physical body is equivalent to circumcision of the heart, then I would say that yes, then it equates to baptism. But I don't think that circumcision of the physical body was equivalent to circumcision of the heart because circumcision of the physical body was for the purpose of demonstrating who were members of the covenant, which included, it was an external mark of an external covenant. The Old Testament covenant included land promises and blessings. The New Testament covenant also includes a land promise, but it is a land in the hereafter. It is not a physical land that's here now. Which is why we can't, as Christians, by virtue of our baptism, go over to Israel and say, hey, I want that plot of land right there. Because if we did that, we'd probably regret it. It's my time to say that it's going to take some water. All right. I'm going to ask you a lot of questions that are probably going to have sorts of answers. But maybe you might you might want to dwell on some. I don't know. But very quickly, can you cite any particular passage of Scripture which explicitly commands baptism of an insect? I've got to take my time. Would you agree that the vast majority of the accounts of baptism in scripture include also a reference to a professional faith from the person receiving baptism? Would you agree that the vast majority of the accounts of baptism in scripture, those times when we read about people being baptized, that there is also accompanying with that baptism an account that they're believing, an account of their professional faith? I would just have to say yes. There's some clarification. Would you agree that the few times when household baptisms are mentioned, I believe it's seven, but I could be wrong on that number. I think there are seven times when household baptisms are mentioned, that it is just as likely that the house did not have an infant as it had an infant. And yes. Now, getting back to the regulative principle, because I felt like you were going to challenge that, and I wanted you to, a little bit, because I think it's an important principle. Do you think that the regulative principle, that we should only do those things in worship which are explicitly or implicitly commanded in scripture, should be followed? No. Do you think that a gap in five violated the regulated principle? And what is the jailer? Which one? Which one was it? Negev and Abihu, when they offered up the strange fire to the Lord. Was that in violation of the regulative principle? Because they did what the Lord had not commanded them to do? I don't remember that verse completely. I remember you read it. To me, it seems like it's a parallel to a heart condition. They were carrying the Ark of the Covenant, and it went to fall over, and the dude sticks his hand out, this biblical dude. He sticks his hand out to keep the Ark of the Covenant from falling, which you would think is a good thing, and God strikes him dead. He wasn't following what he was supposed to do, but the reason he didn't follow the command was because his heart was not in the right place. That it was a show, oh look, I'm saving the ark, even though all the other things that I've done were wrong. So I would say that it is a, yes they did not follow what they were commanded, Is the historic Presbyterian, does the historic Presbyterian Church teach the regular principle? And if it's OK, I don't know. And again, I don't want to go any further with the question than that, because my next question is going to be doesn't that seem about it? Let's put one past that. I think I think we've gone far enough. OK. According to the concept of household baptism, Is it correct to say that the children of at least one believer should be baptized to maintain family solidarity? I remember reading about this, and there were clarifications and exceptions and long, detailed explanations of possible exceptions to this, but they seemed like they were really twisted, so I would say, you know, Yes. In general, yes. If you had one believing parent, the infant would be baptized. If a man came to faith and he had a child who was an older child, let's say 16, just for a random number, would that child be baptized to maintain family solidarity? If a man came to faith and he had children, and his child was 16 years old, would the teenage child be baptized simply to maintain family solidarity? That's a good question. I would probably say no. And then my next question is going to be, if the older child rejected faith in Christ, would they be baptized? No. Do Presbyterians normally support the holding back of the Lord's Supper to believers only? It depends on the Presbyterian Church. The DCA, the conservative branch of the Presbyterian Church, do they fence the table for believers? I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think they do. I'm getting dyslexic. It's for believers. But the PCUSA is more open, it's pointed, it's explained for believers. I'm going to ask you a personal question since you have a long history of faith. Do you believe that the Lord's table is for believers only? I do. I understand the idea of having love, and I heard a person explain that Jesus wouldn't deny anybody to a table to eat with him, but there's a lot more to the symbolism and to the meaning behind it. Why is it not inconsistent that a church would support a profession of faith for one covenantal sign, And not for. That's that's good. I would say that. I have. Adopted this. Trying to get my my guts in a row here. I think that the The signs and seals, as we have said, I would adopt for my family. My daughter takes communion with us. So I guess I'm kind of reversing myself on that. And we had our daughters baptized when they were children. Sometimes we fall into the traditions of the church and doing what they do, I have less issue with I usually can worship God no matter what church I'm at or not church. So whether they got dumped as a child, whether they eat a piece of bread, whether it's wine or whether it's grape juice, I am in communion with God sitting in this room or in any place. I hope that clarified. I don't think I have time for my next question, so I'm ready now for closing statements. Mr. Austin. Well, time has come and gone much quicker than I imagined that it would, but we limit ourselves in time so that we stay focused in the debate. It is very easy to chase rabbits when we want to stay focused on the subject at hand. Many of you have come this evening with competing opinions. on this very important and divisive topic, and it is possible that if you came tonight already convinced on one side or the other that you're possibly going to leave just as convinced as you were when you came. However, it is my hope that this time has been used to encourage you to take a deeper look at this important subject. It seems in our time in history And it's become the cardinal sin within the Church to take strong stands on issues, especially if we proclaim that one side is correct and another side is incorrect. Yet, from the very beginning of the Church, we see that that is modeled by Christ Himself. Jesus was not opposed to standing against the traditions of His day and proclaiming their errors. In fact, most of His time that we read in Scripture was done preaching to correct doctrinal errors which had crept in among the Jewish people. His most famous sermon, the Sermon on the Mount, has this formula. You have heard it said this, but I tell you this. Beloved, my goal tonight has been to say, you have heard it said that it is appropriate to baptize infants, but I tell you that the Bible commands the baptism of disciples alone. I believe that the position held by Paedo-Baptists is not one that can be defended by Scripture, and I pray that I have demonstrated this during my time this evening. Why, then, do we continue to see this in the vast majority of Protestant churches? Why do we see this willingness to baptize infants if, in fact, the biblical support for such a practice is so weak? This is a question he rightly asked. My only answer is this. Tradition is a very hard thing to give up. This has been the one tradition from the Roman Catholic Church which the Protestant movement has been largely unwilling to jettison. We were willing to give up the veneration of the Pope as the picker of Christ. We were willing to give up the prayers to Mary and to the other saints. We were willing to give up the doctrine of transubstantiation and the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice. We were willing to give up the model of priesthood and confession which is found in the Roman Catholic Church. Yet even though we were willing to give up all of these things, one traditional holdover stood firm, and that is the baptism of infants. I believe that infant baptism is the great vestigial organ of the Protestant Reformation. It is one of the remaining holdovers from a time when the heirs of Rome were recognized and largely repented over. And in this sense, I believe the Reformation is not over. I have some who have questioned me as being truly Reformed. in my theology. They have said that because I do not believe in infant baptism, that I would not fit within the classical definition of what it means to be a Reformed theologian. Yet I would contest that the very heart of Reformed theology is the cry of sola scriptura. Scripture alone is the sole and fallible rule for faith and practice, and because I can find no evidence in Scripture for this practice, and I remain unconvinced, I can confidently assert that I am following in the footsteps of my Reformation forefathers, even though I understand many of them would have disagreed with me vehemently. I believe I am following in their footsteps because the heart of the Reformation is the idea of semper reformanda, we are to always be reforming. I believe that the process of Reformation was one of the most important events in the history of the Christian Church. Yet I do believe the area of baptism is one place where the Reformation did not go far enough. We still have the holdover of infant baptism, and I would submit to you that this is one area where I believe a reevaluation needs to be made within the Protestant Church as a whole, and Reformation needs to continue. I will conclude with a reminder that the Reformation was found on five statements of faith, each one being marked by the word alone. Salvation is by grace alone, and it is found in Christ alone. Justification is by faith alone, and the Bible alone is our sole and fallible rule of faith and practice. And the church exists for the glory of God alone. I believe firmly in those five statements, yet in the spirit of the evening I want to One more. On the basis of Scripture alone, we should teach the baptism of disciples alone. God bless you. I'm honored to be here tonight. And in my closing, I guess it would be a cry of my heart that I see the preserving of God's ways of God not changing. And that is the point that leans me to the understanding of infant baptism. I have a difficulty time arguing many of the things that my brother in Christ has said. He's always been a smart cookie. I find comfort and strength and peace in the sovereignty of God And when I discovered the Old Testament, I found a renewal of my faith. And again, I'm kind of talking about the further Baptist idea that has a tendency to be more of the half-Bible and pointing to only things in the New Testament. except for a good painting of Noah with the animals. They were never seen to paint the drowning people in the nursery. That God is sovereign, and that he is the founder of faith. And to me, I don't see how the water, I'm not saying my brother believes this, but I don't see how the water is what makes this transformation. It is commanded to us. We are commanded to believe. And I find no difficulty with baptizing my child into the covenant with a covenant from me, with a promise, as in the Presbyterian Church, the whole concept of godfathers, of godparents, that we commit, we promise to raise this child up in the faith that this is a covenant with us, as God made a covenant. I think it was Sproul that said, some people kept asking me, what is your life verse? And he's like, well, it's the whole Bible, but if there was one verse, it's Genesis 15-17, I think. Remember the smoking pot that went through the middle of the animals? He's having a dream, and he sees a smoking pot going through the animals. When you understand what's behind it, when a greater king would conquer a lesser king, the lesser king would walk between the halves of animals, symbolically saying, If I do wrong, if I do not keep this covenant, make me like these animals cut in half. The point of this verse that Sproul was saying is that God was the one that passed through the halves of the animals. That His covenant is everlasting. And these are the things that point me to these covenants of raising our children up in the faith. I think that pretty much summarizes my point. I can say that in my studies that there was I learned a lot, and looking at the different traditions, the different histories, and the theology behind it. I think that it has been a good thing for us to gather together and to open the Word of God and to draw closer to Him in by having this discussion. And I pray that if you haven't been baptized and you came here to understand better, or maybe you were baptized as a child and you want to understand better the theology behind it, or you have a Roman Catholic friend I have discovered, wow, many people do not understand what their denomination teaches. I've heard many of Pastor Foskey's sermons online, and he teaches you what he believes, and from his heart. You are blessed to have this. I know that many years I was in churches, I've been in some different churches, and as a prison chaplain, working in the Christian music industry, I have met so many people that do not understand their own faith. And that's all I can say to you, is please continue to study and research your own faith, and Read the stuff from the people that oppose you. It will help you to understand what you believe even better. So that's my admonishment to you, is to study what you believe. And I think you have done that. You have done that tonight. You've done it very well, and I'm expounding on Scripture. So, there you go. Thank you very much. We're going to go ahead and get started with the question and answer time. There's been a lot of questions submitted. And so what Mike and I have decided is that there are a handful of questions that we think were explicitly addressed during the discussion. So for the sake of time, we're going to set those aside. If for some reason we don't get to your questions, you're welcome to ask either of these gentlemen during the fellowship time. They'll be glad to discuss with you whatever happens to be on their mind. OK? But I know there's food in there, and I'd like to eat. I'm sure you would, too, so we'll try to make this short and sweet. Fair enough? OK. I see you all with your glasses on. This one is a good one. Hopefully you should read the scripture for the benefit of the answer. All right, Mr. Pops, we want to begin with you. You mentioned several times the relative and normative positions. Yes. And if I understand you correctly, the regulative principle states that we are to do only that which is explicitly commanded in scripture. I would say explicitly or implicitly commanded. I would say implicitly. Well, let's take, for example, a typical service. We're not given in scripture explicit or implicit instruction about the length of the service, about the order of the service, about whether instruments are used, whether we're required to meet in a home or a church building. So the question is, is it possible to strictly apply the regulative principle in living out and practicing Christianity? I think that it is, but I want to address two things in regard to the question. Number one, my reason for bringing up the regulative principle is because it is a historic, as far as I understand it, it is historically a Calvinistic or Presbyterian principle. So in the debate against Presbyterianism, against infant baptism, if they are trying to apply the regulative principle, infant baptism, in my understanding of regular principle, would not apply. So I'm using it more so that do I say it's an absolute, as to say if they're saying it's an absolute, then they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. They're going against their own understood tradition. So that's the first reason for applying the regular principle. Secondly, I do think the regulative principle can be applied because it's not something that is saying that every aspect of life has to be something that is found explicitly or implicitly in scripture. It is speaking specifically to worship. And you mentioned times of worship as an issue. Well, the very nature of the fact that we are commanded to worship indicates that there's going to be times where that happens. Whether or not it's a length of time that is found in scripture, I think, is trying to push the principle too far. The principle is seeking that nothing that we do in worship is something that we do not find prescribed for us in scripture. For instance, we do find the singing of hymn songs and spiritual songs in scripture. We do find the use of instruments, albeit not in the New Testament, even though I could argue that songs, there are verses that reference music in the New Testament that could be references to musical instruments. But there are no explicit commands in the New Testament. We are not only a New Testament body, we have the entire scripture, which gives us the regular principle of worship. instruments are used in worship, particularly string instruments, cymbals, things like that. Prayer is a testimony of worship that we are commanded to do. Even the acts of reciting Scripture in a liturgical format can be found in Scripture, as in the Old Testament, they use the Psalms as liturgies, they use the Psalms as prayers. So I would say yes, we would find these things. And the things that are in worship that are not found in scripture, I don't think we should do. So yeah, I think in that sense we could apply the regular principle. Mr. Smith, we've got a couple of questions, basically dealing with the same topic, so we're kind of summarizing both and let you address that. You mentioned in your discussion of infant baptism that the practice of infant baptism does not in any way the Presbyterian Church is recognizing the salvation of that infant. So would it be more proper to have a baby dedication service as opposed to a baptism? I understand that the dedication would remove what the Presbyterians call the sign and seal, which is this symbol that connects with the covenant. So having a dedication without the symbol would not symbolize adoption into the panic, into the coven. Did I answer it? Well, if you didn't think we'd come by, you'd find us. Email me. All right, one of the questions we received, and I'd like both of you to answer. Mr. Fox, you can go first, if you'd like. And you can toss a point, if you want to. How can an infant judge his own heart in order to be saved? If baptism is supposed to be an outward sign of a saved individual. Obviously Keith would say that it can't, and the Presbyterian would say that the infant can't only get the wording right. Would you read it again, please? It says, how can an infant judge his own heart? Because the question is, isn't baptism an outward sign of a saved person? Yes, that's the Baptist belief. The infant cannot make that decision. The parents are making the promise to raise the child up, and then when they are of the age of reason, then they would confirm their faith in the covenant through the community. And the Presbyterians do that through confirmation. Can you read it one more time? I want to make a point about the question. The question is, isn't baptism an outward sign of a safe person? And if so, then how can anyone judge his own heart? That question is assuming that baptism is an outward sign of faith. That is, as John said, the view of the credo baptist. So the question is assuming an answer. It's not an unfair question, but it is. It's sort of like asking, you know, when did you stop feeding your wife? It's automatically assuming an end, you know, rather than asking the question. Yeah, maybe that was a horrible example. I'm sorry. That question assumes an ending and assumes that the faith is the baptism expression of faith. The Presbyterian view would say baptism is not an expression of faith. Baptism is a sign of entrance into the covenant. And because a person of faith enters into the covenant, that his child is also able to come into the covenant, because in the Old Testament that's the way it was. If an adult entered the covenant, then a child would enter the covenant. And that's what the Presbyterian would say, is that the New Testament simply follows the tradition of the Old Testament. I don't need to be explaining. So yes, I would agree with the question, but I would say also that the question is assuming its own answer. So that would be somewhat of an unfair question. Okay, Mr. Smith, this next question quotes Romans 2.25, so I'm going to go ahead and read that at least. For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the law, but if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So here's the question. If an infant is a suitable candidate for baptism and is baptized, then how would you explain Romans 2.25? Read it again. I'm a visual learner. Go ahead and read it while I'm looking it up. The text says, for indeed, circumcision is of value if you practice the law. But if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. And so the question then is, if an infant is a suitable candidate for baptism and is baptized, how would you explain Romans 2.25? Well, for one thing, I'd like to look further into the end of the scripture. And the way it's presented, it does give a difficult response. I guess at the point I would say I'm not sure how to how to answer it. And I like this kind of sets it. And this is the message translation, which is kind of like the yo, let's talk translation. It makes it really kind of simple. If you're brought up Jewish, and so I guess that's bringing up, narrowing the response into a Jewish person, and it's connecting it long before. Circumcision, the surgical ritual that marks you as a Jew, is great if you live in accord with God's law. But if you don't, it's worse than not being circumcised. The reverse is also true. The uncircumcised who keep God's ways are as good as the circumcised. In fact, better to keep God's law uncircumcised than break the circumcised. Don't you see? It's not the cut of a knife that makes you a Jew. You become a Jew by who you are. It's the mark of God on your heart. And I would say that Mark would be a reference to Simon Seale, not of a knife on your skin that makes a Jew. And recognition comes from God, not legalistic tricks. And so I would say you look deeper. And the way that reads, I have a hard time answering it. I think the premise of the question, and I don't know if it's from a guess, but this person's intent, is that if circumcision can become uncircumcision, can baptism become un-baptism, essentially? Can an individual who has been baptized into the Presbyterian covenant relationship with the Church, can they be seen in an un-Baptized role in the same way that a circumcised individual could be viewed as uncircumcised by becoming transgressor of the law? Like losing your faith, losing your salvation? The Calvinist answer would be that God has his elect, that he has that He has chosen, and that He knows who will be saved. And that there will be people that make profession of faith that are not saved. They'll say, Lord, Lord, but they're not saved. They're not the elect. We don't know who that is, and God has the sovereignty to to choose, he has this opportunity to know. How that works, I don't quite know. One of the things in my years of study is that, though there's many things I disagree with about the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church puts an emphasis on mystery. And that there are many things that we cannot understand on this earth, and that we will not understand until we get to heaven. Mother Teresa, somebody asked her something about the poverty and destruction and death in the world, and how can you believe in God, and she says, well, I definitely have some questions for God when I get to Heaven. I want to know about some of this stuff. One Christian said that, I want to go to the seminar on sin and I want to go to some seminars in heaven and learn some stuff. I don't know if I fully, if I really answered the question, but I think as you look deeper into it, the way that reads, I have a little bit of a hard time answering it. Okay. Mr. Coste. Sir. If we are to, quote you, keep performing, personally I guess, or as a church, is this because we are to always be challenging religion or because God is changing? Good question. The Bible is clear that God is immutable, which young Reverend Stitt, my brother, has pointed out very clearly tonight, the immutability of God, that God is a changeless God, that He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Yet, at the same time, throughout the history of God's people, we have seen that there have been, and again, I hate to use the word distanciation, because I don't want to bring in dispensationalism, but there have been times where we see God Managing, that's the word dispensation comes from the word management, of stewardship, to dispense authority. We see God managing man according to his condition. Man's condition in the garden prior to the fall is different than man's condition in the garden after the fall. As such, God's relationship prior to the fall was one of walking with him in the cool of the day. Yet, after the fall, there is a wall of sin that separates man from God, and as such, Because of man's condition, there is a change in the way in which God deals with mankind. Prior to the coming of Christ, we have the Word of God held for us in signs and symbols which are in the Old Testament. The Old Testament, the Old Covenant, is a hugely symbolic exercise, wherein the Lamb of God, which is the Lamb which was put on the Passover fires during the night of Passover, symbolized the coming of Christ. When Christ came, we stopped putting the Lamb on the fire, because we have the fulfillment of that which is the Old Testament promise. As such, God does not change, but there is a fulfillment of what has been commanded to do. There is a fulfillment in the command to sacrifice. The great final sacrifices come. Hebrews chapter 8. tells us that Christ's sacrifice is made once for all, and as such there is no more need for animalistic sacrifices. We have that one final sacrifice which has been made. All other animal sacrifices led up to that. And when it came, there was a change in the stewardship of the world. There was a change in the management of the world. God himself does not change, but because our condition is now one of being in the church of Jesus Christ, his body, there has been a change in us. And as such, there have been ordinational changes. We've seen changes in the ordinances and how they are to be applied. OK, the last question is going to be for both of you, and I'm going to kind of take a different turn in discussing the issue of baptism. We have two individuals who submitted questions regarding communion. Children? Yes, children observing communion. And essentially, the question is this, at least I'm going to paraphrase based on what I think you're asking, is that what is the parent's responsibility to be certain that their children whom they allow to observe communion, which you recognize they are regenerated and able to observe communion first, what is the parent's responsibility to make sure that the children are observing communion appropriately, and if they are not, behaving as believers to step in? Mr. Smith, I'll direct it to you first. I guess an argument against my practice of having my daughter, my young four-year-old daughter participate in communion. I don't think it's a dedicate, but there is an early writing that explains a whole symbol of some, a whole liturgy of baptism, and I didn't bring it up because it talks about adults, but it has all of these symbols, and it makes a big, big deal of the First Communion. I won't relate the whole thing to you, but basically, you go through a couple of years of study and understanding service, you're kicked out halfway through it. You're not allowed to have communion because it is so special and so important to do it the right way with a right heart. and that this whole baptism, the whole church is fasting, they fasted all night long, there's an all night long service, and then just before sunrise, you come to the waters that have been anointed with oil, reflecting this fire that is a symbol of the gates of hell, that you're going into death, that you're baptized totally naked, without any clothes on, the guys and girls, etc. That you come out and put on this white robe and join the service that's already happening, and for the first time in years, you are allowed to participate in communion. So, you know, opposite of what I'm doing with my daughter. I do try to make it special, and in my family, we do things that point to this is something special. We visited a church, and they were kind of like, there's some communion stuff over here, you know, you ought to go down and get some of that. It's not quite how they said it, but it's not really far from how they did it. So I would say the answer to the question is through discipleship. We are priests of our household and we are to raise our kids up in the faith, we are to teach them, we are to educate them, we are to I can't quote the Bible verse, but you know, at the fence post, at the door stop, tied to your head, that's why the Jews have that funny little thing on their head, on their arm, all of those things are supposed to point them to God. So, through discipleship. That would be a really short answer to your question. I think this is one of the most important questions that parents have to wrestle with. And as a pastor, I get this question a lot, particularly as our church has grown in having young children in it. We now have more than ever parents who are asking the question. In fact, I'm actually in the process of writing a book in time of when should little Johnny be baptized? Because I think the question has become so common that I would rather give him something to read rather than try to enunciate the entire answer in one sitting. Because I do think it's an important question. I think that one of the things that as a person who teaches credo baptism, believers baptism, that we would have to say is that when a person makes a confession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and is baptized, they are entering the new covenant in the sense that they are making a public profession of being members of the new covenant. And as such, they are, at that time, very real members of church. And one of the things that we don't often talk about is the issue of church discipline. Church discipline is something that is not practiced by a lot of churches. And I think that it should be because the Bible clearly states that it is an important practice that maintains the sanctity of the church. And I don't think we should go around knocking people upside the head every time they do something wrong. I think that's bad. I do think that we should exercise a an enormous amount of grace, but yet at the same time, just as in First Corinthians chapter five, when Paul was writing and he said, look, you've got this thing going on. And it was a pretty heinous sin. We all know the story I'm talking about. And he says, and you've done nothing about it. Why? Why is this still going on? If I were there, I'm there in spirit. I've already judged it as being wrong. If I were there, this would have already been handled. And I think the church today has become very much lackadaisical in how we handle issues like that. And I only reference that because I go back to the issue of my children. Why is it that my children have both said they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and yet I have not encouraged them to go into the waters of baptism? Because, number one, I'm looking for evidence of repentance and faith. Number two, I am disciplining them, as I'm commanded to do, as Deuteronomy 6, by the way. But also, they are under my authority, and not the authority of the Church, at this moment. And if they fail, they fail under my authority and under my discipline, and not under the discipline of the Church. But when they join the Church, they are now under the authority of the church. As such, I have to consider that when they say, Daddy, why am I not being baptized? And I have to explain this to them. Now, further on that, why does my child not take communion? Because I believe that baptism is the first rite, the first, not rite, let me back up, is the first ordinance that we participate in as believers, that's believers baptism, and that communion is the Next, baptism is a one-time ordinance. Communion is a continual ordinance. It's a reminder for the body and blood of Jesus Christ. As such, if they haven't had the first, they certainly won't have the second. And that's an easy way for me to explain to them why they are not participating in communion. Thank you both for your time. And I appreciate it. May I say one last thing? I want to appreciate everybody who asked questions. You know, we are limited on time. I'm sorry that we could not get everything. I'm sure we'd love to just sit up here and chat all night and we will be chatting as time goes on. But thank you all who took time to ask questions. We appreciate it. Because her photo was right.