James White's Hebrews Chapter 8 Argument Against Paedobaptism

O

OldSchoolPresbyterian

Puritan Board Freshman
As some of you may know, James White, a credobaptist, of Alpha and Omega Ministries has been having a back-and-forth exchange with Jared Longshore, a paedobaptism, and Associate Pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. The issue under debate is focused on the interpretation of Hebrews chapter 8 and the author's citation in Hebrews 8:8-12 of Jeremiah chapter 31.

Specifically, Dr. White argues that the credobaptist view is the only view that allows for the author of Hebrews to be consistent in his argument. First, Dr. White argues that the mention in Hebrews 8:9 of the Israelites not continuing in the old covenant indicates that the new covenant will be different in that under the new covenant, no one will fall away, that is, the new covenant is for the elect only. Dr. White also asserts that if new covenant members could fall away, as they did in the old covenant, then this would destroy the argument of the author of Hebrews. In that case, the author’s argument allegedly wouldn’t follow – it supposedly wouldn’t be a better covenant since the same issue of covenant members falling away would be occurring in the new covenant just as it did in the old covenant. Further, Dr. White states that the language the author of Hebrews uses here in chapter 8 (such as “My laws on their hearts”, “I will be their God”, “they shall be My people”, “For all will know Me”, I will be merciful to their iniquities”, and “I will remember their sins no more”), all are indicative of the elect, true Christians, true believers. This language is consistent with other language the author of Hebrews uses in other chapters where he is describing those for whom Christ died, those for whom Christ made atonement, and those for whom Christ is mediating. In other words, Dr. White claims this interpretation of chapter 8 is most consistent, with the result being that the author of Hebrews is consistently referring to the same group (the elect) in both chapter 8 and these other sections of the book.

Similarly, Dr. White emphasizes that it is impossible for Christ to mediate for non-believers or to forgive the sins of non-believers. Therefore, those described in Hebrews 8:8-12 must be the elect. He points out that paedobaptists end up being inconsistent at this point by including non-believers in the new covenant, and thus, with the logic result that Christ must, in some sense, die for or mediate for those non-believers in the new covenant.

In conclusion, the new covenant is not a mixed covenant but includes only the elect, and we should only give the sign of baptism only to those who profess faith in Christ. Here is a link to a recent presentation Dr. White made on this issue, starting at the 8-minute mark: https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/the-dividing-line/poor-jared-yes-back-to-the-response/

This might be the most sophisticated and potentially persuasive argument against paedo-baptism I’ve come across. I love Dr. White as much as anyone, but I believe there are a number of problems with this argument. For example, the new covenant can be superior to the old covenant in many ways (such as no longer needing a temple or consistent sacrifices from priests); it doesn’t necessarily have to be the case that members of the new covenant will never all away. That’s only one way the new covenant could be better than the old covenant. In fact, if the new covenant is superior to the old covenant in several other ways, as described in Hebrews, then there’s no basis to state that the author’s arguments are undermined in virtue of the fact that new covenant members may fall away. Second, Bible authors often use universal terms to describe those saved by God or part of Christ’s kingdom, even though we as Calvinists would all agree that not every single person in the history of the world is either saved or included in Christ’s atonement. Thus, the terminology in Hebrews 8:8-12 referring to those in the new covenant could still include non-believers, even though those non-believers clearly do not get the atoning or mediatorial benefits of Christ's work.

Third, Dr. White’s interpretation seems very much inconsistent with the rest of Hebrews and other parts of the New Testament where we are told that false professors will be prevalent in the church. Indeed, the theme of people claiming to follow Christ, professing faith, and attending church or other religious activities, but then falling away and being exposed as non-believers seems to be a significant theme throughout the New Testament. Further, I don’t see how the point of never falling away in the new covenant would have been a persuasive selling point to the Jews who were tempted to reject Christ and go back to Judaism. “Come follow Christ and unlike the Jews of the old covenant in Israel, you will never fall away but will persevre to the end trusting in Christ.” I get that perseverance of the saints is a crucial doctrine but it doesn’t seem relevant as a point of persuasion for the very point at issue – continuing to follow Christ instead of going back to template worship.

Finally, I cannot help but think that the credobaptist position wouldn’t even meet this standard of interpretation of Hebrews 8 because even in a credobaptist church, you will inevitably have some non-believers get baptized. Dr. White dismisses this, claiming that those false professors would have lied to the elders as part of their confession of faith. That may be true for some false professors but I suspect for most of them it’s a matter of self-deception – they think they are Christians but at some point in the future, often many years down the line, their unbelief is exposed. I don’t think that would qualify as lying.

Can anyone else point out any other problems with Dr. White’s arguments here?

Thank you.
 
There are several other problems with the argument as he has stated it. First of all, that language about being their God, etc., is also used of the OT covenantal people of God. Hence, that language is not something new, and the OT people of God had false professors. Therefore, the language is not new.

Secondly, his charge of inconsistency only works if the paedo-baptist believes that there is no differentiation between elect and non-elect within the covenant. But the paedo-baptist believes that the essence of the CoG is salvation, of which the non-elect have zero participation. But as part of the covenantal administration, they receive certain outward benefits. The essence of the CoG all throughout its history has been salvation. And there has always been an outward administration of which the false professors participate, but do not share the essence. The elect, however, participate in both ways.

The Jeremiah passage is not meant to be an exhaustive picture of what the new covenant will look like. And it must be firmly understood that the newness of the new covenant is in relation and opposition to the shadows of the Mosaic covenant, NOT the Abrahamic. This is explicit in the covenant contrasted with the new in Hebrews 8:9 and its corresponding verse in Jeremiah 31. Therefore, this passage says nothing about a new covenant that replaces the Abrahamic, only the Mosaic administration is replaced. The newness has to do with types versus antitypes. The Mosaic economy was about types and shadows. The new covenant is better because the antitype is now here.
 
I have two main problems with the entire presentation by Dr. White:

1. His "opponent" is someone who has a defective Covenant Theology, given the arguments James is responding to. It's strange to me that, of all the "debates" James has conducted, 75% are with FV types. They make convenient foils for a paedobaptist position that is not Reformed.

2. The thrust of Hebrews and, in particular, Hebrews 8 does not have to do with Sacraments, per se, but on the superiority of the NC. Put another way, Hebrews isn't just about the superiority of the NC but the entire trajectory of the Covenant of Grace in the Scriptures - of which Christ is the fulfillment.

Let's get this out of the way:

"Q. 31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed"

This is not from an antipaedobaptist confession but from the Westminster Standards.

I say again, Reformed Confessions clearly confess that the Covenant of Grace is made with Christ and, in Him, all the elect.

People can flap their arms violently at paedobaptists and insist that the Covenant of Grace is only with Christ and, in Him, all the elect. We will respond back: "Um, Duh."

A few observations:

1. James (and even his interlocutor) seem to be stuck on the idea of Christ as Mediator. James wants to know how Christ mediates for those who are members of the NC, who are not elect.

It is not very difficult to read the Westminster Standards to realize that Christ as Mediator fulfills THREE, not One office. Every time James asks about what Christ Mediates to the reprobate (and others respond), they ask with respect to Christ as Priest. Christ is more than a Priest; He is also a Prophet and King.

Understood Confessionally, not all of Chrsit's Mediatorial functions are salvific to persons who participate in the Covenant. Preaching occurs under the Prophetic Office of Christ. Rule occurs under the Kingly office of Christ. The call of the Gospel is to the elect and the reprobate. Church government includes both the elect and the reprobate.

This is why it would be good for James to spend more time interacting with non-FV types who think like Baptists and want to insist that every Evangelical grace that Christ procures by His work as Mediator is conveyed to those who are in the visible Kingdom.

Christ, as King, has given gifts to His Church (see Eph 4) that include the teaching and government of His Church. This includes the fact that, in that visible administration, even those who serve in these offices may themselves fall away. Yet, Christ has ordained that the work as a whole calls and equip the elect within them even as all are warned to press in and not shrink back.

So, to be very clear to the very easy question as to what Christ mediates to the non-elect, the answer consists of those things that pertain to the ministry of Word and Sacrament as well as the governing of His Church. This is also the work of mediation, and it would help if those who think they have slam-dunk arguments against Westminster would take the time to read some very easy sections that speak to Christ as Mediator.

2. My second point would be that I have yet to see an exegetical argument that moves from "the NC is with the Elect" and "we only baptize those who profess". This is theologically imported into Hebrews 8. The author's point (as I noted earlier) is to warn against those who are shrinking back from the only God and Savior Who has ever existed. They are shrinking back, in fact, to the salvation that was offered to those who fell int he wilderness. The fullness and antitype of everything revealed, every "sacrament" celebrated, has found it's fulfillment in Christ. There is no going back. The Priests that came before were types and shadows as were the Kings and Prophets. It is, in fact, an illusion to think they can go "back" to sacrifices and a "glory" that they imagine they have left. All the glory of the past was a dim copy of what Christ has now brought to completion. It is perfect, not because it is impossible that those who are now in the Assembly may no longer shrink back. The whole book would be completely superfluous except that the message is to press in and not shrink back. The point is that it is even more reprehensible that one would shrink back now that the veil has been removed and the fullness of life and salvation has come.

Frankly, for one to now pause and say: "Yeah, that's all great, but was Bob really baptized?" would be met with: "Maybe you should be focused on what the author is trying to communicate right now." In fact, the author never says: "Oh, the people who were in the wilderness who had the Gospel preached to them beforehand were only really condemned for shrinking back if they were elect...."

To be very clear, it is not "exegetical" to draw your theology on who should be baptized from a text that doesn't speak to it. As I already stated, we believe that the CoG is made with Christ and, in Him, all the elect. That the visible and historical means by which men, women, and children are drawn into the Assembly involves baptism is discussed elsewhere in Scripture, and it is laughable that any Presbyterian is wringing his hands because we can't conceive of the perfection of Christ's Mediation on the one hand and the admission of persons into the Assambly who may or may not be elect.
 
greenbaggins said:
There are several other problems with the argument as he has stated it. First of all, that language about being their God, etc., is also used of the OT covenantal people of God. Hence, that language is not something new, and the OT people of God had false professors. Therefore, the language is not new.

Secondly, his charge of inconsistency only works if the paedo-baptist believes that there is no differentiation between elect and non-elect within the covenant. But the paedo-baptist believes that the essence of the CoG is salvation, of which the non-elect have zero participation. But as part of the covenantal administration, they receive certain outward benefits.
Click to expand...

But do those benefits include Christ's mediation on their behalf? The immediate distinction between the Old and New Covenants in Hebrews 8 has to do with its members being able to remain in it. v7-8a: "For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with [the people]..." and the first criticism made of the first covenant (quoting Jeremiah 31) is "For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord." It seems to me the central distinction is that under the New Covenant, since Christ is the mediator, He perfectly keeps all of its members within it. Yes, in general, it's possible there are many things which might make one covenant "better" than another, but this is the one the author of Hebrews (and Jeremiah) specifically highlights.

greenbaggins said:
The essence of the CoG all throughout its history has been salvation. And there has always been an outward administration of which the false professors participate, but do not share the essence. The elect, however, participate in both ways.

The Jeremiah passage is not meant to be an exhaustive picture of what the new covenant will look like. And it must be firmly understood that the newness of the new covenant is in relation and opposition to the shadows of the Mosaic covenant, NOT the Abrahamic. This is explicit in the covenant contrasted with the new in Hebrews 8:9 and its corresponding verse in Jeremiah 31. Therefore, this passage says nothing about a new covenant that replaces the Abrahamic, only the Mosaic administration is replaced. The newness has to do with types versus antitypes. The Mosaic economy was about types and shadows. The new covenant is better because the antitype is now here.
Click to expand...
I agree it replaces the Mosaic covenant and not the Abrahamic one. Did White at some point switch over to the Abrahamic one? It's possible I missed it since I absorb information MUCH better by reading than by hearing/watching.
 
Semper Fidelis said:
I have two main problems with the entire presentation by Dr. White:

1. His "opponent" is someone who has a defective Covenant Theology, given the arguments James is responding to. It's strange to me that, of all the "debates" James has conducted, 75% are with FV types. They make convenient foils for a paedobaptist position that is not Reformed.
Click to expand...
Can you recommend some of White's debates where he takes on a non-FV, Reformed person who does the paedobaptist position justice?
 
DanSSwing said:
Can you recommend some of White's debates where he takes on a non-FV, Reformed person who does the paedobaptist position justice?
Click to expand...
I can't remember the name of the OPC minister he debated about two decades ago. He's the only Presbyterian James has debated. He didn't do poorly, but I've never seen an appropriate "takedown" of the "Christ only mediates to the elect and, therefore, nobody other than the elect can be in the outward assembly" argument.

You repeat the question to Lane because you conceive of Mediation as monochromatic - as if Chrsit's only Office of Mediation is Priestly and that it always leads to salvation. Are Preaching and Church Government occurring under man's strength?

Further, let's assume the Baptist has convinced himself that Christ only functions as a mediator to the elect. How does he jump from that concept to baptism? It doesn't follow. There is no exegetical connection. In fact, there is nowhere in the NT where the author says: "Only baptize professors because you want to limit the number of non-elect persons who might be baptized because the NC is with the elect only, and we don't want the sign to be associated with the non-elect."

My main point to all of this is that Baptists try to make "nature of the NC" arguments to prove that the Presbyterian position would fall like a deck of cards if Presbyterians, for one moment, contemplated the perfection of the NC. I cannot account for someone who is otherwise a careful theological thinker like James, completely misunderstands the Presbyterian position on the nature of the NC and Christ's Mediatorial offices. It's also baffling to me that one can spend so much time on an apparent "the NC is perfect" argument that they forget they are not identifying a single soul who ought to be baptized within Hebrews 8. What happens is that pseudo-Reformed folk who like to think that evangelical graces belong to everyone in some way become the main folks who argue the surety of the salvation Christ mediates. To assume, however, that one paedobaptist who claims the Westminster is as good as another one is not "debating" a Presbyterian when interacting with Wilson or Strawbridge. It's also not an issue of ambiguity within the Standards (as James avers) but a display of ignorance to miss important theological distinctions.
 
DanSSwing said:
But do those benefits include Christ's mediation on their behalf? The immediate distinction between the Old and New Covenants in Hebrews 8 has to do with its members being able to remain in it. v7-8a: "For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with [the people]..." and the first criticism made of the first covenant (quoting Jeremiah 31) is "For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord." It seems to me the central distinction is that under the New Covenant, since Christ is the mediator, He perfectly keeps all of its members within it. Yes, in general, it's possible there are many things which might make one covenant "better" than another, but this is the one the author of Hebrews (and Jeremiah) specifically highlights.
Click to expand...
Actually, Hebrews 8 points more in the direction of the "fault" being "shadows" (v. 5), not a supposed better ability to keep people in the covenant, which is not mentioned. The paedo position is that there was always an essence/administration distinction which accounted both for the preservation of the saints, and the apostasy language. "Finding fault with them" is conditioned in meaning by verse 7, wherein the Mosaic covenant is found to have faults, the fault being that the Mosaic economy deals with shadows and types (v. 5). The only reason fault is found in them is that there is fault in the Mosaic economy for being shadowy and typy.
DanSSwing said:
I agree it replaces the Mosaic covenant and not the Abrahamic one. Did White at some point switch over to the Abrahamic one? It's possible I missed it since I absorb information MUCH better by reading than by hearing/watching.
Click to expand...
I don't know whether White did or not, as I have not seen the video. But it is a mistake I see many Baptists make. If the Abrahamic is not replaced but rather the Mosaic, then the question of membership in the new covenant is still determined by a NT understanding of the Abrahamic covenant, which includes children. There is NOTHING in the NT about the Abrahamic ever going defunct. In fact, the language of Acts 2 in Peter's speech directly echoes the Abrahamic promises: You and your children, and the people who are far off (the nations).
 
As a former Reformed Baptist who was hung up on the Hebrews 8 argument for quite some time, it is interesting to note that the whole of the epistle is a sermon teaching those whom the author thinks know the Lord to know the Lord.
 
OldSchoolPresbyterian said:
As some of you may know, James White, a credobaptist, of Alpha and Omega Ministries has been having a back-and-forth exchange with Jared Longshore, a paedobaptism, and Associate Pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. The issue under debate is focused on the interpretation of Hebrews chapter 8 and the author's citation in Hebrews 8:8-12 of Jeremiah chapter 31.

Specifically, Dr. White argues that the credobaptist view is the only view that allows for the author of Hebrews to be consistent in his argument. First, Dr. White argues that the mention in Hebrews 8:9 of the Israelites not continuing in the old covenant indicates that the new covenant will be different in that under the new covenant, no one will fall away, that is, the new covenant is for the elect only. Dr. White also asserts that if new covenant members could fall away, as they did in the old covenant, then this would destroy the argument of the author of Hebrews. In that case, the author’s argument allegedly wouldn’t follow – it supposedly wouldn’t be a better covenant since the same issue of covenant members falling away would be occurring in the new covenant just as it did in the old covenant. Further, Dr. White states that the language the author of Hebrews uses here in chapter 8 (such as “My laws on their hearts”, “I will be their God”, “they shall be My people”, “For all will know Me”, I will be merciful to their iniquities”, and “I will remember their sins no more”), all are indicative of the elect, true Christians, true believers. This language is consistent with other language the author of Hebrews uses in other chapters where he is describing those for whom Christ died, those for whom Christ made atonement, and those for whom Christ is mediating. In other words, Dr. White claims this interpretation of chapter 8 is most consistent, with the result being that the author of Hebrews is consistently referring to the same group (the elect) in both chapter 8 and these other sections of the book.

Similarly, Dr. White emphasizes that it is impossible for Christ to mediate for non-believers or to forgive the sins of non-believers. Therefore, those described in Hebrews 8:8-12 must be the elect. He points out that paedobaptists end up being inconsistent at this point by including non-believers in the new covenant, and thus, with the logic result that Christ must, in some sense, die for or mediate for those non-believers in the new covenant.

In conclusion, the new covenant is not a mixed covenant but includes only the elect, and we should only give the sign of baptism only to those who profess faith in Christ. Here is a link to a recent presentation Dr. White made on this issue, starting at the 8-minute mark: https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/the-dividing-line/poor-jared-yes-back-to-the-response/

This might be the most sophisticated and potentially persuasive argument against paedo-baptism I’ve come across. I love Dr. White as much as anyone, but I believe there are a number of problems with this argument. For example, the new covenant can be superior to the old covenant in many ways (such as no longer needing a temple or consistent sacrifices from priests); it doesn’t necessarily have to be the case that members of the new covenant will never all away. That’s only one way the new covenant could be better than the old covenant. In fact, if the new covenant is superior to the old covenant in several other ways, as described in Hebrews, then there’s no basis to state that the author’s arguments are undermined in virtue of the fact that new covenant members may fall away. Second, Bible authors often use universal terms to describe those saved by God or part of Christ’s kingdom, even though we as Calvinists would all agree that not every single person in the history of the world is either saved or included in Christ’s atonement. Thus, the terminology in Hebrews 8:8-12 referring to those in the new covenant could still include non-believers, even though those non-believers clearly do not get the atoning or mediatorial benefits of Christ's work.

Third, Dr. White’s interpretation seems very much inconsistent with the rest of Hebrews and other parts of the New Testament where we are told that false professors will be prevalent in the church. Indeed, the theme of people claiming to follow Christ, professing faith, and attending church or other religious activities, but then falling away and being exposed as non-believers seems to be a significant theme throughout the New Testament. Further, I don’t see how the point of never falling away in the new covenant would have been a persuasive selling point to the Jews who were tempted to reject Christ and go back to Judaism. “Come follow Christ and unlike the Jews of the old covenant in Israel, you will never fall away but will persevre to the end trusting in Christ.” I get that perseverance of the saints is a crucial doctrine but it doesn’t seem relevant as a point of persuasion for the very point at issue – continuing to follow Christ instead of going back to template worship.

Finally, I cannot help but think that the credobaptist position wouldn’t even meet this standard of interpretation of Hebrews 8 because even in a credobaptist church, you will inevitably have some non-believers get baptized. Dr. White dismisses this, claiming that those false professors would have lied to the elders as part of their confession of faith. That may be true for some false professors but I suspect for most of them it’s a matter of self-deception – they think they are Christians but at some point in the future, often many years down the line, their unbelief is exposed. I don’t think that would qualify as lying.

Can anyone else point out any other problems with Dr. White’s arguments here?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
It seems to turn Jer 31:31-34 inside out. The claim is that "they shall all know [the Lord]" because the covenant is restricted to the elect; but the Lord's point is that they shall all know him because his saving grace will be more broadly diffused among his visible people, "from the least to the greatest."
 
This all seems to boil down to a failure by White (et.al.) to rightly understand the Visible-Invisible church distinction, in terms (as Lane has emphasized) of the difference b/w essence (the division perspective) and administration (the inclusive perspective) of the NC. (It may be helpful to note that we’re talking about in terms of the first phase, the gathering of the elect during the Last Days, while conditions are not as pristine as White’s argument requires.)

Maybe it might help to re-write White’s key comment into a question. If the NC is only made with the elect, then baptism is only to be given to the __________ (?) Following White’s argument, the answer must be “the elect”. But even White admits that credo-baptists baptize both elect and reprobate. In other words,, credo-baptists affirm some sort of administration arrangement of the NC that applies to the baptized reprobate, while at the same time insisting that the administration of the NC ONLY applies to the elect.

The response “but only baptism on a credible profession of faith” brings in a bit of circular reasoning, as this is the starting error of the credo-baptist argument. That is, they argue that baptism is a profession of faith, and then use that argument to support their position here. If baptism is actually a profession of promise from God, then this guts their whole case here.

Rich is quite right to point out that White has only interacted with defective paedo-baptists in his public interactions on this subject. He might find it more profitable to spend some time dealing with the extensive arguments documenting how the Abrahamic covenant is fulfilled in the NC. This may not persuade him to change horses, but at least he’ll stop whipping his opponent’s horse.
 
greenbaggins said:
Actually, Hebrews 8 points more in the direction of the "fault" being "shadows" (v. 5), not a supposed better ability to keep people in the covenant, which is not mentioned. The paedo position is that there was always an essence/administration distinction which accounted both for the preservation of the saints, and the apostasy language. "Finding fault with them" is conditioned in meaning by verse 7, wherein the Mosaic covenant is found to have faults, the fault being that the Mosaic economy deals with shadows and types (v. 5). The only reason fault is found in them is that there is fault in the Mosaic economy for being shadowy and typy.
Click to expand...
Good point.

My main observation has been to protect the idea that Christ's work in the CoG is really as awesome as anyone might imagine. The Evangelical graces that the Mediator secures are sure for the Elect. We need not, in any way, diminish the sense in which what Christ steps into historically makes very pale the types and shadows that preceded Him.

Yet, He still Mediates a historical and visible Church and we do not try to place the NC so far out of reach as to make it impossible that any who are visibly and outwardly part of its administration cannot be said to be part of it. It appears that, in a haste to "make things New," the Baptist makes the NC so perfect that it would be sullied if any reprobate were to ever be part of its historical administration. At this point, we're not just talking about infants (as Baptists tend to imagine that this equates to non-elect) but even every person who responds to the call of the Gospel and is baptized as a professor. Is the NC so now "perfect" that no soul can truly know if he's part of the NC when baptized? Is the warning in Hebrews really that if you do shrink back, you were only part of the visible Assembly and did not partake at all in the NC?

Put another way, is that even the point that the author of Hebrews is trying to make? Let's make believe that the Baptist is right, and this is a Baptist talking to other Baptists in Hebrews. Is his point that the NC is so perfect that the reprobate who were baptized in the NT Church were never part of the NC in any way? Is this why he's writing this letter? To make this clear? Are all the warnings just so much chaff? What of the generation that fell in the wilderness? What does that have to do with his point? After all, they fell under the OC, and one "expected" that people would fall away, so what does that have to do with his current presentation to fellow Baptists about the impossibility that any but the elect could ever be part of the administration of the NC?
 
Semper Fidelis said:
I have two main problems with the entire presentation by Dr. White:

1. His "opponent" is someone who has a defective Covenant Theology, given the arguments James is responding to. It's strange to me that, of all the "debates" James has conducted, 75% are with FV types. They make convenient foils for a paedobaptist position that is not Reformed.

2. The thrust of Hebrews and, in particular, Hebrews 8 does not have to do with Sacraments, per se, but on the superiority of the NC. Put another way, Hebrews isn't just about the superiority of the NC but the entire trajectory of the Covenant of Grace in the Scriptures - of which Christ is the fulfillment.

Let's get this out of the way:

"Q. 31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed"

This is not from an antipaedobaptist confession but from the Westminster Standards.

I say again, Reformed Confessions clearly confess that the Covenant of Grace is made with Christ and, in Him, all the elect.

People can flap their arms violently at paedobaptists and insist that the Covenant of Grace is only with Christ and, in Him, all the elect. We will respond back: "Um, Duh."

A few observations:

1. James (and even his interlocutor) seem to be stuck on the idea of Christ as Mediator. James wants to know how Christ mediates for those who are members of the NC, who are not elect.

It is not very difficult to read the Westminster Standards to realize that Christ as Mediator fulfills THREE, not One office. Every time James asks about what Christ Mediates to the reprobate (and others respond), they ask with respect to Christ as Priest. Christ is more than a Priest; He is also a Prophet and King.

Understood Confessionally, not all of Chrsit's Mediatorial functions are salvific to persons who participate in the Covenant. Preaching occurs under the Prophetic Office of Christ. Rule occurs under the Kingly office of Christ. The call of the Gospel is to the elect and the reprobate. Church government includes both the elect and the reprobate.

This is why it would be good for James to spend more time interacting with non-FV types who think like Baptists and want to insist that every Evangelical grace that Christ procures by His work as Mediator is conveyed to those who are in the visible Kingdom.

Christ, as King, has given gifts to His Church (see Eph 4) that include the teaching and government of His Church. This includes the fact that, in that visible administration, even those who serve in these offices may themselves fall away. Yet, Christ has ordained that the work as a whole calls and equip the elect within them even as all are warned to press in and not shrink back.

So, to be very clear to the very easy question as to what Christ mediates to the non-elect, the answer consists of those things that pertain to the ministry of Word and Sacrament as well as the governing of His Church. This is also the work of mediation, and it would help if those who think they have slam-dunk arguments against Westminster would take the time to read some very easy sections that speak to Christ as Mediator.

2. My second point would be that I have yet to see an exegetical argument that moves from "the NC is with the Elect" and "we only baptize those who profess". This is theologically imported into Hebrews 8. The author's point (as I noted earlier) is to warn against those who are shrinking back from the only God and Savior Who has ever existed. They are shrinking back, in fact, to the salvation that was offered to those who fell int he wilderness. The fullness and antitype of everything revealed, every "sacrament" celebrated, has found it's fulfillment in Christ. There is no going back. The Priests that came before were types and shadows as were the Kings and Prophets. It is, in fact, an illusion to think they can go "back" to sacrifices and a "glory" that they imagine they have left. All the glory of the past was a dim copy of what Christ has now brought to completion. It is perfect, not because it is impossible that those who are now in the Assembly may no longer shrink back. The whole book would be completely superfluous except that the message is to press in and not shrink back. The point is that it is even more reprehensible that one would shrink back now that the veil has been removed and the fullness of life and salvation has come.

Frankly, for one to now pause and say: "Yeah, that's all great, but was Bob really baptized?" would be met with: "Maybe you should be focused on what the author is trying to communicate right now." In fact, the author never says: "Oh, the people who were in the wilderness who had the Gospel preached to them beforehand were only really condemned for shrinking back if they were elect...."

To be very clear, it is not "exegetical" to draw your theology on who should be baptized from a text that doesn't speak to it. As I already stated, we believe that the CoG is made with Christ and, in Him, all the elect. That the visible and historical means by which men, women, and children are drawn into the Assembly involves baptism is discussed elsewhere in Scripture, and it is laughable that any Presbyterian is wringing his hands because we can't conceive of the perfection of Christ's Mediation on the one hand and the admission of persons into the Assambly who may or may not be elect.
Click to expand...

Semper Fidelis said:
I have two main problems with the entire presentation by Dr. White:

1. His "opponent" is someone who has a defective Covenant Theology, given the arguments James is responding to. It's strange to me that, of all the "debates" James has conducted, 75% are with FV types. They make convenient foils for a paedobaptist position that is not Reformed.

2. The thrust of Hebrews and, in particular, Hebrews 8 does not have to do with Sacraments, per se, but on the superiority of the NC. Put another way, Hebrews isn't just about the superiority of the NC but the entire trajectory of the Covenant of Grace in the Scriptures - of which Christ is the fulfillment.

Let's get this out of the way:

"Q. 31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed"

This is not from an antipaedobaptist confession but from the Westminster Standards.

I say again, Reformed Confessions clearly confess that the Covenant of Grace is made with Christ and, in Him, all the elect.

People can flap their arms violently at paedobaptists and insist that the Covenant of Grace is only with Christ and, in Him, all the elect. We will respond back: "Um, Duh."

A few observations:

1. James (and even his interlocutor) seem to be stuck on the idea of Christ as Mediator. James wants to know how Christ mediates for those who are members of the NC, who are not elect.

It is not very difficult to read the Westminster Standards to realize that Christ as Mediator fulfills THREE, not One office. Every time James asks about what Christ Mediates to the reprobate (and others respond), they ask with respect to Christ as Priest. Christ is more than a Priest; He is also a Prophet and King.

Understood Confessionally, not all of Chrsit's Mediatorial functions are salvific to persons who participate in the Covenant. Preaching occurs under the Prophetic Office of Christ. Rule occurs under the Kingly office of Christ. The call of the Gospel is to the elect and the reprobate. Church government includes both the elect and the reprobate.

This is why it would be good for James to spend more time interacting with non-FV types who think like Baptists and want to insist that every Evangelical grace that Christ procures by His work as Mediator is conveyed to those who are in the visible Kingdom.

Christ, as King, has given gifts to His Church (see Eph 4) that include the teaching and government of His Church. This includes the fact that, in that visible administration, even those who serve in these offices may themselves fall away. Yet, Christ has ordained that the work as a whole calls and equip the elect within them even as all are warned to press in and not shrink back.

So, to be very clear to the very easy question as to what Christ mediates to the non-elect, the answer consists of those things that pertain to the ministry of Word and Sacrament as well as the governing of His Church. This is also the work of mediation, and it would help if those who think they have slam-dunk arguments against Westminster would take the time to read some very easy sections that speak to Christ as Mediator.

2. My second point would be that I have yet to see an exegetical argument that moves from "the NC is with the Elect" and "we only baptize those who profess". This is theologically imported into Hebrews 8. The author's point (as I noted earlier) is to warn against those who are shrinking back from the only God and Savior Who has ever existed. They are shrinking back, in fact, to the salvation that was offered to those who fell int he wilderness. The fullness and antitype of everything revealed, every "sacrament" celebrated, has found it's fulfillment in Christ. There is no going back. The Priests that came before were types and shadows as were the Kings and Prophets. It is, in fact, an illusion to think they can go "back" to sacrifices and a "glory" that they imagine they have left. All the glory of the past was a dim copy of what Christ has now brought to completion. It is perfect, not because it is impossible that those who are now in the Assembly may no longer shrink back. The whole book would be completely superfluous except that the message is to press in and not shrink back. The point is that it is even more reprehensible that one would shrink back now that the veil has been removed and the fullness of life and salvation has come.

Frankly, for one to now pause and say: "Yeah, that's all great, but was Bob really baptized?" would be met with: "Maybe you should be focused on what the author is trying to communicate right now." In fact, the author never says: "Oh, the people who were in the wilderness who had the Gospel preached to them beforehand were only really condemned for shrinking back if they were elect...."

To be very clear, it is not "exegetical" to draw your theology on who should be baptized from a text that doesn't speak to it. As I already stated, we believe that the CoG is made with Christ and, in Him, all the elect. That the visible and historical means by which men, women, and children are drawn into the Assembly involves baptism is discussed elsewhere in Scripture, and it is laughable that any Presbyterian is wringing his hands because we can't conceive of the perfection of Christ's Mediation on the one hand and the admission of persons into the Assambly who may or may not be elect.
Click to expand...
I didn't realize that Jared Longshore and Greg Strawbridge (who Dr. White debated regarding paedobaptism a long time ago) were federal vision advocates. Do you have links where they make statements showing this?

Also, does anyone have Biblical citations and Westminster Standards citations for the concept that Christ mediates for non-believers in a non-salvific way (such as ministering to them through Christ's Word and/or the governing of His church?


Thank you.
 
OldSchoolPresbyterian said:
I didn't realize that Jared Longshore and Greg Strawbridge (who Dr. White debated regarding paedobaptism a long time ago) were federal vision advocates. Do you have links where they make statements showing this?
Click to expand...
Jard is part of Christ Church in Moscow. His CT is all over the way he writes.
Strawbridge is a PC advocate.
 
OldSchoolPresbyterian said:
Also, does anyone have Biblical citations and Westminster Standards citations for the concept that Christ mediates for non-believers in a non-salvific way (such as ministering to them through Christ's Word and/or the governing of His church?
Click to expand...
Q. 42. Why was our Mediator called Christ?
A. Our Mediator was called Christ, because he was anointed with the Holy Ghost above measure,161 and so set apart, and fully furnished with all authority and ability,162 to execute the offices of prophet,163 priest,164 and king of his church,165 in the estate both of his humiliation and exaltation.

Q. 43. How doth Christ execute the office of a prophet?
A. Christ executeth the office of a prophet, in his revealing to the church,166 in all ages, by his Spirit and Word,167 in divers ways of administration,168 the whole will of God,169 in all things concerning their edification and salvation.170

Q. 44. How doth Christ execute the office of a priest?
A. Christ executeth the office of a priest, in his once offering himself a sacrifice without spot to God,171 to be reconciliation for the sins of his people;172 and in making continual intercession for them.173

Q. 45. How doth Christ execute the office of a king?
A. Christ executeth the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to himself,174 and giving them officers,175 laws,176 and censures, by which he visibly governs them;177 in bestowing saving grace upon his elect,178 rewarding their obedience,179 and correcting them for their sins,180 preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings,181 restraining and overcoming all their enemies,182 and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory,183 and their good;184 and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel.185
 
But it seems to me that Christ is Prophet and King to even those outside of the visible church, i.e. the unrepentant unregenerate. In other words, Christ is Prophet and King to everyone.

The difference seems to me that Christ only "mediates" (executes His Priestly office) for the regenerate elect.
 
So, how many times must JW debate "conventional" paedobaptists before it's enough? Was Rev. Shishko an incompetent advocate for the position? Were there any principle points that were overlooked in the debate? If not, then why shouldn't JW go on to debate various "unconventional" paedobaptists, and thereby address the particular idiosyncrasies they bring to bear on the matter?
 
Last edited:
OldSchoolPresbyterian said:
I didn't realize that Jared Longshore and Greg Strawbridge (who Dr. White debated regarding paedobaptism a long time ago) were federal vision advocates. Do you have links where they make statements showing this?

Also, does anyone have Biblical citations and Westminster Standards citations for the concept that Christ mediates for non-believers in a non-salvific way (such as ministering to them through Christ's Word and/or the governing of His church?


Thank you.
Click to expand...
Strawbridge (who died this year, if memory serves) was a CREC minister and hardcore federal visionist. He edited a book of arguments in favor of paedocommunion.
 
Phil D. said:
So, how many times must JW debate "conventional" paedobaptists before it's enough? Was Rev. Shishko an incompetent advocate for the position? Were there any principle points that were overlooked in the debate? If not, then why shouldn't JW go on to debate various "unconventional" paedobaptists, and thereby address the particular idiosyncrasies they bring to bear on the matter?
Click to expand...
If he identified their view as idiosyncratic within the Presbyterian fold, that would be one thing…
 
Phil D. said:
So, how many times must JW debate "conventional" paedobaptists before it's enough? Was Rev. Shishko an incompetent advocate for the position? Were there any principle points that were overlooked in the debate? If not, then why shouldn't JW go on to debate various "unconventional" paedobaptists, and thereby address the particular idiosyncrasies they bring to bear on the matter?
Click to expand...
I thought Shishko did a fine job dealing with the issue. If memory serves it was over the topic of Οίκος baptism the topic was more narrow than just general infant baptism.

In my opinion, White had his hands full in this debate. This debate took place several years ago and is one of the few debates I have watched where White had a difficult time or at least a worthy opponent. White is an accomplished debater and even after the over 150 publicly moderated debates (which he often brags about), you have to realize, one cannot be right 100% of the time. In this instance, I think James is wrong.
 
Lars Griggs said:
I thought Shishko did a fine job dealing with the issue. If memory serves it was over the topic of Οίκος baptism the topic was more narrow than just general infant baptism.

In my opinion, White had his hands full in this debate. This debate took place several years ago and is one of the few debates I have watched where White had a difficult time or at least a worthy opponent. White is an accomplished debater and even after the over 150 publicly moderated debates (which he often brags about), you have to realize, one cannot be right 100% of the time. In this instance, I think James is wrong.
Click to expand...

Guess it goes to show that "winning" a debate is in the eye of the beholder. I watched the debate some time ago and I thought White had the upper hand in many areas, and especially on the whole οίκος matter (it prompted me to an in-depth study of the topic, the results of which I later posted here). I've also gathered that White has his detractors here on the PB, and of course he has his shortcomings just like everyone else. But he has commendable courage, knowledge, and is certainly on the right team.
 
Last edited:
Phil D. said:
Guess it goes to show that "winning" a debate is in the eye of the beholder. I watched the debate some time ago and I thought White had the upper hand in many areas, and especially on the whole οίκος matter (it prompted me to an in-depth study of the topic, the results of which I later posted here). I've also gathered that White has his detractors here on the PB, and of course he has his shortcomings just like everyone else. But he has commendable courage, knowledge, and is certainly on the right team.
Click to expand...

Correct, which is why I sometimes try to rescue people from becoming internet apologists. My side always wins the debates. What are the odds? norm.jpg
 
RamistThomist said:
Correct, which is why I sometimes try to rescue people from becoming internet apologists. My side always wins the debates. What are the odds?
norm.jpg
Click to expand...
Well, Norm must only look at select, older history books... But I certainly get your point...
 
Phil D. said:
So, how many times must JW debate "conventional" paedobaptists before it's enough? Was Rev. Shishko an incompetent advocate for the position? Were there any principle points that were overlooked in the debate? If not, then why shouldn't JW go on to debate various "unconventional" paedobaptists, and thereby address the particular idiosyncrasies they bring to bear on the matter?
Click to expand...
Good question. I'd also like to know if any conventional paedobaptists have offered to debate Dr. White and he turned them down. I suspect not.
 
DanSSwing said:
Good question. I'd also like to know if any conventional paedobaptists have offered to debate Dr. White and he turned them down. I suspect not.
Click to expand...

I am trying to think of some paedobaptists who have the equivalent status White does as a popular apologist. Bahnsen used to fill that role, and to a lesser degree Sproul. Most paedobaptists theologians are either pastors or professor or both.
 
We must remember that White represents a minority of the baptist view (1689). Schreiner/Wellum are the big hitters (SBC - Progressive Covenantalism)
 
Polanus1561 said:
We must remember that White represents a minority of the baptist view (1689).
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you mean by a minority of the Baptist view. White subscribes to the 1689 Baptist Confession which is the standard Confessional Baptist confession. I understand he rejects 1689 federalism though.
Polanus1561 said:
Schreiner/Wellum are the big hitters (SBC - Progressive Covenantalism)
Click to expand...
This is inconsistent with a Reformed Baptist covenant theology. In other words if you want a consistent debate with a covenantal padeobaptist the Baptist opponent needs to be covenantal in his theology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top