Infant Baptism debate w/ Pastor Keith Foskey (Conversations with a Calvinist)

well good evening friends and fans thank

you for joining us in this most

important uh issue that we'll be

discussing tonight and the question is

should infants be baptized that's what

we're here to discuss this evening my

name is Matthew Henson I will be your

moderator this evening and the fact that

I have done my job well would mean that

you forget all about me and instead we

turn to the issues we turn with open

Bibles open minds and Open Hearts to

what it is that God has for us tonight

I'd like to introduce our two

participants and then say just a little

bit about the structure of this debate

before we begin uh for the purposes of

this debate we have um an a proposition

and then someone opposing that side so

you may hear me refer to the uh the

positive and the negative side this is

not a reflection upon their character or

personality it is simply the debate

terms so both sides in this debate would

positively affirm the baptism of new

Believers under a profession of faith in

Jesus Christ Christ where they would

differ would be upon uh the children of

those Believers receiving the sign of

baptism so the poed

Baptists would believe that the infant

children um of at least one believing

parent are proper candidates for baptism

a CREDO Baptist on the other hand

believes that only after a c a person

professes faith in Christ is he or she a

proper candidate and therefore infants

do not qualify as they are unable to

profess faith my two participants

tonight are Keith fosy and reformed

Zoomer uh reformed redeemed Zoomer

excuse me you are also reformed though

so I should thank you for that now I

gotta get the handle correct redeemed

Zoomer thank you um I was reading my

notes and got crossed up there redeemed

Zoomer um is a layman in the

Presbyterian Church USA who is committed

to confessional reformed theology he

describes himself as a Generation Z

YouTuber and you should check out his

channel because he has a multitude of

content on a number of different

subjects he will be Pres presenting the

positive case for poed baptism tonight

Keith fosy is the pastor of Sovereign

Grace Family Church as well as a

podcaster humorist uh amateur magician

martial arts afficianado and many other

such things the renaissance man of

Sovereign Grace he is married to

Jennifer together they have six children

and he will be presenting uh the

negative case tonight that is that that

being opposed to the to the practice and

concept of poed baptism gentlemen how

are you doing this evening

doing very well thank you Ma Matthew for

moderating for us I'm doing very well

also I'm for some reason everyone thinks

I'm reformed Zoomer there was actually

like a lot of people talking about that

recently it's seriously the Mandela

effect but no i' I've never I've never

called that so you're you're in good

company there we go there we go well I'm

glad I didn't call you something

inaccurate because as you say you do

affirm uh reformed confessional the

reformed confessional Faith well to our

audience tonight um we are brothers in

Christ but we do differ on some matters

and this is an important matter um this

is not a matter that uh we want to uh

just dismiss we want to give it its

proper weight and its due consideration

the structure of tonight's debate will

be a pretty classic structure we'll have

15 minute opening statements from either

side there will then be a 10-minute

rebuttal period after that we're going

to move to a cross-examination period

and finally after that we have closing

statements and audience questions I'd

like to go ahead and address the subject

of audience question tonight if you have

one for these gentlemen uh please wait

to post that question in the YouTube

chat until we get to the closing

statement time I will be monitoring the

chat during closing statement time to

pull uh three questions probably for

each one and we'll go into the specifics

a little bit more on that so you've

heard me talk enough now you've heard

these gentlemen introduce themselves and

so we are going to begin our debate uh

with our opening statements the opening

statement uh of redeem Zoomer will come

first this is the positive case for poed

baptism he has 15 minutes uh to make his

case I will only give a ding sound when

we're down to uh one minute remaining

but these gentlemen will also be keeping

time for themselves so redeem Zoomer you

have the floor uh when you begin

speaking your 15 minutes will begin okay

thank you Pastor Keith for organizing

this debate and thank you moderator for

moderating before we get started of

course I have to say that while the

issue of incant baptism is important it

is an in-house debate Within

Christianity I know my Baptist Brothers

have the utmost commitment to following

scripture so the disagreement is simply

about Discerning the biblical view of

this issue there are three reasons why I

believe infant baptism is the biblical

position the first is that the kingdom

of God is a collective reality the

second is that baptism actually does

something and the third is that infant

baptism is most consistent with a

monistic calvinistic view of Salvation

the main reasoning behind saying infants

shouldn't be baptized aped is that

baptism is supposed to be a personal

Declaration of Faith so since Babies

Can't profess Faith they shouldn't be

baptized however the Bible never defines

baptism as a profession of Faith after

conversion it sometimes is that but not

always here's why what baptism really is

is becoming a member of God's covenant

Community it's citizenship in the

kingdom of God the clearest

demonstration of this is the several

household baptisms in the book of Acts

it doesn't describe individuals being

baptized at after P individual personal

conversions it was for entire families

being baptized all at once for example

in Acts 16 when Lydia converted her

whole household was baptized when the

Philippian Jailer converted his whole

household was baptized we could go the

easy way and simply assume that at least

one of these households had infant

children and then it's Checkmate kedto

Baptists but even if we don't assume

that the text still shows us that

baptism isn't purely an individual

choice but also a collective

participation in the family of God to

reinforce this 1 Peter 3:20-21 says that

Noah and his family were saved through

the waters of the flood and that these

Waters symbolize baptism but hold on a

second Genesis 6 which talks about Noah

doesn't say each individual member of

Noah's family was righteous for their

time and oh look what a coincidence they

happen to be related to each other no it

says Noah was righteous but God still

made a covenant with him and his family

and the whole family was saved through

the flood which as Peter tells us

foreshadows baptism now as side note

here this is not the topic of the debate

um but in the whole sprinkling versus

immersion debate you know if Noah's

flood symbolizes baptism Noah and his

family were sprinkled with the water and

everyone else was fully immersed but

still um Noah's entire family was

considered holy enough to be in God's

covenant Community Based on the

faithfulness of Noah himself pay

attention to that because that idea

comes up many more times in

scripture the Covenant promise given to

Abraham when Isaac was circumcised as a

baby was I will establish my Covenant

with him as an Everlasting Covenant for

his descendants after him Genesis 17:19

the Covenant promise was for him and his

children later in Acts 2:29 Peter Echoes

this by saying the promise of baptism is

also for you and your children and the

confirmation that baptism performs the

same function that circumcision did is

in Colossians 2 verses 11 to 12 which

says in him you are 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 therefore since

circumcision was not only a personal

profession of Faith but also a

collective participation in God's

kingdom that was given to infants we can

assume the same for baptism this is a

theme we see all over scripture being

part of God's kingdom is always a

collective reality and that's not to

diminish the individual responsibility

to have faith in God but in the Old

Testament everyone who was circumcised

including infants was part of God's

covenant people in some sense even

though not all of them were individually

faithful Believers there were

circumcised Israelites who still went

astray and worshiped false gods so we

would say they weren't saved but they

were still part of God's Kingdom in a

sense this principle carries over into

the New Testament 1 Corinthians 7:14

says that unbelievers can still be

Sanctified or made holy in some sense by

believing family members the same is

true with like Noah and his family being

made holy the Bible teaches

in many ways that it's possible to be

part of God's Kingdom in some sense

without having genuine personal faith

it's possible to be a good soldier who

helps the kingdom even if you're not

doing it out of personal love for the

king that's why Philippians 1:15 to18

says some preach the gospel only for

selfish motives but it is still for the

best because Christ has preached

nonetheless Jesus says that the Holy

Spirit can still use and work through

people who aren't truly regenerate in

Matthew 7:21-23 he says some people do

Miracles and cast out demons clearly

having the spirit work through them but

he still never truly knew them on a

personal note I converted to

Christianity due to the influence of

Christians I met at a summer camp as a

teenager and tragically most of those

friends of mine have since left the

faith indicating to those of us who hold

to a calvinist view of Salvation that

they were never truly inwardly

regenerate however they were still set

apart in a real sense while they were

while they were still in the faith they

were completely different from the

people I had grown up around and I Saw

the Light of Christ through them now

when we say baptism isn't just a

personal Declaration of faith we still

understand that it is indeed that in

many cases it is a sign to be received

by faith but the Bible also says

circumcision was a sign to be received

by faith Romans 4 11-2 but that didn't

mean babies weren't circumcised if

someone who wasn't baptized as a child

becomes Christian then they must indeed

make a profession of Faith before

getting baptized that's what happened to

me just as Abraham made a profession of

Faith before getting circumcised if you

were born in a different country and

became a citizen of America you do

indeed need need to make a profession of

loyalty to America that's why those of

us who support infant baptism fully

agree that those who were not baptized

as a baby must make a profession of

Faith before getting baptized as an

adult however if you are born in America

you don't need to make a profession of

loyalty to America in order to be a

citizen so that's why while we do

see that's why while we do see examples

of baptism following a profession of

faith in scripture we have no reason to

say that that's the only acceptable

condition for baptism the reason I keep

using Kingdom analog analogies is

because I believe Christianity is all

about the kingdom of God as that was

Jesus's main message especially in his

public Ministry recorded in the synoptic

gospels and the kingdom of God includes

the salvation of individual Souls by

personal faith in Christ but isn't

limited to that it's also about the

transformation of society in Luke 4

Jesus said the spirit of the Lord is

upon me to Proclaim good news to the

poor he has sent me to Proclaim freedom

for the prison ERS and recovery of sight

for the blind now you could spiritualize

all that by saying it's just a metaphor

for saving souls or something but the

apostles in Acts and the early church

never separated tending to people's

spiritual needs from tending to their

physical needs the early church cared

for the sick during pandemics and once

the church was institutionalized the

church built hospitals and orphanages

this is how the this is how Christians

have historically built the kingdom of

God and I think infant baptism is

important for the collective nature of

God's kingdom it's why every major

historic Christian branch C Baptists

established Christendom in some way you

have historically Catholic Orthodox

Lutheran Anglican and reformed countries

but not Baptist ones because Baptists

have historically placed a sole focus on

personal salvation all these other

Christian groups believe Baptist

theology was actually dangerous to

Christendom in some way the great

calvinist Theologian political

philosopher and Dutch prime minister

Abraham Kyper said that the fundamental

unit of society should be families

rather than individuals it's no surprise

he was a poed Baptist since all

Christians are are facing powerful

enemies in the culture War today infant

baptism is a good way of showing that

the kingdom of God applies to the

culture as well as to individuals it's

our it's also our way of saying while

the culture keeps launching new attacks

on the family and promoting radical

individualism the kingdom of God still

has a family centered identity model

because that's what the Bible teaches

and I know Baptists stand firmly for the

importance of Christian families and a

family oriented culture I'll admit

they've done that better than

Presbyterians but KOB baptism is

logically not consistent with that I can

smell the cognitive dissonance in

certain Baptists I see more and more

Christians including Baptists realizing

the importance of a Christian Society

rather than relying on just saving

individual Souls one at a time so if

that's you you got to take the final

step take the plunge no pun intended

into po baptism the second reason to

support infant baptism is that baptism

actually does something it isn't just a

symbol I think that if you do believe

baptism is just a symbol then cradle

baptism is The Logical conclusion of

that because because a symbol is useless

to you if you can't remember it as a

side note I think certain Presbyterians

who do believe in infant baptism but see

baptism as more symbolic still often

don't do a very good job defending

infant baptism but 1 Peter 3:21 says

baptism now saves you and Peter also

says in Acts 238 to repent and be

baptized for the Forgiveness of your

sins Titus 3:5 says God saved us through

the washing of regeneration and rebirth

by the Holy Spirit which heavily implies

baptism almost every time the New

Testament mentions baptism it is

connected to Salvation in some way some

people find ways to interpret these

passages to say baptism itself doesn't

do anything but that's not how the early

church interpreted them now the church

fathers didn't agree on much but they

universally unanimous agreed that

unanimously agreed that baptism saves

the church fathers didn't even agree on

infant baptism some of them were krob

Baptist now before the Baptists in the

audience get too excited they were

credobaptist for a very different reason

than modern Baptists are they thought

baptism washed away all past sins but if

you commit a single sin after baptism

you're doomed so they delayed baptism

until people could be confident they'd

never sin again sometimes delaying

baptism to just before death so they

still strongly believed baptism saves of

course once St Augustine came along and

clarified that baptisms efficacy isn't

tied to when it's administered infant

baptism became the universal practice

and in case the church fathers are too

Catholic for you all the Protestant

reformers still believed baptism

contributes to Salvation in some sense

they were just careful to emphasize that

baptism cannot save you without faith

even John Calvin wrote in his Geneva

catechism that the gifts of Salvation

are bestowed upon us by baptism as long

as we don't render them unfruitful by

our unbelief even the Westminster

Confession 286 says baptism is effective

unto salvation For Those whom God has

chosen Calvin's view of baptismal

efficacy isn't the same as Roman

Catholic baptismal regeneration but he

still joins the nearly Universal witness

of church history that baptism is a

means of Saving Grace because Peter

called baptism a promise for the

Forgiveness of sins I would say baptism

saves not because it's magic water but

because of the Covenant promise attached

to baptism and we receive that Promise

by faith alone so while many modern

Presbyterians have discarded baptismal

efficacy it is the historic Presbyterian

position so a major reason as to why we

baptize babies is because we believe

baptism is a work of God not a work of

man the babies being baptized don't need

to understand baptism or personally

choose it for it to work because it's

God doing the work in baptism and that

brings me to my final point

infant baptism is a beautiful picture of

the Gospel especially a calvinistic view

of the Gospel that's why Calvin himself

along with all the other reformers was a

firm poob Baptist Calvin even said in

his institutes that Satan wants people

to be krob Baptists I'm not saying that

but Calvin did now I know it's a fallacy

if I appeal to Authority but it's not a

fallacy if I appeal to theology

Calvinists Lutheran and reformed

Baptists all hold to a view of Salvation

called monism which is that we do not

cooperate with God in Salvation not even

with our free will God is active we are

passive when a baby is baptized they're

completely passive and helpless

sometimes they're kicking and screaming

just like how when God Saves us we're

completely passive in the process and we

even try to resist sometimes I think a

more free will oriented provisionist or

Armenian view of Salvation is more

consistent with cradle baptism when I

explain infant baptism to my

provisionist Baptist friends in Texas

their most common objection is but then

it can't be a personal choice and then

I'm sort of predestined to smile say

that's the whole point we can also all

agree that baptism symbolizes salvation

even though I think it's more than a

symbol so if that's the case then it

makes sense for the infants receiving

baptism to be completely passive in the

process God doesn't need our permission

to save us if salvation really was based

on a personal choice we'd all be going

to hell none of us would choose it it's

only by God's grace alone that some of

us are saved salvation is all about what

God is doing not about what we are doing

so now apply that to baptism Colossians

212 says you were circumcised by Christ

being buried with him in baptism so it's

clearly God doing the work in baptism in

the KOB Baptist view baptism is you

declaring your personal faith in God but

in the PO Baptist view baptism is God

declaring his faithfulness to you thank

you okay you have uh two minutes

remaining worth of time did you want to

make any other

additions um no I think I yield my time

to Pastor

okay all right well thank you so much

for uh the presentation for staying

within the time limit and staying on the

topic of course makes my job easier

Pastor Keith are you ready to give your

opening statement sir yeah let me set my

timer here real quick

okay and I will get mine reset and again

I will once you get down to 60 seconds

I'll give you a bell um but your time

begins at your first word

sir all right well first I want to thank

thank redeem Zoomer for his willingness

to engage in this debate as well as

Matthew for moderating I'll work to stay

within my time and make his job as easy

as possible also want to recognize from

the beginning that many gallons of Ink

have been dedicated to writing on this

particular topic it's not likely that

either of us will add any new ideas to

the

subject um but it's likely that there

will be new hearers who will listen to

this debate perhaps some who are

struggling over this question so I hope

I can succinctly lay out my position as

both an introduction and an

argument I'm an affirmed cedo Baptist

therefore I reject the practice of

baptizing infants based upon the faith

of their parents now it's important that

I admit that my position is The Minority

Report of church history pedobaptism

does have a long history within

Christianity it is practiced by the

majority of Mainline Protestant

denominations as well as the Eastern

Orthodox church and the Roman Catholic

church but here here is where we mustn't

allow history to confuse us while the

practice of infant baptism is wide

within Christianity the reason for its

practice is varied the Presbyterian the

Lutheran and the Roman Catholic all

baptize their infants but they do so for

different reasons Roman Catholics affirm

baptismal regeneration meaning that it

is in the water of baptism that a person

receives the new birth uh it's said in

the catechism of the Catholic Church SE

second ition paragraph 1213 baptism is

the sacrament of regeneration through

water in the word likewise the Lutheran

Church also affirms baptismal

regeneration the website for the

Lutheran Church Missouri Senate States

on its page regarding baptism quote we

believe that new birth and then they

have in parenthesis regeneration happens

in

baptism however within the Presbyterian

Church there is disagreement on this

matter though though they agree that

baptism is a sign of regeneration as is

stated in their confession and was also

noted by uh redeem Zoomer in his opening

many Presbyterians would argue that

baptism does not necessarily result in

regeneration and this is a key point I

want to quote Kevin Gardner he was

writing for lioner

Ministries he says this over against the

Baptist view the reform view asserts

that something actually happens in

baptism Grace is actually conferred to

worthy recipients and over against the

Roman Catholic and Lutheran views the

reformed view asserts that baptism does

not regenerate

now my point in all of this is simply to

say that while there is consistency

regarding the subjects of baptism

between these groups there is not a

consistency as to the reason why they

baptize infants on the one hand you have

a group baptizing for the purpose of

conferring regeneration upon the subject

on the other hand you have those who

reject the idea that regeneration is

being conferred instead they see baptism

as a sign into the Covenant of entrance

into the Covenant Community therefore

any appeal to Historic tradition without

recognizing the differences would be

misleading yes baptizing infants is the

majority report but the reasoning has

not been

consistent I do want to quote James

White at this point in his debate with

Greg Strawbridge on this same subject he

said this no one believed what Calvin

taught about covenantal infant baptism

before John Calvin and so that makes it

a theological Noom and it places it in a

place in history that must be examined

Calvin inherited a sacral Church from

the first generation reformers he was a

second generation reformer and sought to

establish a theological framework to

defend that sacral State Church

relationship in light of the break from

Rome on one side and the challenge of

the radical Reformation on the other

side what's interesting is if you think

about there's actually a consistent

between Baptists and some Presbyterians

on this we both reject baptismal

regeneration depending on the definition

we both believe baptism is done

preliminary to entrance into the visible

church so the question becomes who is

rightly a part of the church who is a

right participant in the life of the

church who is actually part of the

church but this is based on a larger

question the visible church is made up

of those who are members of the the New

Covenant so who is in the New Covenant

is it Believers only or is it Believers

and they're not yet believing children

this question leads us to have to

examine the covenants it is true that

under the old Covenant people were

joined by birth it was a national

Covenant it was for a specific people

however in the New Covenant people are

joined by the new birth this has been

understood historically again this is

why so many practiced infant baptism

they believed in baptismal regeneration

they at least understood the connection

between regeneration and Covenant

membership to truly be a member of the

New Covenant you have to be born

again this is one of the distinguishing

attributes of the New Covenant over

against the old everyone within the New

Covenant are regenerate Believers the

New Covenant is mentioned in the book of

Jeremiah and is quoted again in Hebrews

8 and it is called the New Covenant

because it is based on a priesthood with

better promises I call it the Papa

John's Covenant better priesthood better

promises New Covenant in the New

Covenant God's law is written on the

heart everyone everyone in the New

Covenant will have a genuine

relationship with God I will be their

God and they will be my people everyone

from the least to the greatest in the

new will be in the New Covenant will

know God personally every member of the

New Covenant has full forgiveness of

sins everyone in the New Covenant

Community will know the Lord it will not

be made up of those who confess faith

and those who do not but rather it will

be made up entirely of those who profess

to be Believers in Jesus this is why

Hebrews 811 in speaking of the Covenant

Community says they shall not teach each

one his fellow citizen or each one his

brother saying know the Lord for they

shall all know me from the least of them

to the greatest this speaks specifically

about the Covenant Community wherein All

Shall know the Lord so the position that

we take is simple a person does not

enter the New Covenant by birth a person

enters the New Covenant by New Birth it

is not physical birth that unites one to

Christ it is spiritual birth that unites

one to Christ the New Covenant actually

establishes a new paradigm in which

ideas like seed and offspring are to be

understood Romans

4:16 says that is why it depends on

faith in in order that the promise May

rest on Grace and be guaranteed to all

his offspring not only to the adherent

of the law but also to the one who

shares in the faith of Abraham who is

the father of us all as it is written I

have made you the father of many nations

in the presence of God in whom he

believed who gives life to the dead and

calls into existence the things that do

not exist that's quoted from Genesis 17

is Abraham the father of New Covenant

Believers and we his offspring well the

answer is yes but is Abraham fatherhood

physical in this case no in the New

Covenant the seed is spiritual it must

be recognize that a big part of the

reason for the Presbyterian Baptist

distinction comes from our understanding

of the covenants Presbyterians believe

the Covenant of Grace began after the

fall and therefore all the covenants

named thereafter the abrahamic the

Mosaic the davidic are all different

administrations of the same Covenant of

Grace they believe that their position

maintains a proper continuity between

the old and the new and Baptists are

said to be introducing a discontinuity

which is unwarranted by the text however

we all recognize that there is

discontinuity from the old to the new

none of us are demanding our children be

circumcised neither do we hold to the

dietary restrictions neither do we

practice Temple

sacrifice but we also recognize there's

continuity we all believe that there is

a Transcendent law which is above the

covenants and applies to all people at

all times do not murder do not lie do

not steal applies to everyone in

addition Baptists argue that the New

Covenant is that Covenant to which all

previous covenants

pointed what they are in types and

shadows find their fulfillment in the

New Covenant therefore the con the

continuity is in fulfillment the Old

Testament is the type and the New

Testament is the

Fulfillment so both sides affirm there

is both continuity and discontinuity the

question is does membership in the

Covenant Community continue unchanged

from the old Covenant to the New

Covenant the Presbyterian says yes but

the Baptists argue a significant change

has come the old Covenant was entered

into by birth but the New Covenant is

entered into by New Birth so we come to

this question does the bible give us a

way to determine who has experienced the

New Birth the answer is yes those who

experience the new birth believe on the

Lord Jesus Christ John

1:1 he came unto his own and his own

people did not receive him but to all

who did receive him who believed in his

name he gave them the right to become

the children of God who were born not of

blood nor of the will of the flesh nor

of the will of man but of God if a

person has not professed Faith then we

would not assume that he has been

regenerated therefore until he does we

would not baptize him does this mean

that every member of a Baptist Church or

any church for that matter is a

regenerate member of the New Covenant no

we are aware that there is such a thing

as false profession there are those who

make false statements of Faith but

baptizing a false Professor is not the

same as baptizing a person unable to

make a

profession some may ask well what

criteria would a Baptist parent use to

determine if a child is a proper subject

for baptism

well we would use similar criteria that

Presbyterians use when admitting their

children to the Lord's table unless they

practice ped communion which is practice

but is The Minority Report they have

some practice of determining whether a

child is fit for the table whether it be

catechesis or counseling or something

else they will not allow an unbelieving

child to the table therefore though they

are considered members of the New

Covenant Community they are not treated

the same as those who profess faith

which is ironic because Baptists are

chided for holding back baptism when we

both are choosing to not allow full

paration full participation in the

sacraments until faith is

professed one of the earliest documents

that exists outside of the scripture is

something called the diday and in regard

to baptism it has an interesting

paragraph it says this concerning

baptism baptized this way having first

said all these things baptized in the

name of the father and of the son and of

the Holy Spirit In Living Water but if

you do not have Living Water baptized

into other water and if you cannot uh in

cold then warm but if you have not

either pour out water Thrice upon the

head into the name of the father and of

the Son and the Holy Spirit but

before the baptism let the baptizer Fast

and the baptized and whatever others can

but you shall order the baptized to fast

one or two days before so if we look

back back at this historical document we

see that even in the history of the

church it's obvious that a person being

baptized must have the ability to

consent to the baptism because they're

being asked to consent to a fast which

would certainly exclude infants neither

are infants mentioned as being proper

subjects for baptism in this particular

document which is a good reminder that

my friend would have to affirm there is

no command for neither any explicit

description of any infant being baptized

in the New Testament households are

mentioned to be certain but there's

nothing that says those households

contained infants I have just as much

warrant to believe the people in the

house of the Philippian Jailer were all

over the age of 12 as anyone has to

assume that there were infants in the

home using my church as an example only

three of the households out of

approximately 50 that we have have

children still in diapers moreover in at

least one biblical case we are told that

the person believed together with his

household and would be in line with our

understanding of household baptism acts

188 says christas the ruler of the

synagogue believed in the Lord together

with his entire

household in the New Testament you never

read of the Apostles purposefully

baptizing an unrepentant

unbeliever baptism is always given to

those who profess faith in

Christ finally it's important to say

that as Baptist we do not believe our

children are in the same condition as

the pagans because the Bible does teach

that our children are Sanctified by the

presence of at least one believing

parent but the sanctification does not

confirm them to be certainly among the

elect any more than it does the sanctity

provided to the unbelieving spouse if

that passage mandates baptizing an

infant it would also mandate baptizing

unbelieving

spouse our children are in a position of

privilege to be sure

but they are not by birth members of the

New Covenant and it does not make them

part of the Covenant Community any more

than it would an unbelieving spouse our

children are blessed to be in a

Christian home our children are blessed

to be in a Christian church but our

children do not become part of the body

of Christ apart from faith in the Lord

Jesus Christ and until they profess

Faith they are not proper subjects for

baptism thank

you thank you Pastor Keith that

concludes our opening statement so to

our audience you have heard uh both

sides present their uh positive and

negative case uh for poed baptism we're

going to move now to a period of the

debate called rebuttal now rebuttal is a

time period not as a bonus add-on to

your opening statement rebuttal is

specifically so that you can address

inconsistencies or press on some of the

weaker parts of your opponent's

presentation rebuttal is intended to

take only m material that has been

presented tonight and to attempt to

refute it or demonstrate a logical

inconsistency we'll continue our

alternating back and forth as we have

done uh from the beginning so redeem

Zoomer you will be up first on the

rebuttal period uh you'll be rebutting

Pastor Keith's uh presentation in the

opening and are you ready for that time

to begin the 10-minute time to begin sir

yes okay so I will start my clock on

your first word okay so Pastor Keith

made a very good point that there are

the majority of Christians throughout

church history have affirmed infant

baptism but for different reasons and

I've it's a very good point because I've

actually pointed this out into certain

things that I consider false teachings

for example I consider justifying

same-sex marriage to be a false teaching

and what made me realize that there's no

good biblical support for it is that

there are a lot of reasons people use to

justify same-sex marriage but everyone

has a different personal reason for

justifying it which made me think yeah

the Bible doesn't really have a clear

justif ific people are just making this

stuff up so it is a very good point to

say that yeah a lot of Christians

support infant baptism but for very

different reasons it would be a very

good point if that were completely true

but not quite actually so Pastor Keith

does indeed point out that the different

poed Baptist groups are not unified

completely in their view of what baptism

does and what it is exactly he did

correctly point out that the

Presbyterian view of baptismal efficacy

is not quite the same as the Lutheran

view of baptismal regeneration

which is slightly different even than

the Catholic view of baptismal

regeneration but there are very clear

common themes between all these groups

here's one simple thing that all these

groups believe that's the justification

they all use for baptizing their babies

you ready baptism makes you Christian

the difference between Baptists and

everyone else everyone else thinks

baptism makes you Christian in some

sense in like traditional English

language to baptize something is

synonymous with to christianize it um

that's why when people say OT Thomas

aquinus is just appropriating ancient

Greek philosophy and making it Christian

they'll say he's baptizing Aristotle or

they'll say St Augustine was baptizing

Plato baptism is a synonymous with

making is a synon synonym for making

something Christian so the reason

Christians have baptized their babies

historically is I want my babies to be

Christian we're making Christian babies

here so there is a bit of a difference

because Presbyterians think that there's

a difference between being Christian in

a covenantal sense and being Christian

in the sense of being elect that's why

um Presbyterians have a much less hard

time than reformed Baptists with dealing

with the passages that Clearly say it's

possible to fall away from the faith

because even though we do believe in

perseverance of the Saints we believe

you could be a Christian in a covenantal

sense and still fall away from the faith

so that means all of us whether

Presbyterian or Lutheran or Catholic

believe baptism makes you Christian in

some sense the different um theologians

have had different ways of working this

out but as I said in my opening

statement it's not quite true that the

Presbyterian or calvinist view of

baptism was a complete novelty because

as I quoted from Calvin earlier um he

still believed that baptism contributes

to Regeneration in some sense the big

differences it only contributes to

Regeneration for the elect and its

efficacy isn't tied to when it's when

it's administered you quoted James White

I'm I'm big fan of James White by the

way love his debates and all um but I

disagree with what he said about Calvin

because I like I said I've I've read

many places where Calvin clearly

demonstrates a belief in baptismal

efficacy joining the universal witness

of the church so another reason that all

Christians have baptized babies aside

from the fact that baptism makes the

babies Christian in some sense is also

because theyve just had a more

Collective view of the church now moving

on to covenant theology now personally I

wasn't planning to spend too much time

on covenant theology because while

Presbyterians uh believe in it most

other po Baptist groups don't so I want

to kind of represent all poed Baptists

here not just Presbyterians um but

Pastor Keith brought up a lot of things

about the old Covenant and and the New

Covenant because arguing for

circumcision arguing for the status of

Covenant children whether or not they

believe as part of the kingdom of God

only really works if you see continuity

between the old Covenant and the New

Covenant in that sense so correct me in

cross-examination if I'm

misunderstanding you it seems that

pastor Pastor Keith said that yes it's

true that in the old Covenant um

children of Believers whether or not

they were elect were part of the

Covenant were part of God's people but

that the New Covenant is a new and

better Covenant and that in that

Covenant the condition is having the law

written on the heart it's personal faith

and I can't really blame reformed

Baptists for thinking that the New

Covenant is something new and different

you know it's in the name New Covenant

uh but there's a bit of a problem with

thinking that because in Genesis 17:7

which gives the um which gives the

Covenant gives the Covenant to Abraham

and in which it says that children are

part of the Covenant says I will

establish my Covenant between me and you

and your

Offspring and it says it's going to be

an Everlasting Covenant Everlasting

means Everlasting so if you think the

old Covenant has ended and the the New

Covenant has replaced it then what

happened to the old Covenant where's the

old Covenant um I'm sure that reformed

Baptists 1689 Federalists have thought

this through very carefully I'm sure I'm

not the first person to notice this so

again a cross-examination would be a

good thing to talk about um but another

reason to think that the principles of

the Covenant with Abraham still apply to

the New Covenant to Believers today is

in Romans n um when Paul is explaining

that not all who are biologically

descended from Abraham Are Spiritual

descendants of Abraham um he says that

it's not as though the word of God has

failed for not all who are descended

from Israel belong to Israel so he's

basically taking the rules of that

Covenant and applying them to today

applying them to the New Covenant and

that sort of seems to justify the presid

Presbyterian view of covenant theology

which is that well there's different

administrations of the Covenant they're

all part of one overarching Covenant of

Grace and that's why we can take the

principle of um the children of

Believers being included as part of the

Covenant and apply it to the New

Testament especially because we see St

Peter echoing this promise that the

Covenant is for you and your children we

can assume that there's continuity but

that sort of seals the deal in my

opinion um and Pastor Keith also talked

about how in the in the New Covenant

it's like we're just Jus ified by faith

and it's the new birth that um the new

birth contributes to inclusion in the

New Covenant um but Paul appeals to the

Abraham story when he's talking about

justification by faith and the New

Covenant so if the old Covenant had like

different rules different mechanisms of

Salvation than the New Covenant it

wouldn't really make much sense for Paul

to quote passages from the old c not

just the old Covenant but specifically

the story of Abraham if the rules were a

bit different back then um salvation

justification in the eyes of God has

always been about the New Birth it has

always been about personal faith in

Christ and there has always been a

distinction between being part of God's

covenant people and being a personal

believer so um there are passages though

about the New Covenant being something

new and different with a new birth with

the Heart of Stone being replaced with

the heart of Flesh so if the new birth

isn't a change in the mechanisms of

Salvation what is the new birth referred

to in terms of how the covenants are

different the answer is pretty simple

like what's the synonym for New Birth

it's Resurrection the resurrection of

Christ changed everything in the old

Covenant you had types and shadows of

Resurrection but in the New Covenant you

had the resurrection of Christ on

display for everyone and what the New

Covenant gives is a promise of eternal

life a promise of Resurrection a promise

of the new birth and then people were

able to finally realize that being born

again is a spiritual resurrection and

there's a promise of a physical

Resurrection so the resurrection is is

what we're talking about when we're

talking about the New Birth so Pastor

Keith also mentioned the fact that you

know we we baptize our infants but we

still don't allow them to the Lord's

table and we still have uh similar

qualifications for allowing infants to

the Lord's Supper that Baptists do for

allowing um sorry not we don't have

qualifications for allow infants to the

Lord's Supper s similar qualifications

for allowing children to the Lord's

table that Baptist do for allowing

children to be baptized and the the most

important qualification of of course is

person faith in Christ there's a pretty

simple reason for why we do this it's

that there is a very clear and Stern

warning in the New Testament about

taking the Lord's Supper in an unworthy

Manner and there is no such warning for

baptism um it says that if you take the

Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner

you're sinning against the the body and

and blood of the Lord um according to

calvinist theology the only people who

really receive the true body and blood

of Christ are those who have personal

faith and those that don't only receive

judgment so that's why we don't um give

communion to babies my personal analogy

for why we baptize babies but don't

commune them is that baptism is

citizenship in the kingdom of God like I

said but communion is active

participation in the kingdom of God

citizenship is a one-time thing you

don't need to renew your birth

certificate all the time but you

constantly participate in your country

so the Lord's Supper in the kingdom of

God is like voting or serving in the

military you need to be mature to do

that um so Pastor Keith also mentioned

the diday um I will I haven't really

studied the diday in depth I will grant

I already did Grant some of the church

fathers were credobaptist but all the

church fathers believed in baptismal

regeneration so if we're going to use

the deday um to justify crto baptism we

could also use that to justify baptismal

regeneration and um thank you I yield my

time okay thank you very much and just

to remind the our participants and the

audience the first Bell means there's

one minute remaining a second Bell if

needed would say time has expired so

thank you both for respecting the time

constraints uh Pastor Keith are you

ready for your rebuttal period sir I

think so okay uh the clock will begin

it'll be a 10-minute period the clock

will begin on your first word I want to

say this first of all uh there's no one

who speaks much faster than redeem

Zoomer so as I was trying to take notes

during his opening statement I I wasn't

able to do so very well but I did my

best to pull

out to pull out the three points of his

argument first that the kingdom is

collective second that baptism actually

does something and third that uh it is

consistent with a reformed soteriology I

think that's correct am I right in those

three points well and and in in a lot of

ways there would be agreement such as in

the fact that the the kingdom is

collective it is the body of Christ

we're not arguing that the kingdom is

not Collective we're arguing that the

kingdom is entered into by way of faith

and not by way of birth and that is the

key to understanding How Baptist SE this

we see a distinction between a national

Covenant National covenant made with a

uh a people who will receive this

Covenant by birth specifically the

children of Abraham Israel uh but that

there is a difference in the New

Covenant where which will include people

of all Nations and so now it's no longer

familial it's no longer National but now

it is spiritual and we see this as I

quoted from Romans chapter 4 when

Abraham is called our father the

blessings of Abraham are given to us and

Paul says that God preached the gospel

to Abraham when he said to him through

you all the nations of the world will be

blessed well Paul said that's the gospel

and why is that the gospel because

that's the Fulfillment of the promises

that God made to Abraham and the

Fulfillment of that Eternal Covenant

that was mentioned just a few moments

ago is that the Eternal Covenant that

God promised to Abraham would be

fulfilled in Abraham's greatest son

great son the the the true Seed of

Abraham the singular seed that Paul

talks about in Galatians which is the

Lord Jesus Christ and therefore it is

being united to him that makes one part

of the collective Body of Christ it is

not simply being born in a Christian

home that makes someone United to Christ

therefore someone can be born outside of

a Christian home like my wife who was

born in a home that did not uh uh teach

her the Bible and things like that and

yet at the same time she became a

Believer she was joined to the body of

Christ not by birth but by New Birth and

we can look at the same way and see many

families who whether they be

paedobaptist or credobaptist who have

had children and raised them up and yet

they have departed from the faith and we

and we are told well well no these are

are Covenant children yes but they have

departed from the faith they have the

this faith that they were taught as

children they have they have run away

from and so this promise to your

children is a promise of spiritual uh

Union with Christ it is not about

whether or not your parents are

Christian and so yes there is a

collective the collective is the body of

Christ and it is the universal Body of

Christ all around the world we do agree

that there is uh there is a a a body of

Christ that is all around the world and

you enter into that body of Christ not

by being born into it by be but rather

by being born again into it um did want

to mention some one other thing when you

mentioned the Noah the Noah thing about

everyone outside was immersed I thought

that was a pretty good jab I'll just

give you that that's pretty funny uh the

second thing you said baptism is not

just a symbol and on this we would agree

I want to quote from the 1689 London

Baptist confession on what baptism is

baptism is an ordinance which means it

is a command it is a command of the New

Covenant New Testament ordained by Jesus

Christ to be unto the party baptized a

sign of his fellowship with him in his

death and Resurrection this is why we

baptize the way that we do it's a

picture of being of dying with Christ

and raising again of being engrafted

into him of remission of sins and of

giving up into God through Jesus Christ

to live and walk in the newness of Life

baptism is not just a symbol in the

sense that it's that that it has no

value but rather it is a sign of

fellowship with Christ in his death and

Resurrection being engrafted into him

it's a sign of the the remission of sins

the giving up un God through Jesus

Christ to live and walk in the newness

of life now I do not believe in

baptismal regeneration and my rejection

of baptismal regeneration is simple on

two on two accounts I I do not believe

in baptism regeneration because I do

believe there are people who are

baptized who are not regenerated and

therefore I don't tie baptism and

regeneration together in that sense

however I do understand that oh oh I

said there was two reasons because

people can be baptized and not be

regenerated and I believe some people

can be regenerated apart from baptism uh

perhaps someone who's unable to be

baptized prior to death or something

like that but yet can still experience

the blessing of regeneration because

regeneration I believe produces faith

and therefore if someone believes they

have been regenerated whether or not

they've been baptized and so baptism in

that sense does not create or cause

regeneration from my perspective but I

do believe that they are you they are

tied together in the sense that in the

early church uh there was a sense in

which if you were a Believer you would

be baptized and and to to to to claim to

be an unbaptized believer would have

been been something that wouldn't have

made sense in the early church they

wouldn't have understood that that that

idea so I will say this to anyone who's

listening to the debate if you're a

believer in Christ and you have not been

baptized then I believe that you are in

sin and you need to repent and you need

to be baptized because rejection of

baptism is a rejection of a command an

ordinance of the New Testament so so so

we don't say it's that that it's nothing

or that it's just a symbol but it's a

command of Christ and it has a purpose

and it has meaning I just don't believe

the meaning is regeneration finally um

you said it is a um in let me say go

back inconsistent with reform or or po

baptism is consistent with reformed

soteriology and you said that Calvin

said that Satan loves kedto Baptists

well that that may be the case I've

often said that I wouldn't be able to be

a member of Calvin's church and he would

probably have had me excommunicated if

not worse so I have no problem with that

but I do Under I I do want to point out

I'm going to also mention Romans 9 as

you've mentioned Romans 9 we talk about

Romans 9 as a as a reminder that when we

consider the fact that not everyone born

of Abraham is truly a not everyone born

of Israel is truly Israel well not

everyone born in a household of a

Christian is truly a Christian just

because they're born in the household

but it is by faith that they become a

Believer It Is by faith they are joined

to the body of Christ and the

circumcision received without hands in

Colossians is interesting that you would

mention because the circumcision

received without hands we would say is

regeneration that baptism is a picture

of that but baptism is not the cause of

that so yes we would see a a distinction

and say the sign of the New Covenant is

actually regeneration and baptism is a

picture of that but regeneration is the

sign so I'll finish there I think I'm

about out of time anyway okay you've got

two more minutes did you want to do

anything else with them um well uh I

think I'm good I think we okay all right

well thank you both for your very uh uh

well constructed opening statements and

your your passionate but respectful

rebuttal so to the audience now comes a

time where we've had a period of time

for one side to make their case and then

the other side to make their case and

all now we're going to move to the fun

part this is cross examination now

cross-examination is the period in which

both participants are able to directly

address one another and ask questions

now there is still quite a bit of

structure we try to keep but this part

of the debate provided that everyone's

acting in good faith and I have no doubt

whatsoever that that will be the case uh

this is the part of the debate where we

let them range a little bit we let them

sort of probe each other's positions a

little bit the only stipulation is we

have a 10-minute cross-examination in

which one side asks questions and the

other answers and then we have another

10-minute cross-examination that goes in

the other direction

if you are the side that is assigned as

the questioner the only thing you are

permitted to do during cross-examination

is to ask questions you are not allowed

to rebut or anything like that that

period has already passed so you need

everything that you say needs to have a

question mark on the end of it for those

who are responding to the Cross

examination you need to not ask

questions in return unless you need one

to clarify what the person meant for

example if someone says well we know

that in Acts it means this or this would

you agree you can say hang on a minute I

don't understand where in acts are you

referring to that some something like

that to help you answer the question is

good a rhetorical question or a counter

jab is not permitted during cross

examination so typically the questioner

does not do as much talking as the

respondent so since Pastor Keith has

just finished his uh rebuttal statement

redeem Zoomer you will be up first for

asking questions sorry I I totally got

that backwards I I apologize Pastor

Keith will be first to ask questions of

redeem Zoomer uh so that uh he can rest

his voice just a little bit after his

rebuttal period though I know he's a

Baptist pastor he's used to preaching

quite a bit so uh that won't be a

problem so uh I will hopefully not be

involved in this I will simply raise my

hand when uh it is one minute remaining

and uh Pastor Keith are you ready to

begin questioning uh yeah give me just a

second sure um sorry I'm no that's quite

all right

yeah we can go okay uh your first

question sir all right Zoomer do you

agree that there is no explicit command

in the New Testament to baptize infants

yes do you agree that the use of the

term household does not automatically

assume the presence of infants of

course are the children of at least one

believing parent full members of the New

Covenant there's a difference between

external and internal membership of the

Covenant so if they're baptized they do

have external membership in the Covenant

internal membersip in the Covenant

meaning like spiritual union with Christ

and regeneration that's only for those

who have faith in Christ and it um

happens when they are regenerate which

is not necessarily at the moment of

baptism even though it sometimes is okay

so would you say that they're part of

the body of Christ would you say that a

infant child baptized into the church is

part of the body of Christ depends on

how you define it there's controversy in

even the reform tradition in like the

Federal Vision movement they'll say yes

100% some people say well I'm not sure

about that I'll say yes in some sense

I'll say yes but not in the same way as

a uh regenerate believer is would you

agree with me that the criteria that's

used for Presbyterians to determine

their child's Fitness for the table is

similar to the criteria that Baptist

used to determine a child's Fitness for

baptism maybe not quite and here's why

um Baptists believe a bit more strongly

in the ne necessity of a conversion

experience or Born Again experience

whereas um the poed Baptists all believe

that it's possible and perhaps bit

normal for people to be Christians from

the moment of um baptism or maybe even

before that um I know a lot of people

including my girlfriend who say they've

been Believers their entire lives

they've never had a a dramatic night and

day Born Again experience it's not

always dramatic but they never remember

a time when they weren't a Believer so

we have less confidence than Baptists do

in whether you can know if slash when

someone has been inwardly regenerate

that's an invisible process so God ties

that process to a visible sign which is

baptism so we would have similar

qualifications we would say the person

needs to profess Faith person needs to

understand what the Lord's Supper is but

I think some Baptist not all but would

need to see evidence of like an actual

conversion would that be

accurate uh well I can't I I appreciate

appreciate your answer but for the sake

of not going back and forth I'll I'll

I'll leave it at that it was a good

answer okay so do you believe it is a

sin for a Christian parent to withhold

baptism the same way it's a sin for me

to slack off on my homework may maybe a

bit more than that um sin has this

connotation of you're like a bad

Christian if if you do this um as

calvinist we believe in total pravity we

believe anything short of utter

Perfection is is sin if you're not

breathing air the right way it's it's

sin in some sense and sin is a gradient

so I'd say Yeah in the sense that any

sort of imperfectionist sin any

theological error that I have and I know

I do have some theological errors is sin

I will grant that if the KOB Baptist

position is correct which for all I know

it could be then the poob Baptists are

in sin for baptizing their children

simply because sin is anything short of

perfection so I would say yes but I

don't mean sin in terms of they are

intentionally going against the word of

God I know that Baptists are committed

to following the word of God I know that

everyone has fallen short of the glory

of God as the Bible

says well I I'm going to follow up on

that and and I appreciate the the way

that you stated the answer but I do want

to ask if if do you think a person

should be placed under church discipline

if they refuse to baptize their child I

would assume the answer is no based on

what you just said but let's I just I'm

still curious as your answer so I

haven't thought about that are you

asking like if the church is a p Baptist

Church and there's a particular family

that doesn't want to baptize their

children sure that's a scenario that

would fit yeah I've not actually thought

that through um it really depends um I

think some Churches naturally are more

strict on uh sub Christian distinctives

than others so in a church like mine the

answer would probably be no we're pcusa

we're lucky if we even require people to

believe in

God that that's G to be the that's going

to be the part that I that I clip and

put in sorry yeah but in like um a rpcna

Church where they do everything strictly

by the book they probably would um so

I'm not a pastor so I'm not the one

doing the disciplining I'm just the one

with opinions on the internet okay do

you think that Baptist children are in

spiritual danger by not being baptized

and their parents are doing them

harm uh I'd say more danger than

children who are baptized because Martin

Luther belied that baptism even if the

person not doesn't end up being saved

baptism Wards off demons right um found

that for myself even though I was a

Believer for a while before getting

baptized it was because I thought I was

baptized as a baby but turns out I was

baptized into a new age group long story

the point is um I found that it was a

lot easier to resist sin and evil after

I was baptized even though I was been a

Believer for a long time um Martin

Luther said that like baptism is in some

way similar to an exorcism and that it

it Wards off demons sort of places a

mark on children that says get out of

here Satan This one belongs to God so I

would say

they're not in any more danger of not

being a True Believer I guess um because

if you look at the retention rates

Baptists tend to have actually better

retention rates than other groups which

I will fully admit but I would say that

in in a spiritual warfare perspective

honestly I would say um since baptism

Wards off demons that would uh that

would be a something I would say okay uh

do you believe that someone must be

regenerate to be a member of the New

Covenant uh uh no like I said internal

versus external membership in the

Covenant regeneration is required for

internal membership not external

membership how would then how would you

then understand when uh Hebrews 8 says

that within the Covenant they shall all

know me uh from the least to the

greatest do you think that that is uh

exaggerative what how would you how

would you understand that

passage um so I haven't actually heard

that one that's an argument I haven't

thought of how to refute I would say

there's a um difference like I said

difference between internal and external

membership in the Covenant and I would

also okay I just thought of this so it

says that all of you who were baptized

have been like United to Christ been

baptized with Christ even you would know

that some people are baptized uh without

being fully regenerate so I would say

that it's it's saying like all for whom

baptism was effective are united to

Christ and likewise all for whom the

covenant was effective um they they will

all know Christ okay all right

um would it be right to baptize the

unbelieving spouse of a Believer based

on 1 Corinthians

7 I don't know I mean active rejection

is is different than um simply not

having an opinion one way or another

like um like the reformers taught that

you know baptism saves as long as you

don't render it unfruitful by unbelief

and if if the spouse is like clearly an

unbeliever they're going along with

baptism just to make their other spouse

happy

um they're rejecting God's grace in

baptism that might bring judgment on

them so I would say probably not it's

different for

infants who are not really rejecting

it do you believe it's necessary for

Christian parents to call their children

to repentance and

Faith of course okay um do you think

that Christian parents should assume

their child has Faith until they prove

otherwise that's this whole deal with

presumptive

regeneration uh not necessarily assume

that the child has Faith they should

assume that the child is in the faith

not the same as having personal faith

can you be in the faith and not have

faith like I said there's difference

between external membership and the

Covenant internal membership if you're

grow up in the church if you're if you

participate in the church if you're

everyone who's baptized in the church in

some sense is in the faith in some sense

um so yeah in the Old Testament there's

the concept of the remnant the believing

within Israel that are separated from

the unbelieving outside of Israel do we

find the Covenant or the the the concept

of Remnant in the New

Covenant uh not that I can not that I

can think of right now um it would make

sense that the New Covenant Church is

more pure than the old Covenant Church

okay

um what would happen if a child was

based on the If the child was baptized

based on the faith of one believing

parent and that parent later became an

apostate showing themselves to not be a

believer would that mean that the status

of being a covenant child was somehow

forfeit and therefore their baptism

illegitimate there's probably

theologians who can answer this better

than me I would say no because it would

kind of be dontist to say that the um um

if the parent was like a a false

believer was secretly not a Believer

then congrats the covenantal efficacy

doesn't really work um remember it's God

working through all these things so um I

would say that would not automatically

invalidate it now okay all right last

question what do you think was my best

argument

tonight um your best argument well I

kind of admitted that your first

argument was really good that like yeah

there's a lot of Po Baptists but you all

have completely different reasons for

why um and I think the whole thing about

like birth is for the old Covenant and

New Birth is for the New Covenant that's

a pretty good argument all right thank

you appreciate it I'm done okay with an

entire 11 seconds to spare there we go

um

all right well thank you both for that

that was for the audience that was

everything we want a cross-examination

to be focused respectful little bit of

humor that's that's what we're hoping

for and we expected nothing less uh in

an in-house brotherly debate so uh other

direction redeem Zoomer are you ready to

ask Pastor fosy some questions yeah so

okay you're we will begin now okay so

pastor Pastor Keith uh you said you

don't believe baptism is just a symbol

but based on what you describe baptism

as it it's still sounded like it's it's

just a symbol um it's like a symbol can

still be very very important and and

just a symbol like um if I were to in

the middle of like road rage stick my

middle finger up at someone that's just

a symbol but it's still very important

it still has a lot of meaning but it's

just a symbol so symbols still have have

meaning but I think for it to be more

than a symbol it needs to actually do

something so does baptism actually do

something yes baptism is the sign of

entrance into the New Covenant Community

I agree

with that and it does do that I do

believe that in the in the external

sense it places someone in the New

Covenant Community as a visible sign

however it is not what we would say it

does not operate on its own in the sense

that it does not create uh regeneration

that would be my argument now what I

said sounded somewhat Presbyterian so

let me clarify a person does not become

a member of the church our church

specifically without having been

baptized because we believe that that

baptism is a sign of entrance into the

community you you you can't you it's

like the gate you can't come in unless

you go through that gate right so you

have to have that um and I and here's

what I don't like if if you if you want

to say baptism is symbolic or baptism is

a sign I I I agree but when you use the

word just and when someone says it's

just a sign well can we say the rainbow

is just a sign because it is a sign

which shows us that God will not destroy

the Earth again or that or that

circumcision was just a sign because it

marked out the the the children of

Abraham when we say just we are we are

diminishing it and therefore I say it is

a sign of something important but it's

not causing that important

thing okay so I agree that um just

because something is a sign and doesn't

have saving efficacy doesn't mean we

should use the word just but do you

think that baptism has any efficacy at

all unto any sort of salvation for

anyone I do not believe that baptism

causes regeneration and therefore I

don't believe baptism causes someone to

be saved I do believe that baptism is an

ordinance of Christ it's a command of

Christ therefore it has meaning but its

meaning is not tied uh extrinsically to

Salvation okay so um in the historic you

know Pres Ian Lutheran and augustinian

traditions they make a distinction

between sign and thing signified so in

some sense spiritual regeneration is

part of baptism when we speak of baptism

we're not just speaking of of the water

we're speaking of the water and what it

is sacramentally United to so in uh the

Reformed Baptist framework is there this

distinction between it does baptism have

the two components of sign and thing

signified I would say yes and you know

we we often also refer to the phrase the

means of Grace you know this is one of

the means by which God uh administers

Grace we talk about the preaching of the

word as a means of Grace we talk about

the perceiving of the sacraments or the

ordinances as a means of Grace So in

that sense I would say yes it has uh

it's it's there's God is doing something

in them but it's not uh the act of

regeneration so that's where I make the

T I would say God is doing something but

it's not it's not causing the new birth

so so in baptism if baptism is sign in

thing signified what is the thing

signified the thing signified is the the

new birth but it's not the cause it's

signifying what is h that this is why we

buried with Christ in baptism raised a

new life even though many of my uh

Baptist friends would say Romans 6 is a

dry verse meaning that Romans 6 is not

referring to physical baptism for a

moment let's say that it is referring to

physical baptism and it says buried with

Christ and baptism rais a new life

that's what we say when we baptize

someone we say buried with Christ and

baptism rais a new life it's this this

signified thing has already taken place

because the person already has Faith

therefore regeneration has already taken

place from a b from a calvinistic

framework where regeneration precedes

Faith therefore if this person has the

faith to desire baptism this thing has

already occurred but the symbol is

happening as a result of that okay last

question about baptism I promise or and

baptisms efficacy I was gonna say hope

not because we're talking about baptism

sorry so all of those all the different

Traditions who believe in baptismal

ethicacy

um allow for explain why some people are

baptized and don't have faith either

it's like the baptism wasn't effective

for them or they fall away from the

faith and it also allows for people who

are not baptized to be saved because

baptism is a means of Grace it's not the

cause of of Saving Grace So given that

all the baptismal efficacy Traditions

allow for those things what's stopping

you from affirming baptismal

efficacy well again I think it

determines it's determined by what you

mean by efficacy because I could sayy

unto salvation

well again I I because as I said earlier

I don't remember when I said it whether

it's a muttal or not but I because

baptism can be uh someone can be saved

apart from baptism and someone can be

saved prior to baptism I I I can't say

that baptism is a causal thing so that's

where I would end on that and just say I

it is certainly important it certainly

has value it certainly is as a sign of

entrance it has a very important value

to the visible Body of Christ who sees

this person receiving baptism there

thereby receiving them into the Covenant

uh family the the church but uh as far

as it causing salvation or being causal

that's where I I I would have to draw a

line and say I don't I wouldn't agree

and and and I know you said that the

other churches have exceptions like for

instance if if a person dies on the way

to the baptismal you know like like they

would still be because they their

presumptive baptism or whatever you know

or or they're they're they're going to

get baptized therefore the baptism would

apply to them um I just don't think it

works that way again going back to

justification by faith alone um not

justification by faith plus

baptism okay so in the the households

that were baptized in Acts you said that

there's a good chance they didn't have

any babies now I think the chance was

higher G given back then people had more

babies because there's less chance they

survived but let's assume they didn't

have any babies um given that do you

think that each member of the household

every time a household was baptized do

you think that there was a conversion a

spontaneous conversion of each

individual member of that household

before they were baptized I think there

was a different structure and the way

that people understood uh things as far

as households operated as far as if if

the father believed in something I think

that was had a lot more IM impact on the

family than it may today and and you

talked a little bit about the

individualism of America the

individualism even of Baptists in

America today and how you know there

there's this this cry to be separate and

divided uh but in the early uh time the

time of the early church the father led

the home he was the leader in the home

and recently it was interesting I was

going to get this quote but I I I forgot

to get it before the debate there was a

recent study done that showed that if a

father becomes a Christian there's like

a 90% chance that his wife and children

will follow in that but if the mother

becomes a Christian it's less and then

if if a child becomes a Christian it's

even less that the parents would follow

following the child's footsteps so there

is something to be said for a father's

Faith affecting those around him and

them wanting them wanting to follow

after him in that so I would see no

issue with saying that that that that

that would be the case yeah that's

definitely true that's what happened

when my father converted from Judaism

before I converted um so that's

definitely true but there's also the

example of Lydia who is um not obviously

not the father of her household um so in

in Lydia's case would you still say that

she convered converted and then

following that every single member of

her household individually had a

spiritual regeneration Born Again

experience at the same

time I think it's possible but I also

would say about Lydia her being a

businesswoman and a in the situation

that she was in she probably didn't have

infants so I throw that out there so so

that that would kind of take away

whether or not she had infants and

that's really the debate conversation

but if I were to be asked do I think

that all of her household believed as

she did her her hearing the words of

Paul resulted in a

spontaneous uh uh conversion we read

about that in her story in Acts there's

no reason to believe that that same

preaching that went back to her home

with her Paul went to her home and and

stayed at her home that the preaching

that Paul gave to them would have been

any less effective okay so if uh yeah if

Peter tells us that the Waters of the

flood symbolize baptism

um and Noah and his family were saved

through the through the waters um so why

would that concept of for you and your

children the whole family being saved at

once why would that not apply to the new

why would that not apply to baptism

specifically if Peter says that um Noah

and his flood foreshadows baptism well

this is interesting and you mentioned

the family I I wan to I know you're

talking about the the passage in First

Peter but I want to jump quickly to Acts

2 because that's often cited because it

says something similar This Promise is

for you and for your children right and

so people often hold on to that for po

baptism and say see this is the children

but what is the promise that's promised

in Acts two the promise is if you repent

and believe if you repent and be

baptized you will receive the

Forgiveness of sins repentance and

baptism repentance and Faith are tied

together in that and that you will

receive the gift of the holy spirit that

is the promise and so I will say this to

my children if you repent of your sins

believe in the Lord Jesus Christ you

will be saved that promise is for me and

that that promises for them okay last

question do you believe there's a

distinction between the visible and

invisible

Church uh yes that may take a little bit

of uh time I'll make it as quickly as I

can I do believe that the the invisible

churches all around the world and that

you and I are can be are brothers in

Christ me and Matthew are brothers in

Christ part of that invisible Body of

Christ but I I also see a distinction

between that and the local church the

local assembly which has elders and has

deacons and has a body uh that it is

ministering to in the local body and I

would say that's the distinction between

the the universal or Global church and

the local church so it's possible to be

part of the visible church but not the

invisible Church absolutely okay then

we're not too

different okay well that's that that'll

be the line at the end of the debate

well thank you both gentlemen um we have

now concluded our cross-examination

period again I want to commend you both

for your

uh conduct and keeping to the time

schedule on that one so we are now going

to move to our closing statements and

the closing statement is as free as it

can be so at this point you are uh free

to bring up old arguments new arguments

you're free to give the audience what

you want them to take away uh from our

time together uh both sides will have a

f minute period to make their closing

statements again this is just to kind of

put a bow on the argument and let the

audience leave with uh the memorable

bits that you want them to uh to head

out with before we begin um and uh

brother Keith you will be going first in

redeem Zoomer since he had to open he

will get the last word as our uh debate

courtesy to the audience we are going to

have an audience question and answer

session by way of the YouTube comments

or the YouTube live chat um you have

about 10 minutes to get your questions

in I will pick three questions for each

person and we will ask them those uh

once the closing statement ments have

concluded so a total of six questions if

you wouldn't mind I'm going to say

something in chat right now just to let

you guys know I'm here if you wouldn't

mind tagging Matthew Hinson in the chat

please tell me who the question is

addressed to and then give me your

question and remember it needs to be a

question not a theological Treatise or I

will ignore you so if you have a

question that you think would be useful

uh for understanding please tag me in

the chat tell me who the question is for

uh and then we will see if we can get to

that so with all that said uh in the

next 10 minutes we'll have our five

minute open or excuse me five minute

closing statement from uh Pastor Keith

our five minute closing statement from

redeem Zoomer and then we'll do our Q&A

period Pastor Keith are you ready I

think so your time period begins on your

first word

sir well many of you have come tonight

with competing opinions on this very

important and divisive topic and it is

possible that if you came tonight

already convin vinced of one side or the

other that you may still be just as

convinced when you leave however it is

my hope that this time has been useful

to encourage you to take a deeper look

at this important subject it seems in

our time that has become the cardinal

sin in the church to take strong St on

stances on issues especially if we

Proclaim that one side is correct and

another is incorrect yet from the very

beginning of the church we see this

modeled even in Christ himself Jesus was

not opposed to standing against the Trad

of his day and proclaiming their errors

in fact most of the time that he spent

preaching was done to correct the many

doctrinal errors which had crept in

among the Jewish people his most famous

sermon The Sermon on the Mount was based

on the formula you have heard it said

but I say to you beloved my goal tonight

has been to say you have heard it said

that it is appropriate to baptize

infants but I say to you the Bible

commands the baptism of Believers alone

I believe that the position held by the

PO Baptist is not not one that can truly

be defended by scripture and I pray that

I have demonstrated this during my time

this evening why then do we continue to

see the vast majority of Protestant

churches willingly baptizing infants if

in fact the biblical support is so weak

my answer is tradition is a hard thing

to give up and this has been the one

tradition that has been held within the

Protestant movement and have and we have

largely been unwilling to jettison it we

were willing to jce and so many other

traditions we were willing to give up

veneration of the Pope we were willing

to give up prayers to Mary we were

willing to give up praying to the 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 found in the Roman Catholic

church yet even though we were willing

to give up all of those things one

traditional holdover stood firm and that

is the baptism of infants I I believe

that infant baptism is the great

vestigial organ of the Protestant

Reformation it's the remaining holdover

from a time when the errors of Rome were

recognized and largely repented over and

in this sense I believe the Reformation

is really not

over I have some who have questioned me

as being truly reformed in my Theology

and I admit if you don't want to call me

reformed you can call me a calvinist it

says so in the title I'm your calvinist

and if you don't want to call me a

calvinist just call me Keith But

ultimately I will say this if someone

wants to argue about what it means to be

reformed I will say this I don't fit

into what it means to be classically

reformed and I agree but I would contest

that the very heart of the Reformation

is the cry Sola scriptura scripture

alone is the sole infallible rule for

Faith and practice and because I can

find no evidence in scripture for the

practice of infant baptism I remained un

I remain unconvinced even this evening I

can confidently assert that I am am

following in the footsteps of my

Reformation forefathers even though I

understand many of them would disagree

with me on this

subject I will conclude with this a

reminder that the Reformation was

founded on five statements and those

statements are marked by the word alone

salvation is by grace alone through

faith alone in Christ alone it is

according to scripture alone and it is

for God's glory alone I believe firmly

in these five statements yet in the

spirit of the evening I want to add one

more on the basis of scripture alone we

should teach and practice the baptism of

Believers alone thank

you thank you Pastor Keith redeem Zoomer

your five minute uh closing statement

is beginning upon your first word

sir okay great so this was a very good

debate I think um I'm very grateful to

God that Believers that come from

different traditions can still have

these these charitable discussions and

recognize each other as brothers in

Christ so I think most of the Baptist

criticisms of poed baptism are

unnecessary for example they'll say uh

we don't believe we don't do uh infant

baptism uh because we believe in the

importance of personal faith of a

personal Declaration of faith and a

personally believing in the Lord Jesus

Christ but I would say we believe that

too there is no contradiction between

baptizing B and expecting personal faith

in Christ uh Baptists also object to

baptismal efficacy on the grounds that

salvation is by faith alone but that

word faith alone that was coined by

Martin Luther and the other Protestant

reformers who strongly believed that

baptism states there is no contradiction

between saying baptism saves and that

we're saved by faith alone just like

there's no contradiction between saying

Christ saves and that we're saved by

faith alone you know Christ God is the

source of Salvation baptism word and

sacrament to be specific are the means

of Salvation and we are the ones who

receive salvation so I think a lot of

the Baptist reservations against infant

baptism can be cleared up simply by

understanding what it actually is what

we're actually saying we are not saying

that just because you baptized a baby

that you do not need to catechize them

or raise them in the faith it's it's the

opposite because these babies are now

part of the part of the church and

because they're Christian that's

actually why we need to disciple them to

raise them as good soldiers for God's

Kingdom

that just that'd be just like saying you

know just because you're born as as an

American you don't need to actually

learn about America it's it's the same

thing um because Christianity really is

a is a kingdom our loyalty is

fundamentally to the kingdom of God

before any Earthly Kingdom like America

that that's just an analogy just the way

um Christianity was a kingdom in the Old

Testament that's right you could

anachronistically say that the Old

Testament religion was Christianity

because of covenant theology even it

wasn't called that because because

because Christ hadn't come uh but it was

Kingdom centered it was Collective it

was about the kingdom of God uh the Old

Testament had a kingdom that did

foreshadow the the New Testament Kingdom

with Jesus as the new and better King we

both agree that there is continuity and

discontinuity between the Old and New

Covenant uh Presbyterians would say

there's more continuity and the reformed

Baptists would say there's more

discontinuity we agree that there's some

of both so a clear example of

discontinuity is the dietary

restrictions those are clear abrogated

in the New Testament the reason we know

they're abrogated is because the Bible

says they're abrogated the same is true

of the ceremonial law but there is

nothing to indicate that the um that the

collective nature of God's kingdom that

the status of infant children as part of

the Covenant there is nothing to

indicate that that has been abrogated to

the contrary there are multiple passages

that suggest a that circumcision and

baptism perform the same function one

Colossians says that being circumcised

by Christ is the same as being baptized

and for both baptism and circumcision

the thing signified the thing that the

ritual is United to is spiritual

regeneration is the new birth um and

there is also continuity in that all the

things of the New Testament the inward

spiritual realities such as repentance

and the new birth those were also there

in the Old Testament it was just less

clear as to what they were and what

message they

performed I mean what um purpose they

they performed so the message of

Christianity is not just about personal

salvation we know that it is about

personal salvation but it goes beyond

that it's about the kingdom of God God

is Not Just redeeming your soul God is

going to redeem your body God is going

to redeem Society God's going to redeem

our planet God's going to redeem the

Galaxy that's what the kingdom of God is

about so we baptize babies not because

we deny the importance of having

personal faith in Christ but because we

know that the king om of God applies to

our families just as God promised

Abraham that the promise was for him and

his children Peter promised that the

promise is also for us and our children

so that's why we baptize babies because

we believe that God is going to redeem

our families God is going to redeem

Society um Jesus said let the little

children come to me for theirs is the

Kingdom of Heaven thank you thank you

than you very much and uh well stated

both sides and that concludes the actual

presentation part of our debate thank

you both so much for taking care uh to

be on time on topic and as always uh

respectful so we're now going to move

into our audience Q&A I have gotten a

number of questions a couple were

duplicates and and such things in the

YouTube chat so I'm going to be doing my

best to sort of duplicate these the

format for these gentlemen and I'm not

going to keep strict time on here um but

the format for these will be um the

question will be addressed to one or the

other of you you'll have 60 seconds to

answer that question uh so bear in mind

keep your answers uh in in that sort of

time frame and then the other one will

be given 30 seconds to respond either to

critique the answer or to answer the

question themselves it's up to you and

again we won't be terribly firm on the

time limits but we'll try and keep

things moving along and not rehash

debate part two electric Baloo so um so

uh since redeem Zoomer just spoke I'll

go over to Pastor Keith um Pastor Keith

first question uh where do you draw the

line between tradition that should and

should not be followed this question

coming from sore

carpus tradition that should or not be

followed uh the scripture in fact this

is my sermon for this coming Sunday when

Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees and

he said that that that what they had

done that was the most dangerous thing

was that they had bound upon men's

Hearts Traditions that were not founded

upon God's word that they had uh replace

the word of God with the traditions of

men and so while we don't deny the

presence or importance of tradition we

say every TR every tradition must be

measured by and cons and weighed by what

the Bible says solos scriptor so that

would that would be my answer

okay Z anything uh would you like to

respond to that one as

well uh yeah so of course everyone would

say every Protestant that is would say

that the scripture is the the method by

which we determine which traditions we

we hold to I don't know if any Lutheran

or Reformed poed Baptist who would say

that yeah I know the Bible doesn't say

anything about infant baptism but it's

tradition bro this is the one tradition

we're too lazy to get rid of um we we

believe that infant baptism is biblical

that is why we haven't gotten rid of

that tradition because like I admitted

that the early church didn't do infant

baptism sometimes sometimes they did but

we keep it because we believe it's

biblical okay thank you for that uh now

your question sir um question for redeem

Zoomer this comes from Christian Walton

um how would you respond to someone who

claims that the Great Commission gives

the order of discipleship before baptism

of course this referencing Matthew

28:19 uh in in the order that Jesus gave

the

command so it says go forth to all the

nations if you go to a new nation you're

not going to go up to random babies and

baptize them you're going to baptize

Believers um it doesn't it doesn't say

Make Disciples of all the nations and

make sure those disciples make disci

disciples and then baptize them if

you're going out to someone if you're

going on a missionary journey uh you're

going to be converting people as as

adults really um but then when they

convert the model in act shows that when

people convert they often convert their

households they often christianize their

households and that's where the infant

baptism comes in no one is saying that

you should baptize other people's babies

without the um parent converting first

you're not going into nurseries and

spraying water

everywhere uh Keith same question sir

the text says 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 in that sense the

the way that disciples are made is

through baptism so I would say that yes

we we M we we we make disciples by

baptizing them and you baptize disciples

not people who are not disciples and the

argument from the Presbyterian side is

typically that children are their

disciples but the the word disciple

there in that context would certainly

refer to someone who is a Believer who

has believed the message and therefore

you baptize those who have believed the

message not just someone who is born

into a

family okay thank you very much back to

you Pastor Keith this one from uh barely

Protestant interesting name there uh I

wonder what I wonder what their majority

if they're barely Protestant what is

what's the rest uh one one must ask such

questions yes what does the pie chart

look like um so here is uh here's the

question and it's a it's a it's the

reason I picked this one next is because

it's basically identical question back

back to you uh except this is acts 238

uh here's the question acts 23 8 seems

to put the reception of the Holy Spirit

after baptism could you explain your

understanding of when and how he is

received in light of this particular

verse yeah this actually is a pretty uh

uh uh I don't know that I can do this in

one minute because there's a lot of

things that tie end this particularly

like the history of the Church of Christ

which believes that it's only when a

person has been immersed in the name of

Jesus Christ that they actually receive

the Holy Spirit and therefore up until

that point the person has not received

the Holy Spirit we would see a

distinction in the book of Acts between

someone being regenerate and someone

receiving the gift of the indwelling

Holy Spirit and we would argue that the

indwelling holy spirit is actually a New

Covenant promise and so uh I do believe

that there is a distinction between

regeneration and the abiding IND

dwelling Holy Spirit and so I would say

there's there is a distinction there

however I would also say that Romans

chapter 8 tells us that the normative

situation is that a Believer will have

the spirit of God it says if you do not

have the spirit of Christ you do not

belong to him therefore we can say that

when a person believes in the Lord Jesus

Christ because they have been

regenerated to do so they now have the

Holy Spirit within them and it's not

they're not waiting until baptism for

that to

happen Okay uh Zumer would you like me

to reread it or do you have it I've got

it so I know this guy barely Protestant

good to see a man um so what I would say

to that is under a calvinist view where

we believe baptis ISM with water and the

Holy Spirit are two different things but

they're connected and they could happen

in either order our view makes room for

both verses sometimes baptism with water

comes first Sometimes baptism of the

Holy Spirit comes first but they're

still United in one Sacrament there's

still two parts of the same thing

there's still sign and things signifies

that's what I would say okay thank you

very much uh so back to your question

sir um this one is from uh Josh and

Heather Thompson for you do you believe

that a person has to be baptized to be

truly

regenerated by has to do you mean that

it's impossible to be truly regenerated

if you're not outwardly baptized no it's

not impossible um every single pedal

Baptist tradition makes room for

exceptions but those exceptions are just

that they are exceptions under ordinary

circumstances uh baptism is necessary in

the process of salvation but like I said

there's exceptions if someone's not able

to get baptized um then

that's that's one thing but I don't

think there's a single person who has

genuine Faith who's able to get baptized

and who knows what baptism is who is not

going to get

baptized okay Pastor Keith can you

restate the question I just want make

sure I'm getting it right certainly

certainly and I'm going to read it just

as the uh as the audience member wrote

it so that I'm not editorializing uh it

says do you believe that a person has to

be baptized to be truly

regenerated okay I well I I said earlier

that I don't connect baptism and

regeneration as causal So my answer

would be no but I do believe a

regenerated person will desire to be

baptized okay we basically said the same

thing yeah yeah I mean similar yeah very

much I was I was gonna I was gonna say I

agree but I thought I'd add a little

something yeah I actually I actually now

that I think about it I think baptism is

normally necessary for salvation but

that's a different

debate yeah to say it's necessary in

what way yeah is it necessary for

obedience or does it cause that's I

think the the the issue there is causal

right it's more than obedience um for

for Baptists rejecting baptism is like

not doing a a good work for

Presbyterians it's rejecting God's grace

so it's a bit different okay fair enough

all right uh Pastor Keith your question

sir and this will be unless you guys

just want to keep going on the marathon

this will be the last uh your third

question so uh I will I'll give you this

one um and this is a question that

actually came up directed to you and

then another person directed it to you

both um it say and I'm again I'm just

going to read it as it was so I'm not

editorializing or anything uh Pastor

Keith would The Credo Baptist position

automatically exclude mentally disabled

adults what is your opinion on baptizing

adults who are unable to profess their

faith this one from Jesse uh

Trisha this is a this is a pastoral

issue that I think is is one of the more

one of the more difficult things that um

that pastors of every denomination

whether they're P Baptist or not have to

deal with not on the question of whether

or not they're going to be baptized

because a a child who has a mental

deficiency may not even demonstrate that

mental deficiency in birth it may not

come out until they're two three four

years old before you realize they have a

a mental issue um but it does affect

someone let's say there is a a church

where a uh a person with a a mental

deficiency visit visits the church and

cannot make a profession of faith and

therefore the church the the elders have

to decide how they're going to address

this person maybe this is a maybe this

is a relative of someone in the church

and they brought them to church with

them so it's not a covenant it's not a

member of a covenant family in the sense

of they automatically are baptized by

the virtue of the of the parents as as

as is believed in Covenant baptism but

rather they have to be considered okay

well how do we deal with this person and

um I think every every

uh group of Elders would have to

patiently lovingly and and in the fear

of God be gracious of that person but

here's here's the good thing whether or

not that person gets baptized does not

mean in my position does not mean

whether or not that person is going to

be saved and does not mean that that

person is or is not a member of the

elect and so we can say that God is

gracious and the judge of all the

universe will do right this is what we

see in Genesis Chapter 18 and so in in

regard to um infants who die and and and

and people with mental disabilities who

can't proclaim the gospel we can say

that the judge of the universe will do

right and so I can trust that if if that

person made a desire for baptism I would

baptize them uh but again they they just

said they couldn't do that so this is a

difficult situation it's a pastoral

situation it's something that Elders

would have to come together pray about

and uh seek the Lord on and so I I can't

say exactly what we would do in that

case but I know that we would be seeking

the grace of God to do for that person

the very best we

could okay yeah I would answer similarly

um I would say it's a difficult

situation it's not always clear what to

do it's a pastor pastoral Elder decision

I would say that you should try to

baptize that person yes because I

believe baptism does contribute to

Regeneration in some sense um if the

Baptist position that baptism does not

contribute to Regeneration if that's

correct you're doing absolutely no harm

by baptizing the person and if baptism

does contribute to Regeneration in some

sense then you're increasing that

person's odds so uh it's like sort of

Pascal's wager but for baptism I think

there's if if it's appropriate you

really should baptize that person and of

course uh God is just and although

nobody deserves salvation uh Jesus does