On Sunday Evening August 19th, 2007 about 150 people gathered in Murrieta California to hear a debate between Pastor Gene Cook, Jr and Paul Manata on the question of
"Who are the proper recipients of Christian Baptism?"
The CD quality files are available for .98 each
The CD quality files are also available free of charge to our
Pledge Partners and Annual Subscribers at Unchained Radio
Become a Narrow Mind "Pledge Partner"
Become an Annual Subscriber
"Who are the proper recipients of Christian Baptism?"
The CD quality files are available for .98 each
The CD quality files are also available free of charge to our
Pledge Partners and Annual Subscribers at Unchained Radio
Become a Narrow Mind "Pledge Partner"
Become an Annual Subscriber
57 comments:
I listen to the first part last night. Both of you did a very good job!!!
Okay, files 2 and 3 are uploaded and working.
Parts 2 and 3 are still the same file. Gene, are you going to do a Debate recap show?
Just started listening to part 2 now. So far, so good!
I found part 3. Instead of using the link I just changed 2l to 3l on the link to download and it worked.
Premise 1: All Paedobaptists are huge nerds.
Premise 2: Paul Manata is a Paedobaptist.
Conclusion: Paul Manata is a huge nerd.
Finished listening. Thanks for making this available, Gene, and congratulations on yet another debate victory!
Though I think that Gene was outmatched, I don't think that Paul did a good job of explaining Jer. 31. The Old Covenant in Jer 31 is THAT covenant that was made when they left Egypt (the Mosaic covenant), which was earthly, temporal, and full of curses. Compared to Christ's covenant, which is eternal and irrevocable, the New is perfect and thus better than the old. Is it, however, better than the Abrahamic covenant? Gene thinks so... and yet, Gene calls himself a child of Abraham, as he should. The New covenant is not better than the Abrahamic covenant, as it is simply a fulfillment of that promise. The old covenant = the Mosaic covenant, which was temporal, had sinful mediators, curses for disobdience, etc. I'm surprised that Paul didn't mention that.
Example of this tension: Daniel was carted off to Babylon, castrated and made a servant of the king. Why? Because he was under the Mosaic covenant and was under the national curse for their disobedience. And yet we will see Daniel in Heaven... why? Because Daniel was a child of Abraham by faith and saved under the New covenant in Christ's blood per the promise to Abraham. The Old covenant (moses) was insufficient to save... it only enslaved and cursed. The new covenant saves in Christ, as was promised to Abraham.
I highly recommend "God of Promise" by Dr. Michael Horton who explains this much better than I.
It seemed to me that Paul's only argument was since we don't know who is in the elect we should just baptize everyone. Kind of like the old marine theme, "kill em all and let God sort em out.
Also Paul never actually said what the purpose of baptism was. If he believes like all good Presbyterians that baptism is a means of grace then Paul had a lot of inconsistencies in his answers to some of the questions. on the other hand, if he believes it is a means of grace on the non-elect then that is ridiculous.
Mark's ideas rob the New Covenant of its newness. The New Covenant is what all of redemptive history was pointing to. It is described as being an unbroken covenant of spiritual children, and Hebrews ardently defends its superiority over preceding covenants, as well as the fact that all its members are redeemed. Daniel is in heaven because he is saved under the New Covenant in Christ's blood just as Adam is in heaven, saved under the New Covenant *before* the Abrahamic covenant. But the New Covenant reveals something the Abrahamic Covenant did not--that is, that children of Abraham are his children by faith, not physical descent. Under the Abrahamic covenant physical offspring WERE considered Abraham's children and children of covenant. This is because they served as a picture, a type, of the spiritual reality, the antitype, which was to come. Under Abraham, even before Moses, *physical* children of Abraham by Sarah (the free woman) were all of the covenant community. Now, only Abraham's children by faith--true spiritual children--are of the covenant community. Hebrews could not be clearer: this is a better covenant enacted on better promises. It is, as Scripture calls it, new. Not only renewed or reaffirmed, but something that had theretofore not been realized, even by the promise given to Abraham. It had been promised, yes!, as it was promised even in Genesis 3. But realized only after Christ, as the NT writers interpret what it means that in Abraham's seed all the nations shall be blessed. In his Seed--that is *in* Christ. And yet, only saved individuals are in Christ.
"Hebrews ardently defends ... the fact that all its members are redeemed."
Does it say they are redeemed eternally? Because there are parts of Hebrews that seem to indicate that some are redeemed only temporally.
Hebrews 3:12 "Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God."
Hebrews 6:4 "For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame."
Hebrews 10:26 "For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. 28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY " And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
So, according to the author of Hebrews, one can fall away from the living God, be a partaker of the Holy Spirit and yet fall away, and be sanctified by the blood of the covenant and yet go to hell for considering that blood unclean and trampling the Son of God underfoot. These are clearly covenant members in view here. How else could they be sanctified by the blood of the covenant? And when it says, "God will judge His people", who else are called "God's people" other than His covenant children?
And even if it could be proven that only the elect are in covenant with God, there is no reason to baptize anyone under the credo standard because no one knows who is elect. So the Jeremiah 31:34 argument is dead.
filthfowl,
I noticed on your profile you call yourself a 'calvinist', yet you assert that paedobaptists are 'huge nerds'. You do know that Calvin was a paedobaptist, right? Not only that, but he said that the assault against paedobaptism is lead by the Devil himself to rob the Church "of the singular blessing of confidence and spiritual joy, which is hence to be derived, and in so far to detract from the glory of the divine goodness."
As far as the use of the Bible goes, Gene used 12 explicit Bible references, 2 Old Testament and 10 New Testament, while Paul on the other hand used 29 explicit Bible references, 19 Old Testament and 10 New Testament. That means that Paul used more than twice as many references as Gene did and the same amount of New Testament. Now whither Paul used this verses accurately is irrelevant to Gene's main charge that there are more unicorns in the Bible then Paul's view.
I hope this goes to show, at least, that Paedobaptists DO in fact build their theology from the text of the Holy Bible.
Hi Lisa,
Actually, I never stated anything like that argument. But, what's more interesting is that in the debate I actually explicitly stated what my argument was, but yet you don't quote that as my "only" argument you quote an argument I never used. I think someone's anti-paedo presuppositional cart has gotten ahead of one's accurate representation horse.
Hi Mark,
I didn't "explain" Jer. 31 because I never intended to. In fact, there's nothing to "explain." But, if you recall, I did try to exegete Heb. 8 for Gene by looking at the broader context of ch. 8 (i.e., chpts 7-10), and Gene said I could only stick with ch. 8. So, if you go back and listen you'll note that I wasn't given a chance to discuss Heb. 8 in an exegetical fashion.
Hi Lee,
Make sure to cogratulate Dan Barker and Derek Sansone too. There are people who said they won those debates. ;-) j/k
Hi Gene,
All I can say is, boo-yah! ;-)
There's one thing I need to clarify... namely that I was wrong in one thing: Christ's covenant was better than Abraham's in that He was the actual promise in the flesh... The blessing promised is always better than the promise itself.
However... Jer. 31 is comparing the new covenant to Moses, not Abraham. It's pretty clear in the passage.
@Paul - thanks for setting me straight - I was listening as I was working, so I probably missed a few things.
You both did a good job but I think Paul won this one. Now I don't know what to believe... dang. I guess I need to become paedo now? :(
rsmith;
Lighten up, it was a joke.
I tried to look at your profile, but your profile isn't public. Why?
It is frequently stated that we cannot know who the "elect" are. That statement is misleading. There are two types of elect individuals existing: 1) Those that are still in unbelief and 2) Those that are believing. It is true that we cannot know the "elect" in class #1, but we can know the "elect" in class #2. This is simply proven by the following commandment by Paul:
NKJ 2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?
In the marriage covenant, we are to make sure we are marrying a believer. That suggests that we can know who the believing elect (class #2) are. If we cannot know who the believing elect are, then Paul's commandment is useless.
The term "elect" is imprecise. One needs to be careful when using the term in argumentation, just as one should be careful with the term "saved," or "salvation." Pay attention to context, as in the following passage:
NKJ Romans 8:33 Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.
Clearly, the term "elect" stands for the believing elect in that passage.
That's just a note since someone commented on that above, and how it came up in the debate. We can know who the elect are, if we're talking about the believing elect. Just because we can be mistaken in our judgments at times, for various reasons, that does not negate the biblical point. If we can establish certain tests for knowing if one is a believer or not when considering marriage, then we can establish certain tests (like those in 1 John) for those we allow to be baptized.
If you have found a foolproof method for distinguishing truly believing elect from apparently believing pre-apostates, by all means share it with the class!
Even as a credo, and even as someone who was on Gene's show critiquing infant baptism three years ago, I have to say that Paul did a phenomenal job. I would have to chalk this one up to Paul.
Amen, great job Paul. It was quite a good debate.
Mark
I’d have to say Gene won the debate. Paul, I gotta say, you are in danger of making a mistake, as Gene said. The mistake made is deflating the power of the gospel.
Paul, what happens if you don't baptize your baby? What is the danger? What happens if you baptize your infant and they grow up and clearly do not have saving faith; what was the point of the baptism? Is there some extra benefit, an extra insurance policy, versus waiting for them to grow up, profess Christ and be baptized?
Are you saying that every family that has at least one Christian parent and baptizes their kids, those kids will definitely grow up to be Christians? There are plenty of examples where a child from a Christian home grows up and is not a Christian. I have friends in that category. Thus, what was the point of their baptism as kids? To signify that they are part of the covenant? What if they, God forbid, go to hell; did the baptism signify that they were part of the covenant? In the paedo view, you end up baptizing people that are not believers, which cheapens the sign, and cheapens the gospel.
I can’t believe how many straw men Paul brought out against Gene. An example was Paul implying that Gene’s view is to keep children away from Jesus. C’mon Paul, you can do better! Obviously Gene is on board with bringing up children in the teaching and admonition of the Lord. But, when Jesus says that the kingdom belongs to such as these, does that mean that all children everywhere are saved? That would be the logical conclusion of Paul’s argument. Thus everyone on earth, having been a child at one time or another, would be in the kingdom.
Paul implies that the creado view would be to keep children out of the community of believers all together. Obviously children are part of our community, even if they are not yet regenerated. That is why we need to teach them and discipline them, so that perhaps one day God will use those seeds to regenerate them. We wouldn’t ban our kids from being around the church until they became Christians; that would go against Scripture.
Again, in the paedo mindset, is there a danger if someone does not baptize their infant? If the fear is that infant will not be saved, then you have a view of baptismal regeneration. Saying that you need to baptize your infant begs all kinds of legalistic/works-based questions. What if you have an adult that recently came to faith and they have older kids; since those kids were infants during the time when their parent was an unbeliever, are they now to be baptized? Under your view, why wouldn’t you baptize all of the kids (including the older ones) of anyone who newly comes to faith? What if there is child of that parent who is clearly articulating that they are an atheist? Would you still baptize that child? These are some of the zany questions that result from the paedo view. And anyway, why baptize just infants? If the kids of believers are part of the covenant, then what is the age limit? What is the appropriate age that a new believer’s kids are still considered kids? 16? 18? We quickly start to devolve by adding these “laws” onto baptism. The gospel is about what God has done for us, how God gave to us. There is no comfort to the parent that their child is baptized and thus a shoe-in for regeneration. The paedo view seems to be more an excuse for lazy parenting, and comfort for worrisome types that don’t trust God’s ability to grant faith to their child. Salvation is of the Lord!
Paul, glad you are on our team. But, chalk up another victory for the Narrow Mind.
Chris,
You're correct. I can tell that you really understand my position. When I read what you write I find myself nodding in agreement. How did I not miss these obvious implications?
(and, in the debate I never said the words "Gene is trying to keep children away from Jesus." It doesn't bode well for someone supposedly offering an honest and unbiased view to make such huge blunders. You mistate my argument, and your characterization of my position is an utter disaster. This makes it hard for me to believe that you're offering an "honest" review of the debate. I actually think the best judge is looking at how many credos side with my performance, and how many paedos side with Gene's. So far I have more than a few credos who sided with me. Not one paedo for Gene, yet. Why did those credos say I won? it couldn't be because they were "biased" towards my side.)
Excellent point by ynottony.
Jordan,
It wasn't, actually. I wasn't going to coment on it, but I guess I will.
i) That we shoudln't be unequally yolked doesn't mean that we know who the elect are.
ii) Besides, even granting this, this knowledge would be gained by looking at *fruit*. This is a long term process.
iii) Gene states that he would baptize a professor *immediately.* That is, he's said that if he were at the beach he'd do it within seconds of their profession. Now, YNY verse is not saying that we figure out of we're equally yolked for marriage in a matter of *seconds*
iv) So, Jordan, for his point to be "excellent," you'd have to say that this alleged knowledge of the ellect we have can be gained in *seconds.*
v) Thus even if his point is "excellent" for the specific context its made under, it actually has nothing to do with the issue of baptism.
vi) This is why your LBC says that baptism is for *professors* and not for *the elect.*
Paul Manata said:
"That we shoudln't [sic] be unequally yolked doesn't mean that we know who the elect are."
So, Paul Manata says we CAN'T know who are believers and who are not? But then Paul says:
"Besides, even granting this, this knowledge would be gained by looking at *fruit*. This is a long term process."
So, according to the above comment, we CAN know who are believers and who are not? It just takes time and fruit examination?
Either we can or we cannot know who are the believing elect. Which is it, Mr. Manata?
Paul the Apostle AND his companions knew the election of the Thessalonians by the manifestation of fruit in the context:
NKJ 1 Thessalonians 1:4 knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God.
Therefore, this statement is false:
"That we shoudln't [sic] be unequally yolked doesn't mean that we know who the elect are."
The command not to be unequally yoked manifestly presupposes, not only that we can know who are believers and who are not, but that we OUGHT to know if he or she is a believer. Paul Manata was recently married. I hope he knows his spouse is not in league with Satan. It would be funny to see him say in front of his wife today, "honey, I don't know whether or not you are an unregenerate person in league with Belial. In fact, you can't know if I am or not." Even she would know he is full of Boolean Analysis, so to speak ;-)
One wonders if we can even know our own election according to Mr. Manata's views. For, if we can't know who the elect are, then we can't know whether or not we are elect. I think Peter said that we could know our own election:
NKJ 2 Peter 1:10 Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble;
As for my views on the timing of baptism, I would say that it depends on the person and the context. I would at least want to make sure that they are properly instructed in the faith in terms of the gospel essentials, or that they already have been so instructed by another. I don't think it would be wise to uniformly say, no matter the situation, that I would baptize one who professes to believe in a matter of seconds. After all, it takes more than a few seconds just to give a sound Apostolic presentation of the gospel and to listen to them answer questions. I assume that Gene would agree?
Nevertheless, if I am Philip in the providential context with the Ethiopian eunuch who is 1) diligently studying the scriptures and 2) desperately requesting to be baptized after hearing about the Christ of the gospel, then such a person should be baptized quickly, in obedience to Christ's command for His disciples.
Even though I am a credo-baptist, I really don't want to enter into extensive discussions on the topic here. I mainly wanted to make the point above that it is misleading to say that we cannot know who the elect are. That's an anti-biblical stance if we're talking about the BELIEVING elect. My point on that is irrefutable.
Reuben said:
"If you have found a foolproof method for distinguishing truly believing elect from apparently believing pre-apostates, by all means share it with the class!"
One need not have a foolproof method. It's not an either/or case between Cartesian certainty or total agnosticism. All we need are good reasons to suppose that someone has objectively believed the gospel and therefore want to follow Christ's commands. Most of the things we know are not foolproof. We have what we think are good reasons for believing various things, when we say we know something, and then we act accordingly. Most of the time, there is no foolproof method for determining if a defendent in a courtroom is guilty. The lawyers reason abductively and present their cases, then they ask the jury to form a verdict after a time, based on the evidence presented to them. Some cases can be determined more quickly than others.
So, it would be an error to set up a dichotomy between either 1) We can know who are believers or not with absolute apodictic certainty or 2) We cannot know at all if someone is a believer or not, just as it would be an error to set up a dichotomy between 1) A jury can know who is guilty of a crime with absolute apodictic certainty or 2) A jury cannot know. Surely there is a tertium quid, particularly given what scripture says and demands of us.
When it comes to asking whether or not we can know who the believing elect are, there are only three options:
1) Yes we can know, with absolute apodictic certainty.
2) Yes we can know, but not with absolute apodictic certainty (i.e., not in a "foolproof" way).
3) No, we cannot know in this life.
I have argued for position #2. If the above positions exhaust the alternatives (and I think they do), then those who oppose me must argue for either #1 or #3, which both appear to be absurd to me, given the biblical data. Either agree with me and stop saying "we cannot know who the believing elect are," or come out and clearly argue for #1 or #3.
Paul said:
"This is why your LBC says that baptism is for *professors* and not for *the elect.*"
Again, this is misleading language, given the ambiguity of the "elect" term. The LBC, by speaking of "professors," is obviously referring to those we (or they) have good reasons to suppose are the believing elect. So, it's an equivocation fallacy to say that the LBC says it's for professors and not for the "elect." Notice the language and descriptions:
"1. BAPTISM is an ordinance of the New Testament instituted by Jesus Christ. It is intended to be, to the person baptized, a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection, and of his being engrafted into Christ, and of the remission of sins. It also indicates that the baptized person has given himself up to God, through Jesus Christ, so that he may live and conduct himself 'in newness of life'.
2. The only persons who can rightly submit themselves to this ordinance are those who actually profess repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, being willing to yield obedience to Him.
3. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, in which the believer is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
By the way, this ambiguous use of the "elect" term can also cause equivocation fallacies in some Calvinistic arguments in other areas. Beware.
Paul Manata also said:
"v) Thus even if his point is "excellent" for the specific context its made under, it actually has nothing to do with the issue of baptism."
If it has nothing to do with the issue of baptism, then why was it brought up in the debate and in the comments section here (by Lisa)? It obviously pertains to the subject, particularly if the credo-baptist view is correct. So, your comment above begs the question, or assumes the biblical validity of your own position, just as the label "anabaptist" or "catabaptist" presupposes the legitimacy of the paedo-baptist view.
Paul Manata said: "That we shouldn’t be unequally yoked doesn't mean that we know who the elect are."
Tony: So, Paul Manata says we CAN'T know who are believers and who are not? But then Paul says:
Paul: Yes, that's right. We can't "know" who the elect are. Perhaps we can justifiably *believe* this, not "know" it, though.
Paul said: Besides, even granting this, this knowledge would be gained by looking at *fruit*. This is a long term process."
Tony: So, according to the above comment, we CAN know who are believers and who are not? It just takes time and fruit examination?
My Response: Not exactly, and this move is a little more than dishonest. The comment was based on *accepting* Tony's claim, which was, obviously, that we CAN know.
So, Tony should have replaced what he wrote with an accurate proposition:
Tony's revised and honest answer: "So according to this, IF WE ACCEPT WHAT TONY SAID, we can know who the elect are."
See the difference? Tony, you're already evidencing that you're not being a cautious thinker and are looking for any chance to "prove" me wrong. This exposes logical weak spots.
Tony: "Either we can or we cannot know who are the believing elect. Which is it, Mr. Manata?"
Paul: Tony, as you said above, it's not "either/or." It is, in *one sense8 and *in another.*
Tony: Paul the Apostle AND his companions knew the election of the Thessalonians by the manifestation of fruit in the context:
Paul: Well, if we're not going to grant them apostolic knowledge (which would destroy your analogy) then did they really "know" this? That is, was not ONE member of the Thess. church not elect? You can't "know" what's false.
Now, I can give an answer which fits all the data, but has a different conclusion. The reformed view of "the principle of charity." Thus both Tony's hypothesis and mine can account for the *same* data! So his point isn't an obvious defeater for my position. But, unless Tony is going to say that each and every single member of the Thess. church was elect, then his claim is false. And, how could Tony possibly know that the apostle wasn’t speaking according to the principle of charity? he couldn't.
Tony: "The command not to be unequally yoked manifestly presupposes, not only that we can know who are believers and who are not, but that we OUGHT to know if he or she is a believer."
Paul: Tony's just re-asserting is unproven conclusion. I mean, say Tony was a girl. Call her, Toni. Before Judas betrayed Jesus, if Toni lived back then, and Judas was cute, and had everything Toni wanted, even took her to the Judean prom on his best donkey, Toni would have married Judas if he had asked her. But, does this mean that she "knew" Judas was elect?
Tony: One wonders if we can even know our own election according to Mr. Manata's views. For, if we can't know who the elect are, then we can't know whether or not we are elect. I think Peter said that we could know our own election
Paul: I'd agree with the confession. And, *myself* is different than *another's self.*
Anyway, let's say that Paul commands us to know who the elect are (all you've done is assert this). This doesn't mean that we have the *ability.* If it did, then when Jesus commands us to be perfect, do you think we have the *ability* to be perfect? Should I say, "Jesus command presupposes that we CAN be perfect and that we have the ABILITY to be perfect.
So, I have no problem *believing* and even *justifiedly believing* that someone is elect, but the wheat and tares are so intertwined, so much so that if we tried to separate them we'd pull some wheat with the tares!, that the probability involved constitutes a defeater to my claim to knowledge.
And thus your "argument" has been met on many, many levels.
But, let's get back to the subject. Recall that it was *Gene himself* who said that *he* couldn't know who the elect are.
And, let's note that he himself told me that if someone made a profession right in front of him, and there was water there, he would baptize them. I doubt you can claim knowledge off a *seconds worth* of information! Therefore your argument has no bearing on *Gene's* position on baptism. You may be like Spurgeon, or Dever, thinking that we should withhold baptism from people until they're 18, but then Gene might get made because you've done away all his argument from the "explicit examples of the apostles" (who baptized immediately, recall).
Here's another thing to consider, Paul. All of Israel was called "elect," in one sense (not in the sense of decretally appointed to eternal life). So, given your Reformed ecclesiology, aren't you also only baptizing the "elect" in the sense of the covenant children? This just brings up the fact that the "elect" can also have that connotation as well.
Paul said:
"Tony: So, according to the above comment, we CAN know who are believers and who are not? It just takes time and fruit examination?
My Response: Not exactly, and this move is a little more than dishonest. The comment was based on *accepting* Tony's claim, which was, obviously, that we CAN know."
Man, Paul. Within a few remarks you're already saying I am being "a little more than dishonest." After I made that statement, I put a question mark after it, because there is some uncertainty about what you were saying, from my perspective. But, if you're already going to call me "a little more than dishonest," then it's best that we just not attempt to dialogue and wrestle over these subjects further. It will only degenerate, I fear.
Good day, Paul.
Tony
Hi Tony,
I know that there's many senses to elect. The ccontext was the "debate" and so we should all know what sense we were opperating with.
As to your last post, I think it was fairly obvious what I said.
"Either we can or we cannot know who are the believing elect. Which is it, Mr. Manata?"
You were obviously trying to "trap" me. And, you put a question mark after *both* my claims. Even tghe one I explicitly said was my position. So, the question mark doesn't mean anything. In fact, if you'd like to know, the question mark was for rhetoricall purposes showing that I said two contradictory things.
Anyway, the problem wouldn't have arose had you cared to be careful when reading my statements. You're carefull enough to talk about different connotations of the word "election" that are not even in the discussion, but you miss the phrase: "Even GRANTING this?" That seemed pretty obvious to me.
At any rate, you know my above thoughts on the matter and how I can answer your questions and the points you raised. So, I was responding to Jordon and I believe I accomplished my mission.
Have a good day (and, do you live in Australia too? Or, are am I basically talking to david's clone now? :-)
and, if you were unsure you should have asked for clarification before intimating that I had contradicted myself. Rather than ask
"Either we can or we cannot know who are the believing elect. Which is it, Mr. Manata?"
You should have just asked me to clarify. But, instead, you thought you trapped me.
I will say, though, I'm sorry for calling you dishonest. I said that because I was giving you credit. I thought you were detailed enough to not the major distinction I drew. So, you weren't being dishonest, you were being uncautious and lazy in your reading?
Paul,
I was wondering something about your views. You seem to be saying that we can have knowledge of our own election but not knowledge of the election of others. So, in our own selves, we can have justified TRUE belief, but in the case of other selves we can or "may possibly" have justified belief. A question I have is: How do you know, in the case of your own self, that your knowledge of your own election is justified true belief and not merely justified belief, supposing there is a difference between those two things?
You might appeal to the internal testimony of the Spirit. But doesn't that involve a corporate dimension as well, i.e., at least a testimony by means of the word and the church? Moreover, if the Spirit can give an internal testimony about our own election, can He not also give us that testimony concerning the salvation of others? If not, why not?
p.s. If I was David's clone, I would be a paedo-baptist and say "G'day" and not "Good day."
Hi Paul,
I would like to make a few more observations, since I have finally listened to ALL of the debate while at work and contemplated some of the things we have been talking about here.
1) It seems to me that you're only willing to call something knowledge if it is something believed indubitably, or with absolute certainty. In other words, we cannot be said to know that which is arrived at inductively and/or abductively. More specifically, you're arguing that we cannot say we "know" who is and who is not a believer because we may be wrong. After all, we cannot know that which is in fact false. I agree that ew do not have knowledge when our belief(s) are in fact false. Nevertheless, I think we are warranted to say that we know things which are fallible. When I say that I may know that person X is a believer, what I am saying is that I have good reasons grounded in scriptural criteria for thinking that person X is a believer. Might I be wrong? Sure. That knowledge claim is not made from an infallible viewpoint. In fact, I think that most of our knowledge claims are that way, and we may nevertheless be warranted to say that we know such things.
2) Actually, Gene started the debate by saying that he doesn't know who are the believing elect AS HE KNOWS himself to be of that class, i.e., with "certainty." He didn't seem to be saying that he in no sense claims to know who are believers or not. He did make a comment, perhaps in the closing statement, regarding the backslider and the knowledge of his elect status. Gene said something like, "I don't know who are elect and who are backsliden." The statement was rather ambiguous, and is perhaps best interpreted by his original opening comments. However, if he also shares the presupposition that we cannot know anything inductively, as Clarkians and some Van Tilians think, then it seems that he would have to agree with you. He could not claim in any sense to "know" who are believers or not. Also, since you also stated that you believe in believers baptism (as well as with paedo-baptism), then the same difficulty applies to your theology. How do you know that a particular person is a believer and thus prepared to be baptised?
One also wonders how you could agree with the moderator and Gene when they said this debate is between believers. You can't "know" whether or not it was, and yet you began your opening statements by agreeing with them. I also wonder, given your opening statements that you don't have absolute certainty about your baptismal views, if you "know" your own position. It seems that you could only say that you believe you have good reasons for holding it. If the Westminster Confession is correct in saying that assurance is not of the essence of faith, then how could you, given your views on the nature of knowledge, say that you "know" that you are a believer? On this issue, wouldn't it also be the case that you could only say you have good reasons for believing that you are truly converted? After all, it's able to be doubted at times.
If absolute certainty is required in order for someone to be warranted to say that they "know" something, then did you "know" anything about the position you argued for in this debate? Wouldn't you have to stand up and say, "I think that I have good reasons for believing the particular position I am about to advocate, but I don't really "know" what I am talking about. In fact, I don't "know" whther or not Gene "knows" what he is talking about either. The bottom line is, I don't "know" if either of us are discussing these things within the bonds of Christian fellowship."
Perhaps I am misunderstandimg your epistemological stance on this, Paul, so don't take the above in a combative and trapping sense. It just seems to follow from how I am currently understanding your views. If I am wrong or misrepresenting you, I am open to correction.
Tony
p.s. In my last comment, I qualified a question by saying "supposing there is a difference between those two things?" Please do not read that as a denial of a difference. I am aware of the epistemological discussions on that topic. It's just an inquiry as to how you understand the difference within the framework of the particular question above.
By the way, Gene, you mentioned how Paul was switching between the term "infant" and "children" in the debate. I noticed the same thing happening in Shishko's debate with White. There is an ambiguity inherent in the term "children" which is not so much the case with the term "infant."
Tony,
I don't think JTB is necessary or sufficient for knowledge.
I also am not an infallibilist.
But I didn't want to get into a philosophical discussion on epistemology and discuss where my bent is (I'm basically an externalist who is sypathetic to Plantinga but have a few of my own ideas too).
Needless to say, even though you don't have to be cartesianly certain to 'know' something, that doesn't mean that you can just throw around that word and say, 'but I'm not certain.'
There are other things to take into account.
For example, say you walked into a factory and saw a bunch of widgets coming down the assembly line and they were all colored red. So, you form the belief you are being appeared to redly. At this point, given this info, I'd say that you knew they were red. Now, say that a floor supervisor told you that there was a red light illuminating the widgets so as to detect otherwise unnoticable hair line fractures. Actually, only about 15% are red. Thus you'd now have a defeater for your belief that the widgets were red. So, it wouldn't be wise to say, "Oh there's a red widget. I know it, and just because I could be wrong doesn't mean that I know it!" See, there's other things to take into account. And this is the same kind of argument I'd make about your argument for "knowing" that so and so is elect.
But, as I said, I don't feel like getting into this and teaching epistemology. Suffice it to say, I'm sure you're convinced about your credobaptism and I don't think I could convince you otherwise.
Yeah, that infant/children comeback is spot on! Too bad that even granting that the infancy stage ends about 1.5 years. So, let's baptize and teach our 1.5 year olds. Too funny! This is called "grasping at straws."
Tony, don't be surprised. In just one comment on the Puritan Board forum Manata called me dishonest. It seems to be Paul's tactic: to call into question his opponents integrity; character assassination. He even tried the same tactic with Gene during the debate with the whole "would you witness to the man on the bus." Paul tried to make Gene out to look like someone who ignores Scripture, not misinterprets Scripture, but ignores it. That is a character attack.
I called him on it on the Puritan Board, which is mostly made up of paedo's by the way. And you have called him on it here.
May others be warned.
And Paul, I would ask that you refrain from such antics. If you don't mean it, then say so, for it is not funny to men whose integrity is important to them as ministers of the Word. If you do mean it, then shame on you.
Tony Said:
It is frequently stated that we cannot know who the "elect" are. That statement is misleading. There are two types of elect individuals existing: 1) Those that are still in unbelief and 2) Those that are believing. It is true that we cannot know the "elect" in class #1, but we can know the "elect" in class #2. This is simply proven by the following commandment by Paul:
NKJ 2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?
In the marriage covenant, we are to make sure we are marrying a believer. That suggests that we can know who the believing elect (class #2) are. If we cannot know who the believing elect are, then Paul's commandment is useless.
My Response:
Tony, Paul has touched on this a bit, but I want to point something out I see in your comments from the beginning to the end that I believe is a problem for you. For the record, I am paedo, so you know where I'm coming from. Also, I want to point out that I am not nearly as educated as it seems the two of you are in logical or philosophical terms. So, be nice to me if you want to point out where you think I am making a mistake.
Anyway, if you go back and read throughout your comments you are constantly substituting the word "believer" for the word "elect." Unless you want to state that you take these two terms as having identical definitions, then that means you are committing the fallacy of equivocation, right? I assert that this is exactly what you are doing within your reasoning and hence the problems with your arguments.
Reuben asks you how you are able to determine the difference between the truly believing elect and the apparently believing pre-apostates and you answer that there are more than two options, and so on. But the fact of the matter is that even if there are more than these two options you still have a problem in that there are at least these two options.
You and Paul both start to agree that there are different senses that these words and others can be used. I am disappointed that Paul didn't carry that flag a little further, but that's what I am trying to do right now.
Let's go back to your first comment. You mention that there are two kinds of elect, those not yet believing and then those that do believe. But this sense of the word is talking about God's elect in His secret decrees. If you weren't using that sense, then your whole argument really becomes moot as the end of my comment here shows. You then quote 2 Corinthians as proof that we can know who are the 'believing elect.' I am going to assume here that you are using the term 'elect' in the same sense that you are using in type one and type two of elect. So, in order for 2 Corinthians to 'prove' your conclusion, it would have to read like so:
2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked together with non elect people. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?
I would absolutely agree with you if it read this way. I suppose if you could prove that 'believer' is equivalent to 'elect person' when elect is used in the same sense, that I would also agree with you. So the onus is on you to do that.
So the problem remains that when talking about God's secret decrees of who is or who is not God's 'elect,' WE CAN NOT KNOW WHO BELONGS TO THIS GROUP. (With the possible exception of ourselves, which is an entirely different discussion belonging to the category of ASSURANCE, which I don't think is relevant to this debate).
So, what kind of knowledge does 2 Cor 6:14 actually affirm that we can possess? We can know who is an 'unbeliever.' Which means we can know who is a believer. So far so good. But how do you go from knowing who is a believer to knowing who is a 'believing elect' person? (Again, using your sense of God's secret decrees).
Paul Manata points out that chaff is so tightly wound with wheat that you have to harvest at the same time, and not pull the chaff early. The point here is that those in the visible church are all believers. If they weren't believers, then they would be excommunicated and thereby not be in the church anymore. The fact that in the visible church there will always be chaff and yet they are all believers is to prove that there is a such thing as a 'believing non elect' person. But they look like a believer, they act like a believer, they talk like a believer, etc. (Using your sense of 'believer.') Hence, 'believers' is NOT equal to 'believing elect.'
So, what about 1 Thess 1:4 and other scripture that call those in a particular church 'elect?' I think that both Tony and Paul have indicated there can be more than one sense in which the word 'elect' can be used. So why can't we call all 'believers' 'the elect' in a different sense than God's secret decretal sense? It seems to me that clears up a lot of these supposed 'problems.' This 'principle' of charity clears up a lot of these issues. We call all 'believers' the 'elect' from a man's eye view. But then that opens up another realm of possibility. Can't we also call people in the visible church in covenant with God? And if so, then we have another problem with Gene's side of the debate. Members of the external covenant and members of the internal covenant, which Gene wants to deny.
But that is another different proposition to debate in other comments. For now, let's just suffice it to say that we can't assume someone is one of God's secretly elect just because someone is a humanly observable believer.
In Christ,
Jeff
Paul M. said:
"Needless to say, even though you don't have to be cartesianly certain to 'know' something, that doesn't mean that you can just throw around that word and say, 'but I'm not certain.'...There are other things to take into account."
I agree. And I trust that you can see that I am not just throwing around the word, "but I am not certain." What I have been arguing is that we can say that we know who believers are in a fallible sense. When I say this, I mean that so long as our cognitive faculties are functioning properly and we are guided by correct principles of inference based in scriptural criteria, we may say that we know who are believers. I think Plantiga himself would agree with that, so long as we are not claiming to know infallibly who are believers.
Paul M. said:
For example, say you walked into a factory and saw a bunch of widgets coming down the assembly line and they were all colored red. So, you form the belief you are being appeared to redly. At this point, given this info, I'd say that you knew they were red. Now, say that a floor supervisor told you that there was a red light illuminating the widgets so as to detect otherwise unnoticable hair line fractures. Actually, only about 15% are red. Thus you'd now have a defeater for your belief that the widgets were red. So, it wouldn't be wise to say, "Oh there's a red widget. I know it, and just because I could be wrong doesn't mean that I know it!" See, there's other things to take into account. And this is the same kind of argument I'd make about your argument for "knowing" that so and so is elect."
I actually don't think this is a good way to look at things. First of all, the person observing the widgets is claiming 1) The widgets are appearing red to me, and not 2) Redness inheres in the widgets themselves. I, or the person in the factory, would be making a subjective mental claim, and not an objective claim about the widgets. Proposition #1 and proposition #2 are distinct assertions. Moreover, if I were making the claim that the widgets are appearing redly to me, the listener is expected to understand other unstated propositions, i.e., at this time and in this context the widgets are appearing redly to me. So, if the floor supervisor told me of the lighting conditions and how more of the widgets were not objectively red in themselves, that still does not falsify proposition #1. It would falsify proposition #2, if that was the claim.
The bottom line is, you have switched from the hypothetical person asserting proposition #1 to his asserting proposition #2.
Also, I don't think the above scenario parallels what I am saying about our knowledge of who are and who are not believers. My claim that we can justifiably claim to know who the BELIEVING elect are has not been refuted at all. Only one associating the word "know" with infallible claims could attempt to try to falsify what I have said, and you have rightly distanced yourself from infallibilism.
Paul M. said:
"But, as I said, I don't feel like getting into this and teaching epistemology. Suffice it to say, I'm sure you're convinced about your credobaptism and I don't think I could convince you otherwise.
That's fine. I understand that we have gotten a bit off track, but we are nevertheless discussing relevant topics, since credo-baptists presuppose that we can know who are believers and baptise them. I am a convinced credo-baptist, but I am willing to test my own presuppositions, even as I check the solidity of your armor by discussing what we have above.
Grace to you,
Tony
Hi Jason,
All I can do is accept Paul's apology at this point and move on to try to discuss things respectfully. If he has offended you elsewhere, such as on the PB, then I sincerely hope that he would prayerfully consider apologizing to you as well. However, I don't think such a thing will happen in a forum like the PB. It's a forum that has long lost it's civility and scientific approach to discussing theology.
The baptism debate should not be viewed at a WWF or UFC fighting match. Are we not trying to persuade one another of what we think is true? That is not likely to happen if either party is merely seeking to squash their "opponent." Paul Manata happened to bring up David Ponter's name earlier. David is also a paedo-baptist, but he is also patient and gentle as he discusses theology. Someone like that is more likely to persuade me of a position than an aggressive and combative type of person. One can tell that Gene Cook is also seeking to model the meekness and pastoral quality of Christ in discussions. I have had to try and stuggle to incorporate that Christ-like way of doing things into my own attempts at dialogue. The faceless medium of the internet makes that particularly difficult.
Tony
Hi Jeff,
You said:
"Anyway, if you go back and read throughout your comments you are constantly substituting the word "believer" for the word "elect."
Me now:
This is not accurate. I am differenting between kinds of existing elect people, i.e., those believing and those not yet believing.
You said:
"Unless you want to state that you take these two terms as having identical definitions, then that means you are committing the fallacy of equivocation, right?"
Me now:
If I was not making the distinctions I have been making, then there would be equivocation problems, yes. But, as I just stated above, I am not seeing identicle definitions between "elect" and "believer." There are the believing elect and the elect who have not yet believed.
You said:
"Reuben asks you how you are able to determine the difference between the truly believing elect and the apparently believing pre-apostates and you answer that there are more than two options, and so on."
Me now:
Actually, Reuben asked me if I have a "foolproof" way of determining who are genuine believers and who are not. I denied that I do have "foolproof" criteria, but that does not argue against me justifiably claiming to know who are believers and who are not. As I stated above, most of our claims to knowledge are fallible. One need not have "foolproof" criteria to make knowledge claims. If that were the case, Paul and Gene could not claim to "know" that the debate on baptism was between two believers in fellowship with Christ. Nor could Paul claim that he "knows" that his own baptismal views are correct, since he himself admitted in the debate that he could be wrong. There's nothing wrong with that. It's simply an acknowledgement of our own fallibility.
You said:
"You mention that there are two kinds of elect, those not yet believing and then those that do believe. But this sense of the word is talking about God's elect in His secret decrees."
Me now:
Secret decrees? All I am saying is that we all acknowledge that there are two types of elect people existing, the believing sort and the unbelieving sort. All parties agree to that fact, and we need not jump into speculations about "secret decrees" to know that the twofold distinction is plainly revealed in the bible and in our own testimonies.
You said:
"You then quote 2 Corinthians as proof that we can know who are the 'believing elect.'"
Me now:
Yes. Paul commands the Corinthians, and us by implication, to not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. An application of that comes into play in the marriage covenant or engagement. Believers, who have the Spirit and new moral abilities in Christ, are capable of obeying that commandment. The apostolic commandment itself demands that we use scriptural criteria and our God-given minds to be discerning enough to distinguish between believers and unbelievers. God is not expecting us to be infallible in doing that. We are just to use all the resources at our disposal to make those determinations. Frankly, I think I know that John Calvin was a believer. Do I know that infallibly? No, but I can justifiably claim to know it nonetheless. If I met a woman who had the qualities and/or characteristics of John Calvin, apart from his paedo-baptistic convictions :-), then I might consider her for marriage. I trust that you also "know" men like John Calvin and Cornelius Van Til were believers.
You said:
"I am going to assume here that you are using the term 'elect' in the same sense that you are using in type one and type two of elect."
Me now:
I am using "elect" in the type #2 sense when it comes to the 1 Corinthian passage, since it says don't be unequally yoked with UNBELIEVERS. In other words, if you are to be yoked, in a marriage covenant for instance, do so with BELIEVERS only.
You said:
"So, in order for 2 Corinthians to 'prove' your conclusion, it would have to read like so:
2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked together with non elect people. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?"
Me now:
That's incorrect. I take the verse to say just what it says, i.e., don't be unequally yoked together with UNBELIEVERS. Whether they are elect unbelievers or non-elect unbelievers is beside the point. When the elect are in an unbelieving state, they are also unqualified for a believer to marry. We have no idea who are elect and non-elect when considering unbelievers.
Just for clarifications sake, let me repeat that there are two sorts of unbelievers: 1) elect unbelievers and 2) non-elect unbelievers. The latter always remain in that state, but the former will eventually be brought out of that state by the effectual work of the Spirit. Also, there are two sorts of existing elect: 1) The unbelieving kind and 2) the believing kind. 2 Corinthians 6:14 is NOT asking us to distinguish between elect unbelievers and non-elect unbelievers. It's uniformly commanding us to not be unequally yoked with unbelievers, no matter who they are, whether elect or not.
You said:
"I suppose if you could prove that 'believer' is equivalent to 'elect person' when elect is used in the same sense, that I would also agree with you. So the onus is on you to do that."
It seems that your confused as to what I have claimed. I am not saying the term "believer" is equivalent to "elect person." My initial point, in fact, was to show that they are NOT equivalent, hence the ambiguity. Nota bene: All believers are elect persons, but not all elect persons are believers.
The rest of my reply is forthcoming...
Jeff said:
"So the problem remains that when talking about God's secret decrees of who is or who is not God's 'elect,' WE CAN NOT KNOW WHO BELONGS TO THIS GROUP."
Me now:
Well, once again, I think it depends on what you mean by "elect." If you are talking about the existing elect individuals who are still in an unbelieving state, then I agree. If you're including the elect who are in a believing state, then I disagree. Again, when one is talking about who is and who is not a believer, one is not probing into secret decrees, but the manifestation of the fruits of repentance in the lives of God's people.
Jeff said:
"(With the possible exception of ourselves, which is an entirely different discussion belonging to the category of ASSURANCE, which I don't think is relevant to this debate)."
Me now:
If one categorically denies that we can know who are believers, then that would rule out ourselves as well. If one wants to say that we can only know that we believe but not that anyone else has believed, then I think they are still wrong. Nevertheless, I do think the way in which we can know ourselves to be believers is different than the way in which we can know that other people are believers. There is a level of knowledge involved in knowing ourselves to be in Christ which is not the case in our knowledge of the faith of others. So, the key question is: Can we in any sense know whether or not other people than ourselves are believers? I say yes, but in a fallible sense.
Jeff said:
"So, what kind of knowledge does 2 Cor 6:14 actually affirm that we can possess?"
Me now:
Fallible knowledge, which is the same kind of knowledge that the debators had in affirming that their baptismal debate was between believers fellowshipping in the things of Christ. Also, as I said previously, the paedo-baptist does not reject believers baptism. They must still be claiming, in some sense, a way of knowing who is and who is not a believer. If credo-baptists have a problem on that "knowledge" issue, then so does the paedo-baptist. The fact that the credo-baptist only has fallible knowledge does not defeat his position, any more than it would defeat the position of the paedo-baptist when they baptise believers. One could also ask how they "know" who are covenant children? Do they have an infallible knowledge of who are and who are not covenant children? No. If covenant children are the children of believers, then the knowledge issue arises yet again. Both parties have fallible knowledge, but claim to have reasonable grounds for doing what they do.
The rest is forthcoming...
Jeff said:
"We can know who is an 'unbeliever.' Which means we can know who is a believer. So far so good."
Me now:
I agree. You seem to have granted my point, i.e., that the Pauline command in that passage presupposes that the believing Corinthians could discern who was and who was not a believer.
Jeff said:
"But how do you go from knowing who is a believer to knowing who is a 'believing elect' person? (Again, using your sense of God's secret decrees)."
Me now:
All believers are elect, but not all professing believers are elect. So, if someone gives ample indications that they have believed, we can only conclude that they are among the elect, but we do so fallibly. Again, the knowledge of their election is through their manifestation of faith/repetance. We are not claiming to know that they are elect AS SUCH, but as believing elect, to speak redundantly. A believer is an elect person, since God only gives the gift of faith to the elect. By saying "believing elect", I am not speaking infallibly, as if when I see someone I think it a believer, they most certainly are a genuine believer and necessarily one of God's elect. I can only speak fallibly and say, "since they seem to be showing fruits of repetance, they must be among those that God has given faith, i.e. the elect. This person is worthy to be baptized."
Jeff said:
"Paul Manata points out that chaff is so tightly wound with wheat that you have to harvest at the same time, and not pull the chaff early. The point here is that those in the visible church are all believers."
Me:
When Christ spoke about the wheat and the tares, he was not talking about the visible church, but of the world. It's the error of Augustine to make "world" in that passage to mean the church.
NKJ Matthew 13:38 "The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one.
If we're going to talk about the visible church, then all of them, in my view, should be professing believers. I believe in a voluntary or believers church. We are not physically born into the church, any more than we are physically born into Christ. Also, I hardly think it qualifies as "pulling up the chaff early" when I say we can know and distinguish between believers and unbelievers. Even when we engage in church discipline and put someone out, treating them as unbelieving tax collectors etc., are we "pulling up the chaff early"? I don't think so. That's a misapplication of the passage.
Also, how do you know that all in the visible church are believers if you're a paedo-baptist? Are all the baptized infants believing? If so, how do you know? Can they be interviewed while they look at you with that blank, mindless stare? :-)
Jeff said:
"If they weren't believers, then they would be excommunicated and thereby not be in the church anymore."
Me now:
The above statement grants my point, i.e., that we can distinguish between believer and unbelievers, albeit fallibly.
Jeff said:
"The fact that in the visible church there will always be chaff and yet they are all believers is to prove that there is a such thing as a 'believing non elect' person. But they look like a believer, they act like a believer, they talk like a believer, etc. (Using your sense of 'believer.') Hence, 'believers' is NOT equal to 'believing elect.'"
Me now:
Ok. I see your point. You're saying that among those that seem to us to believe in the visible church, there are the "believing" (i.e. they profess to believe) non-elect and the believing (they truly believe) elect. When I said believing elect, I mean that there are those who appear to us to be among God's elect because we have good reasons to suppose that they have really believed. WE CAN ONLY KNOW THEIR ELECTION FALLIBLY, JUST AS WE CAN ONLY KNOW THEY HAVE BELIEVED FALLIBLY. I think I see why there is confusion. Again, read this sentence carefully to see what I am meaning: When I said believing elect, I mean that there are those who appear to us to be among God's elect because we have good reasons to suppose that they have really believed. Hopefully that helps.
The rest is coming...
Jeff said:
"So, what about 1 Thess 1:4 and other scripture that call those in a particular church 'elect?' I think that both Tony and Paul have indicated there can be more than one sense in which the word 'elect' can be used. So why can't we call all 'believers' 'the elect' in a different sense than God's secret decretal sense? It seems to me that clears up a lot of these supposed 'problems.' This 'principle' of charity clears up a lot of these issues. We call all 'believers' the 'elect' from a man's eye view."
Me now:
It sounds like we actually agree. There was just some misunderstanding about what I meant when I said "believing elect." We only know BOTH of those descriptive terms in a fallible sense. When I look at someone who seems to be genuinely repentant, believing the truths of the gospel and wanting to be baptized, I conclude on scriptural grounds that such a person is a believing/elect individual. Since only the elect want to pursue the things of Christ genuinely, I conclude that someone is elect when one seems to be seeking the things of God. I only know their election fallibly, even as I know their faith fallibly. I am not claiming, when I say I know the believing elect, that such a person cannot fail but be glorified. I can say to such a person, "you seem to be a genuine believer. I will baptize you upon your profession of faith. Now, abide and persevere and you shall be saved." I have only claimed all along that we can know the elect fallibly through their profession of faith. Even though it is merely from a man's eye view, we are still warranted to call it "knowledge."
Jeff said:
"But then that opens up another realm of possibility. Can't we also call people in the visible church in covenant with God?"
Me now:
I think we are, as credo-baptists, saying that professing believers are in covenant with God, but in a fallible sense. So far as they seem to be believers, we conclude that they are in covenant with God. But, if they are not in fact or truly believing in Christ, they are not members of the New Covenant, which seems to be Gene's point. We water baptize believers as an indication of what we think is the case with them, but it is a fallible baptism, such that it may not be that they are really in the New Covenant.
Jeff said:
"And if so, then we have another problem with Gene's side of the debate. Members of the external covenant and [Tony: are?] members of the internal covenant, which Gene wants to deny."
Me now:
I would say that we assume, on various criteria, that members of the visible church (through their profession of faith) are also members of the New Covenent, until we see indications otherwise. I don't yet see how this is a problem for Gene's position. Only the truly believing are members of the New Covenant, but we do not have infallible knowledge of who are in fact believing and who are not. So, we baptize those we have good reasons to suppose are among the elect, as they manifest fruits of repentance. As Gene mentioned in the debate, we strive to make the visible church reflect what is the case in the New Covenant.
Jeff said:
"But that is another different proposition to debate in other comments. For now, let's just suffice it to say that we can't assume someone is one of God's secretly elect just because someone is a humanly observable believer."
Me now:
I totally agree. I hope that it is clear now that I do not think that I have infallible knowledge as to who is elect and who is not, as if I can see the secret class of those REALLY or IN FACT appointed to eternal life. Nevertheless, when I see someone manifesting fruits of repentance and wanting to follow the commands of Christ, I fallible conclude that they are among God's elect and baptize them as Christ's disciples.
I hope that clears up some of the confusing language.
Tony
Hi Jeff,
I apologize if it is frustrating reading my first couple of replies to you. I gradually saw the subtle issue you were raising, and that should be evident in my last couple of posts to you. I hope I clarified things sufficiently.
Tony
On Some Thessalonian "Widgets"
Hi Paul,
I have been reflecting further on the issue of the redly appearing "widgets" that you brought up, and it's possible relation to 1 Thessalonians 1:4. in retrospect, the analogy may be useful to consider various distinctions. Here again is the passage:
NKJ 1 Thessalonians 1:4 knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God.
Paul could be saying one of two things:
1) You appear electly to me, Timothy and Silvanus.
2) Election inheres in you, i.e. you are really among the elect who cannot fail to be ultimately glorified.
Paul could infallibly claim to know the first proposition, but fallibly claim to know the second proposition. So, Paul's statement in 1 Thessalonians 1:4 is infallible in one sense and fallible in another. It is infallible in so far as he claims to know proposition #1 (they appeared electly to him), but fallible in so far as he treats them and baptized them as if they were among class #2. Of course, we say we "know" proposition #2 upon some conditions, and not without good reasons and scriptural criteria. This is at least one issue that makes the knowledge claim warranted or justifiable.
Consider, for example, the claim that the baptism debate was between two Christian believers. Paul Manata could infallbily claim that Gene appears electly to him at a certain time and under certain conditions, such as was the case during the baptism. Paul Manata could also fallibly claim to know that Gene is truly elect. If Gene turned out, in another context or future condition, to really be an unbeliever, that would not falsify Paul's infallible knowledge claim that Gene appeared electly to him at another time and different context. However, it would falsify Paul's fallible knowledge claim to know that Gene is truly elect.
Likewise, if Paul the Apostle infallibly claimed to know that that the Thessalonians appeared electly to him at a certain time when they were faithfully working, patiently hoping and lovingly laboring (like when he wrote to them), then if one or more of them eventually fell away in the future situation, that would NOT falsify the infallible knowledge claim, i.e., that they appeared electly to him previously. It's eternally and immutably true that the Thessalonians appeared electly to him in the particular context in which he made that claim for the contextual reasons he brings up. However, in so far as he, as a finite creature, claimed to fallibly know that election inhered in them, such a claim would be falsified in the case of those who fell away. In either case, he was still warranted to make his knowledge claim(s), and the infallibility of 1 Thessalonians 1:4 is NOT in the least bit compromised.
When someone subjectively appears electly to us by manifesting fruits of repentance and love for the things of God, we treat them as if they are among the objectively elect and baptize them accordingly. We move from the infallible subjective claim (they appear electly to us in a particular context) to fallibly, but justifiably, assuming their objective status (as if they were really the elect). If any of those we baptize turn out to be not really elect, that does not falsify our previous subjective knowledge claim, any more than the discovery of the color of some of the widgets not being red would falsify the hypothetical person's claim that they appeared redly to him in the previous context.
I hope that helps,
Tony
For more on this subject, one may want to check out my post The Truth Doesn't Change.
Something I posted on Jason's blog. Applies equally here:
Gene Bridges correctly noted that I am not an infallibilist in my epistemological convictions.
That being said, I still don't think we can "know" another's regenerate status.
But, let me do away with some unnecessary baggage. For arguments sake I'll grant that we can know that, to use Jason's examples, men like R.C. Sproul, John Piper, etc., are regenerate. Why I'll concede this for sake of discussion, these examples don't bear on the debate at hand. This is because we form our beliefs about these particular fellows on the basis of watching their long term fruit.
But, the context of the debate is "baptism." Specifically my responses to Gene in the context of our debate. His belief, which is determinative for our discussions, is that he would baptize a professor immediately, if water was near buy. At worst he'd wait a week. This is too soon to "know" that a professing subject S is "regenerate."
Now, just because we do not hold to a infallibilist constraint, that doesn't mean that we can say that we know any ole proposition. This gets into a whole host of epistemological questions and problems, though.
Suffice it to say, here's an example:
Say you walked into a factory and saw a bunch of widgets coming down the assembly line and they were all colored red. So, you form the belief you are being appeared to redly. At this point, given this info, I'd say that you knew they were red. Now, say that a floor supervisor told you that there was a red light illuminating the widgets so as to detect otherwise unnoticeable hair line fractures. Actually, only about 15% are red. Thus you'd now have a defeater for your belief that the widgets were red. So, it wouldn't be wise to say, "Oh there's a red widget. I know it, and just because I could be wrong doesn't mean that I know it!"
See, there's other things to take into account. And this is the same kind of argument I'd make about your argument for "knowing" that so and so is elect/regenerate.
So, the information about the red light and the probability of a particular widget being a red widget served as a defeater for your belief that any one particular widget was a red widget.
Do we have these kinds of defeaters in the Bible? I think so:
Matt 13: 24 He put another parable before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, 25 but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?' 28 He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' So the servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' 29 But he said, 'No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"
So, say there was a field that had dogs to protect the sheep, but there were wolves too that looked almost exactly like the dogs from a distance of 100 meters (and this was as close as you could get to the field). So, when you met the owner of the field you tell him you saw one of his dogs. He informs you that there are almost just as many wolves as dogs, and they look almost similar. You now have a defeater for your belief that you actually saw a dog. At this point you say, "Let me shoot the wolves so that your sheep will be safe." The owner of the field responds, "No, don't shoot them because you may just as easily hit a wolf instead." This should be an undisputed case of epistemic defeat, this applies to the claim that we "know who is regenerate."
The second analogy really bears on the Baptism issue since Gene is for immediate baptisms (and he must since he relies so heavily on arguments from example as normative).
Matt. 13: 18 "Hear then the parable of the sower: 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path. 20 As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. 22 As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. 23 As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty."
Note that only one of the seeds "immediately" reject the word. These people are immediately unfit subjects for baptism.
Now, out of the other 3, only one of them "truly believes." And, the text does not say how long they act as if they accept the word, but we know it is not "immediate."
Therefore the probability that Gene (or anyone who agrees with him) is baptizing an "elect person" on the basis of the profession they see is low, roughly .3!
Now, if the probability that belief B is the case is low, then you have a defeater for B. This can be seen in another paradigm case of defeat. Say that you ingest a hallucinogenic drug called XX. Say that only .3% of those who ingest XX are immune to his hallucinogenic causing properties. Thus if you formed the belief that you took XX, and if you also came to believe that the probability that you are hallucinating is .7, then you have a defeater for most of your beliefs!
So I have established the argument that "only elect are in the covenant" has no bearing on "how we know who to baptize." At least on Gene’s arguments and positions he held in the debate. And, at least if my above work is right, and it appears that it is, I have. Now, this is how I use the argument Jason attributes to me. I do not, and have not, and never did, use the above argumentation to establish that “children of believers are in the new Covenant.”
Blessings!
~PM
Post a Comment