Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Coming Soon: Eastern Orthodoxy / Infant Baptism Debate

Announcing what will be the sixth Theopologetics Debate (unless something comes up sooner), this time on infant baptism between a credobaptist Protestant and an Eastern Orthodox theologian. Jamin Hübner, founder of www.RealApologetics.org and author of The Saving Grace of God, Light Up the Darkness, and The Portable Presuppositionalist, goes toe to toe with Eastern Orthodox Reverend Laurent Cleenewerck, editor of The Eastern / Greek Orthodox New Testament and faculty member at EUCLID and Humboldt State University.

Be sure to email me at theopologetics@hotmail.com if you want to pose a question to either participant! Make sure to tell me to whom you wish the question directed.

Date: Tuesday, March 20th, to be published in the podcast feed shortly thereafter.

Resolution: Infants are not the proper subjects of the ordinance of baptism.

Participants: Jamin Hübner affirms. Reverend Laurent Cleenewerck denies. Moderated by Chris Date.

Debate format:
  • 15-minute opening affirmative
  • 15-minute opening negative
  • 10-minute rebuttal affirmative
  • 10-minute rebuttal negative
  • 10-minute cross-examination of affirmative
  • 10-minute cross-examination of negative
  • 10-minute cross-examination of affirmative
  • 10-minute cross-examination of negative
  • 5-minute closing negative
  • 5-minute closing affirmative
  • 30-minutes of listener Q&A

10 comments:

  1. Chris, I've been enjoying your podcast thus far. I've learned a great deal with the incredible amount of effort you've put in. This should be an interesting debate, as I'm not familiar with the scriptural basis to support infant baptism.

    Where do you currently stand on the subject?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow, that's a remarkable combo. Eastern Orthodoxy is _different_.

    Noah, RC Sproul's series on the topic is very useful. He's a paedobaptist (which means "child baptiser") and is frank about that, but he does a great job honestly explaining the two sides. (I'm a credobaptist myself.)

    Also useful is the "Fighting for the Faith" podcast; listen to the episodes that mention "baptism" or "baptise" in the title. Chris Rosebrough is brilliant at explaining Lutheran doctrines to us evangelicals. (His podcast is deeply worth listening to for anyone, IMO.)

    -Wm

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Noah, thanks! I am currently a credobaptist; I think only professing believers should be baptized. I've listened to Sproul and others defend paedobaptism--the Protestant variety, that is--and can kinda sorta see where they're coming from, but I haven't yet found it persuasive in the least.

    @Wm, thanks for recommending that podcast! I just subscribed and have downloaded one episode, although not one on baptism (it's the one on the bankruptcy of Biologos theology). I'll let you know what I think!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Chris, let me know what you think. Rosebrough is a firebrand, a superb entertainer, and a good theologian. Everyone I've introduced his show to has gone on to listen to many episodes -- impressive, since he has almost as much output as Rush does.
    OTOH, the creation/evolution debate is not something he's particularly strong on; he's stated that defeating evolution based on science is "easy", which simply isn't true.

    I've heard only one segment about evolution on his show that I thought was really useful -- the panel discussion led by Mohler was well done (unfortunately I couldn't find it).

    Note that the shorter episodes come about once a week and are called "light" episodes; they're simply a recorded lecture. They're all very good (often brilliant), but you should compare them separately from the rest.

    -Wm

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lothair, I didn't publish your comment because I don't want the debate participants to have the questions in advance. I'm emailing you though, for clairifcation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. They should have the questions in advance. It gives both parties the opportunity to prepare material for the answer. But, I guess ambushes make for better radio.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Initially, Wm, my only criticism is its length and/or frequency. Who could listen to that long a show every single day?!? I have to be real selective and pick what, if anything, I want to listen to :S

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lothair, it's not about what makes for better radio, it's about what seems to me (I could be wrong) to be fairly standard operating procedure when it comes to formal debates. Every debate I've listened to, without exception, in which listeners get to ask questions, has those questions posed to the debate participants on the spot, and not given to them in advance.

    ReplyDelete
  9. LOL, literally. Nicely said; his podcast IS like drinking from a firehose. I would definitely start by just downloading the things of immediate interest, and accepting the risk of missing fun stuff. If it helps, the comments of each podcast (and the contents of the podcast's blog) give a little more info about the contents.
    That's how I started too. I've since caught up, and am now slowly listening to the back catalog.
    It's also notable that a lot of the bulk comes from the fact that every episode ends with a complete "sermon review", playing back a complete sermon with commentary (and sometimes a countersermon). This explains the bulk, even though it doesn't make it any easier to gain enough time to listen :-).
    -Wm

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have to relent in spite of my intuition. Debaters are often given no notice of the form of the question; but, so many of the answers could have been much better with a little preparation. Whatever you decide, I'll listen in and post my thoughts.

    ReplyDelete