James White and Bill Shishko Infant Baptism Debate MP3s

Posted on by

James WhiteBill ShishkoDr. James White, president of Alpha and Omega Ministries, debates Rev. William Shishko, pastor of Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Franklin Square, NY, over the topic of infant baptism.

Debate Topic: Baptism is only for those who have personally repented & believed in Christ.

Part 1 (MP3; 64MB)

  • 0:00-11:00 Introduction
  • 11:30-31:30 White’s opening affirmative statement
  • 31:30-34:50 Shishko’s cross-examination
  • 35:10- 55:00 Shishko’s opening statement
  • 55:20-58:15 White’s cross-examination
  • 58:55-1:13:50 White’s second affirmative statement
  • 1:14:15-1:17:15 Shishko’s cross-examination
  • 1:17:45-1:19:57 Shishko’s second negative statement (apparently the rest of Shishko’s statement and White’s 3 minute cross-examination were cut off and are not included in this audio.)

Part 2 (MP3; 59.9MB)

  • 0:00-4:40 Continuation of Shishko’s 10 minute questions for White (first 6 minutes are not on the web recording)
  • 4:55-14:50 White’s 10 minute questions for Shishko
  • 15:15-25:00 Shishko’s rebuttal
  • 25:24-35:17 White’s rebuttal
  • 35:38-42:40 Shishko’s closing statement
  • 42:50-49:50 White’s closing statement
  • 51:00-1:14:00 Audience Q/A

(Source: Thanks to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church of Franklin Square, NY, for providing these audios to the public.)

Related Debates

Multimedia

Books on Baptism

About these ads

10 thoughts on “James White and Bill Shishko Infant Baptism Debate MP3s”

  1. Hey Lo,
    I e-mailed Bill and thanked him for his tremendous performance on the debate and I stress TREMENDOUS. As a presbyterian, I have heard some shallow argumentation, but Bill was forceful when needed, exegetically precise, and totus scriptura oriented from beginning to end. It was a masterpiece in my opinion.
    I heard the Sproul vs. MacArthur debate long ago and thougt R.C. failed on many grounds to give adequate defense of oikos baptism, but Bill gave White a night to remember. Let’s talk about it sometime (of course, after the wedding, after honey-moon, and after you settle down).

  2. Pingback: LebensQuellen. » Taufdebatte online!

  3. Pingback: Simple question for my paedo brethren - The PuritanBoard

  4. Pingback: Paedo-Credo Baptism Debate: Dr. Robert Strimple and Dr. Fred Malone « In Thy Light

  5. Pingback: Infant Baptism « Not James White’s Blog

  6. Pingback: James White vs. Bill Shishko Baptism Debate « Endued

  7. every time I read or hear a debate on this I too think it makes sense, but there are just some Scriptures that get in the way. When the paedo referenced Matthew 28:19-20 he said disciples are made by “2 parallel tracks”, 1 thru baptism, the other thru teaching,… I’ve never heard anyone interpret that text like that! :-/ I would’ve asked, “So we don’t teach the baptized then?”

    When he references Acts 2 (the prophecy of Joel) he says it refers to physical children. I would ask, “Does that mean the physical babies of believers have the Holy Spirit poured out on them?” He says he gets this understanding from Isaiah 44:3-4 where it says, ”I [God] will pour my Spirit upon your offspring…” He takes that to mean infants, but how can infants fulfill what happens just two verses later, ”This one will say, ‘I am the Lord’s,’”? That sounds like a profession of faith :)

    Interestingly too he says whatever the household did would have been done by the rest of the house (cause he said that was the pattern in that region during that time), so it should follow that since the head repented/believed then was baptized then the rest should too? Sounds like the guy shot himself in the foot.

    He keeps asking, “If there has been a change in the dealing of households in the New Covenant then it should be clear and it is not”.

    Jesus says in Luke 12:51-53:

    Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. For from now on in ONE HOUSE there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

    (or Matthew 10:34-37) Seems like the gospel divides not unites households :-/

    “For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.” – Mark 3:35

    “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become 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.” – John 1:12-13

    There ya go Pastor Shishko :)

  8. Pingback: Baptism Debate Audio « Heidelblog

  9. Pingback: Paedobaptism vs. Credobaptism « The Sound of Doctrine

  10. Pingback: Paedo or Credo? Baptism and the New Covenant « thereformedmind

Comments are closed.