In the debate between Gene Cook and Paul Manata on baptism, Paul was asked in the Q&A why he didn’t practice Paedocommunion. I expected a long technical version of something to the effect of Passover only being for believers (as if only believers ate the Passover in the OT) however, I was pleasantly surprise by his answer. Paul stated quite succintly that it was because his infant couldn’t digest lamb chops.
Well Paul, thanks to modern technology your problems have been solved. We have marketed for you “Manata Paedo-communion Food”. It comes in two varieties. Lamb, or for those who still have trouble giving wine to their infants, we have Lamb with Lamb Gravy. So Paul have no more guilt about impoverishing your infants from this sacrament. Give them one spoonful at communion.
Manata Paedo Food all rights reserved, following directions doesn’t necessarily guarantee grace, if infant becomes ill discontinue use until child is old enough to discern his status in the elect.
Tweet
36 year old husband, father, pastor, singer, musician, reader, eater, rider, watcher,
I just love watching Junior’s face scrunch up when I give him the bitter herbs.
Paul, I know you were worried about some of our congregation becoming Paedo-baptist after the debate. Jason and I were also worried about, so we split a baby aspirin and drove to Bass Lake right after the debate.
priceless
I have to admit that I too was taken aback by his response. I think he was being sarcastic since it was pretty close to the end of the debate, but still he should have tried to end better than that.
Calling in back-up.
Now Scott needs to do damage control?
Is this called argument by ridicule? Fallacious ’til the end, I see.
First Gene, then Jason, now Scott wants to fall too?
And, yes, the response was mostly humorous. Btw, I don’t think breast milk is a sacrament, either! I figured since Gene could joke about “baby dedications” and say “they aren’t a part of worship” (even though he told me he has done them in Sunday morning church services), I could joke around too. Besides the debate was about the proper subjects of *baptism.* So, the question was off. Oh, btw, all should know that Jason said that they didn’t get a lot of questions for Gene. But, I know of at least 4 paedo baptists who sent in cards and their questions were not asked. And, perhaps my answer wasn’t sufficient because Jason switched around the pre-agreed upon debate format, and so threw my timming off. I see the tactic: make fun of your opponants, protect your side by censoring critiical questions, and throw off visiting debators by switching the pre-agreed format without telling him. So, if you guys could do all that, I thought you’d let me slide with my humorous remark.
*********
The question was about *infants,* now, since you guys are so smart, and I’m the dumb paedo, then perhaps one of you could help me and prove that *infants* (or toddlers) took the passover.
This shouldn’t be so hard because you’re mocking my arguments.
Whenever I mock and argument, I make sure I can easily knock it down when someone calls me to that mat.
Paul,
Just for the record, I was following the agreed upon format.
Gene went first, they you second.
Next you went first, then Gene second.
Right before the debate, YOU, Paul, asked if we could add a new segment that was not on the format submitted. You also requested that the Q&A be moved to the very end.
Both of these request I agreed out of respect for you as our guest.
My original format would have Gene give his closing first and you last, but with the new segment place in upon YOUR request and the Q&A moved to the end, the flow was thus altered causing you to do your closing first and Gene last.
I showed this to you in the “green room” and I said, “Gene will go first and then we will swap the order with each new segment to be fair.” Both of you said OK.
Then in the middle of the debate, you protested. I looked to your opponent and asked if he had any problem granting you ANOTHER change in the format and Gene graciously obliged. I gave you everything you asked for, and Gene never protested.
Immediately after the debate I walked up to you to discuss this issue of you getting everything you asked for. You thanked me, and affirmed the fairness of the debate and my “moderation” of it.
Now, in this public forum, you are accusing me of being unfair. And then even try to use this false charge as an excuse for a senseless comment about the Lord’s Table.
Paul, I don’t appreciate your accusation or believe your excuses. The next time I see you I am going to have Gene put you in a headlock and make you repent.
Hi Jason,
That wasn’t the agreed upon format, actually.
Ask Gene. Here’s what he told me:
Gene open – 30 min.
Paul Open – 30 min
Gene Cross – 10 min
Paul Cross – 10 min
Gene Rebut – 10 min
Paul Rebut – 10 min
Gene Close – 10 min
Paul Close – 10 min
Q & A
In fact, I was talking to Gene one day, and he said you were there, and I asked him if we could expland the opening to 30 minutes. he said, “Okay, I’ll let you do that if I can close… nah, just kidding, if you need an extra 5 minutes go ahead.” Now, why would he ask to close if it was already agreed upon that he would?
I never asked for a “new format.” And, btw, Gene and I agreed that the Q & A would be at the end. he told me that I would have to talk to you because “Jason likes to switch things up.”
The debate format was not shown in the green room.
This is really odd. I am really surprised at how bad your memory is. How ’bout this, I gurantee you I can get Gene to agree with what I said above.
What will you do when I do?
just to be clear, in the green room what was said was:
“Okay, so we’re going to open, then cross examinations, then rebuttals, and then a break, then closing arguments, and then Q and A, right?”
Both Gene and I agreed. There was no mention of names.
Why *on earth* would I allow Gene to open *and* close??? Especially when we had previously agreed that I woud close? I kow enough about debates to let someone open *and* close!
Scott,
I know you were worried about some of my side congregation becoming credo-baptist after the debate. New Life interns and I were also worried about that, so we both played a video game that was rated “M” for mature, and we read about the Greeks who let their children die from exposure.
Anyway, kudos on the joke! Funny stuff.
Paul,
I actually have the documented format that was used that night sitting here on my desk. It sits here on my desk with the original typed format and the handwritten changes that you requested in the green room. I don’t hold it against you if you forgot, I’m sure you were under a lot of stress.
Seriously, I know that in reality this is not relevant. Unless you really expect us to believe that exact moment I asked you the question about communion, you thought about the format changes, got confused, lost your train of thought, and decided to make a joke about babies and lamb chops.
Sure. Lets just agree on that so I don’t have to email the documents to Fide-O readers, so you can stop pouting and pointing fingers, or before I have to mail you Ginko.
Just kidding.
I didn’t know I “fell” but okay I guess I will go along with the fun and games.
So how about them Packers?
Jason,
You may have some “format” but is never a “format” that Isaw.
Why would I agree to this so-called “format” and then act very surprised when you asked me to cross first? Why would I have agreed and then said “I thought I was closing.”
So, you can post or email any “format” you want to, but I never saw or agreed to anything like you say.
Why would Gene tell me, ‘Scott’s going to try to change the format, but I’ll go with whatever you want?” He meant, “Our original format.”
Look, Scott, not a big deal. But I’m just fighting fire with fire. All fund and games. Mock my answer to paedocommunion. Fine. No swaet. But I’m not like that atheist you bullied. I fight back. SO, you want to mock my debate performace, I’ll just let people know how the format was changed on me in the middle of the debate.
Indeed, I spoke with Gene Cook on the phone last night and he agreed with me on what we had agreed upon as the format. And, he said he “couldn’t be sure” if you said the names of who was going first and last whern you read the “format” of the debate. And, as I said, if you had read that Gene was closing *and* opeining, I would have stopped you right there. There’s no way I would have allowed that. So, Gene is wrong, I am wrong, and all the memebrs and mods, and admins at PB were wrong. I’m beginning to see a pattern.
So, as I said, I’ll fight fire with fire.
You mock my position and I’ll mock the fact that you had to do everything to win, even underhandedly shuffle things so that Gene could close. Again, let me make perfectly clear, the “format” you read in the green room went like this:
[insert southern accent] “Okay, so we’re going to do opening, then cross examination, then rebuttals, then we’ll break, then we’ll close, and then we’ll do questions and answers.” Both Gene and I said, “Yes.” You will notice that no “names” are there. So, you can show a format with names or whatever you want, but that doesn’t mean that that’s what *I* saw in the “green room.”
So, paedo questions were tossed away so that Gene didn’t have to answer them.
The format was changed on me mid-way into the debate.
Now, most paedos and credos say that, even though the credos aren’t paedos now, as far as the debate goes, I won. Imagine what would have been the outcome had I not got ambushed and thrown off my rythm and had the format changed mid stream?
Anyway, Jason, don’t worry. When I was going through Navy SEAL training, we had a motto: If you’re not cheating, you’re not trying.
Just so you know, Jason, I’m not bothered that the format was changed. For all I know, you weren’t even told the original one that Gene and I agreed on. This was just my own smack talking. You’re having a ball here, and so I had to pull out my big guns – you switched up the debate format. In my first comment above I referenced it in a light hearted way. The only reason I’m continuing is because I never agreed to the format you say I did, and I never tried to change it when I got there (Gene and I agreed on Q and A at the end).
Anyway, I’m not trying to say you did it on purpose. I don’t even know if Gene gave you our agreed upon format. I just brought it up to have smack talk of my own. So, just so there’s no misunderstanding, I am not accusing you of intentional dishonesty. And, I did have no problems with the way I was treated there. Cool?
Paul, it is cool. And don’t worry your “smack” cracks me up.
Concerning the debate: I tried to give you, and actually did give you everything you asked for. I can’t imagine that one would complain about that. So if you are just trying to talk smack I am cool with it.
Cool.