8/20/2022 0 Comments Debunking Infant Baptism(This post is based on John MacArthur's debate with R.C. Sproul regarding paedo-baptism.) "Baptism is at the crossroads. One road leads to ritualism, institutional church mixed with the saved and the lost. The other leads to faith alone, the glory of the cross, the resurrection, and the true identity of the redeemed church." - John MacArthur What is wrong with infant baptism? 1. Infant baptism is not found in Scripture. Period. End of discussion. The Bible either expressly teaches something, or leads a reader to a clear, undebatable, necessary, logical conclusion (e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity). The Bible neither expressly teaches, nor leads the reader to conclude that infant baptism is an ordinance. And what corporate form of worship the Bible does not mention is as good as forbidden (Dt 12:32; Mk 7:9; 1Co 4:6). Although there is no instance of infant baptism anywhere in Scripture, some are willing to commit eisegesis (i.e. deliberate misinterpretation of the biblical text in order to justify one's unbiblical prejudice) on the following texts which do not mention infant baptism in order to support infant baptism: Matthew 18:3-6 Jesus' point here is to rebuke His disciples' jockeying for prominence in the kingdom, and teach them about humility. He uses a child as an illustration of the child-likeness of those "who believe in Me." All who will enter the kingdom at all are all unworthy, beggarly, dependent, has no merit with which to commend themselves, just like children. All they have done is trust in the mercy of the King, just like children trust their parents. The more they humble themselves and the more they recognize their dependence on God's mercy, the greater are they in the kingdom. There is no mention of infant baptism here. Matthew 19:14,15 Jesus lays His hands on some children and prays for them. Jesus demonstrates that He has special compassion for those who are helpless (Ex 22:21-24,27). There is no mention of infant baptism here. Also, there is nothing to indicate whether the parents are genuine believers, just as many who sought Jesus for His healing power were not necessarily believers (Jn 2:23-25). John 4:53 The royal official from Capernaum, whose son Jesus had healed, "believed and his whole household." By necessity, the presence of any infants in this household is ruled out, because infants have not yet developed the capacity to believe. Acts 2:38,39 Peter calls the guilt-stricken Jews to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus, so as to receive forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit. Then Peter says that this way of salvation is the same way for all their future generations as well as the Gentiles (those who are "far off" from Israel; ref. Ac 4:12), with no distinction. There is no mention of infant baptism. Acts 10:44,47,48; 11:14 The Holy Spirit falls on "all those who were listening" to Peter's gospel. Then they were all baptized. These were Cornelius, his household, and "his relatives and close friends." There is no mention of infants here. All who were baptized had heard and understood and believed the gospel. Acts 16:14,15 After hearing Paul's gospel at a prayer meeting by a riverside in Philippi, Lydia the travelling businesswoman believes. Then she and her household receives baptism. A prayer meeting in lieu of a synagogue indicates the lack of minimum 10 Jewish men who are heads of their households that is required to form a synagogue. By all accounts, it is highly unlikely that Lydia would be married, because she has the authority to invite men into her house. Besides, she has the freedom to travel from her home city in Asia Minor, making the presence of nursing children in her household impossible. At any rate, there is no mention of infants being baptized. There is also no mention of some surrogate faith exercised on behalf of other family members. The baptized "household" has to be understood as a shorthand reference to those who have heard and believed the gospel, as is the case in John 4:53. Acts 16:31-34 The Philippian jailor "with all who were in his house" all hear the message of the gospel, all respond in faith, all rejoice greatly, and all are baptized. Infants cannot do any of these. Acts 18:8 Crispus the leader of the synagogue in Corinth "believed in the Lord with all his household." Again, no infants are mentioned. 1Co 1:16; 16:15 Paul baptized the household of Stephanas, "the first fruits of Achaia" (meaning they were the first to believe in Achaia), and there is nobody in that household too young not to "have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints." 1Co 7:14 Paul reassures the married believer that they will not cause God's displeasure if they do not divorce their unbelieving spouse. So do not divorce the unbelieving spouse. In fact, by the presence of the believer, the unbelieving spouse and their children are "set apart," not in the sense of being saved (i.e. saved from the penalty of their sins, purchased by the Lord Jesus, set apart to serve God's will as God's redeemed slaves), but in the sense of being spared from the full darkness experienced by those who do not know God. Essentially, the Christian's godly influence acts as a preservative agent in the lives of otherwise putrefying unbelievers (Mt 5:13-16), a kind of channel for a partial Abrahamic blessing (Heb 6:4,5). The Christian exposes evil, keeps evil in check, displays a righteous and selfless life, and gives credibility to the truth of the saving gospel (1Pe 3:1-3). If one chose to misinterpret this verse to suggest that Paul is telling the believing spouse to baptize their unbelieving children, then they would have to also concede that the unbelieving spouse would have to baptized as well, since the unbelievers in the family are all "set apart." You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Col 2:11-12 Paul speaks to believers, and the believers are those who have undergone what the external rituals of circumcision and baptism only signify: the spiritual cleansing from sin and the spiritual new birth (i.e. salvation). Paul is not speaking to babies. Also, babies cannot be saved by virtue of any external rituals, all of which Paul calls "worthless" (Php 3:8), things that are unable to make one righteous before God. 2. Infant baptism is not the New Covenant baptism. While the Bible is silent about infant baptism, it does clearly define what baptism is. The water baptism is the ritual of fully submerging or immersing a person into water. The noun "baptism," and the verb "baptize" are transliterated (as opposed to translated) words, meaning that their pronunciations are the same as the original words. In this case, they are transliterated from the Greek word "βάπτισμα" and "βαπτίζω". But if these Greek words were to be properly translated, they would be "immersion," and "to immerse." This ritual was practiced by Jewish proselytizers. It was the second of the three steps taken to officially accept a believing Gentile into the worship of Yahweh. It served as the symbol of the Gentile's dying to his old life of pagan worship and rising to the new life of serving Yahweh. When John the Baptist arrived on the Jordan river (Mt 3:1), he appropriated this ritual of baptism for his own modus operandi in order to preach repentance, not only to the Gentiles but to the Jews as well. For a Jew to be baptized was a humble acknowledgement of his own need for God's forgiveness and his unworthiness to enter the kingdom of the Messiah on his own merit. In fact, if a Jew had no intention of repenting, of acknowledging his sinfulness and turning from his evil ways, then John refused to baptize them; in other words, John's baptism was not for the unrepentant people who trusted in their blood lineage or their works to secure their entry to the kingdom (Mt 3:7-10). Then the risen Lord Jesus commissions His disciples to "make disciples and baptize them" (Mt 28:19). By God's providence, this ritual of water baptism has arrived at its true purpose: to serve as an outward confession of the inner reality of the believer's spiritual union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection -- the union which occurs at the moment of the Holy Spirit's work of regeneration and giving of faith; and thus, this ritual is a sign of the believer's dying to his past sinful ways of life and being raised to the new life of serving Yahweh (Eze 36:25-27; John 3:5; Ac 22:16; Ro 6:3-5; Eph 2:8; 4:5; Titus 3:5). Despite the fact that there will always be false professors of faith who receive water baptism meaninglessly (Ac 8:13), this ritual was always meant to be received only by true believers upon their confession of faith (Ac 16:31,33). When the apostles began to baptize believers, they rightly understood that ritual is a ritual is a ritual (1Sa 15:22; Ps 51:16,17; Heb 10:4); receiving the ritual of water baptism does not save you from your sins, but it does demonstrate your having already been saved through your faith (Jn 14:15; 1Pe 3:21). In other words, they understood that the ritual is not a requirement for salvation, but a sign of salvation (Ac 10:47). Salvation is the act of God by which He completely pardons a sinner by the sole virtue of his faith (Ro 3:28; 4:5), faith itself being given by the Holy Spirit (Eph 2:8; Titus 3:5). And the book of Acts shows again and again the apostles performing water baptism only on professing believers, since water baptism is meant as an authenticating sign. In fact, to make a ritual to mean more than what it actually is -- a symbol, a sign, a physical picture of a spiritual reality -- and to say that it is a means for salvation is to misunderstand its actual purpose and to nullify its true significance. Wherever the rituals are raised to the status of being salvific, they immediately void the place of all spiritual reality. 3. Infant baptism is not equivalent to the circumcision. There is no biblical argument to be made for infant baptism being a New Covenant sign that replaces the Abrahamic covenant sign. Firstly, there is no mention of infant baptism anywhere in the Bible. Secondly, the only people who were baptized in the Bible were believers. Thirdly, circumcision serves as a very specific object lesson: the need for the "inward circumcision" (i.e. repentance of the helplessly corrupt heart; ref. Dt 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:1,4; 17:9; Ro 2:28,29) in order to receive the future Abrahamic blessing. Circumcision is Israel's God-given national identity, which serves as a testimony of the fact that only those who are truly "circumcised of heart" will receive the future Abrahamic blessings, whether Jew or Gentile (Gal 3:14; Col 3:11). In other words, the purpose of the ritual of circumcision is to preach to both Jews and Gentiles that they need to repent in order to participate in Abrahamic blessings (Jer 4:4; 9:25,26; Ro 2:25-29; 4:11). The circumcision did not serve as a sign of personal faith in Yahweh; otherwise, no women would be able to confess their faith. Every male (whether of the faith of Abraham or not), by virtue of their being associated with the house of Abraham, either ethnically or socially, had to be circumcised (Ge 17:9-14). All male babies in Israel were circumcised, many of whom would reject the worship of Yahweh (Ac 7:51). On the other hand, with zero similarity to the circumcision, the sign of the New covenant is a sign of personal faith in Yahweh, a sure sign of the person's certain hope of participating in the future Abrahamic blessings. Circumcision is given to ethnic Israel; baptism is given to the believers. Circumcision preaches the need for repentance; baptism declares the baptized person's repentance. Not all who are circumcised are truly "circumcised" (Ro 2:28; 11:5); all who are baptized are truly "baptized" (Ro 6:3); there are no "remnant" of true believers within the true church. Therefore, Abrahamic covenant sign of the need for repentance is not the same as the New covenant sign of repentance. "The state church and biblical Christianity are and always will be completely opposed to each other. The true church is not of this world, and does not incorporate the unconverted. Infant baptism served the state church well, but horribly confuses the true church." - John MacArthur 4. Infant baptism is not consistent with the identity of the Church. The assembly of believers (translating ἐκκλησία, which means "the called out ones"), called the church in the English vernacular (derived from κυριακός, meaning "belonging to the Lord"), is made up of believers and believers only (Mt 16:18; Ro 1:6,7; 1Co 1:2,24; Gal 1:2-4; 1Th 1:1-5; Jude 1:1; Rev 17:14). And in order to protect the identity and the reputation of the church as such, the Lord and His apostles repeatedly and emphatically commanded the churches to make a clear distinction and let everyone know who is truly in (true believers) and who is out (false believers and false teachers) (Mt 18:17; Ac 5:10,11; 8:20,21; 20:28-31; 1Co 5:7,11-13; 16:22; 2Co 13:5; Php 3:18; 2Th 3:14; 2Pe 1:10; 2:1,13; 1Jn 1:6; 2:19; Jude 1:4,12). Therefore, unbelievers, whether baptized or not, should be warned, in no uncertain terms, that they are not part of the church, that they are not members of Christ's body (1Co 6:15; 12:18,27; Eph 5:29,30). They need to know that they are in danger of dying in their sins unless they repent and believe in the Lord Jesus (Eph 2:3). However, some Protestants chose the wisdom of the world rather than the wisdom of God in their battle against the Roman Catholic heresies; in order to compete with the Roman Catholic Church for the loyalty of the people, the Protestants instituted their own version of infant baptism so as to lock in their number into their membership, artificially manufacture a power base for themselves. Granted, you do not have to be a true follower of Christ to oppose the many hypocrisies and errors of the Roman Catholic Church; you just have to be a Protestant with a particular grudge against the Roman Catholic Church. However, the Protestants were gravely mistaken about what their priority should have been. As evidenced by their embracing the unbiblical practice of infant baptism, these Protestants showed themselves to be motivated by vindictive hatred of Roman Catholic tyranny in their lives rather than by love for the truth of God's word. They did not so much care about advancing the kingdom of Christ as they did about destroying the heavy yoke hung around their necks by despicable, religious hypocrites. With infant baptism, the clear distinction between the unbelievers and believers were rubbed out, and chaos ensued. These baptized infants grow up, and say, "I was born a Christian." Yet, these so-called Christians are just as dead, indifferent, rebellious, Bible-rejecting as a Roman Catholic, and worse still, under the damning illusion that they are saved because they were baptized one time when they were not even able to tell apart their left hand from the right. This idolatrous obsession with power that gave birth to Protestant version of infant baptism goes against the spirit of the Reformation, which is the conscience's freedom from the traditions of men and its privilege to be captive to the Scripture alone. "The confusion in the Christendom would be greatly lessened, the church would be instantly purged of Christianized pagans, Christ would be honoured if there weren't millions of people outside salvation running around with a false security and bearing an untrue symbol - a relic of Popery - of an unreal condition." - John MacArthur 5. Infant baptism is not consistent with the biblical doctrine of salvation. The ritual of baptism as the imagery of the believer's identification with Christ in death and resurrection is completely obscured by infant baptism. Infant baptism creates nothing but confusion to the biblical understanding of salvation in Christ through personal faith and repentance, as the infant has no conscious understanding of sin or the gospel message, and possesses no mental capacity to believe. Furthermore, infants receive no more spiritual advantage by getting bathed in water than by simply growing up in a godly Christian family. Rather, infant baptism gives false assurance of salvation in the minds of the parents and of the child, due to this Pharisaical ritual. All Protestant parents must not rely on the foolish ritual of infant baptism with the hope of mystically influencing their child but on their own diligent preaching of the gospel and living a credible life, so as to be used by God and to persuade the child to believe and voluntarily receive the water baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. "The cry of the Reformation was not 'Tradition, tradition, tradition,' nor 'The fathers, the fathers, the fathers,' but 'Scripture, Scripture, Scripture.' " - John MacArthur
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
CategoriesAll Discourse Doctrines Gospel Humour NT Commentaries OT Commentaries Tactical Life Date
August 2023
|