A Scriptural Critique of Infant Baptism by John MacArthur

[mark_a]

You presume falsely about what you think I’m presuming. Not helpful for discussion.

Maybe so.

 

[Zenas]

I am pretty sure that John MacArthur would not self identify as a Baptist.
An evangelical.
A dispensationalist.
Part of the Grace movement but not a Baptist.

John MacArthur is definitely a Baptist, more works oriented than most but a Baptist nonetheless. He also has an ego bigger than the state of Texas. It takes a lot of ego to put your name on a bible. Check out the MacArthur Study Bible. Just check it out, don’t read it, don’t study it, don’t rely on it.

 

[mskejj]

Sure it’s relevant. It shows the promise is for the future as when children are the age of understanding repentance.

Interesting how you interrupted the phrase “and children who are afar off…” When I read that,
I immediately take it to mean future generations of children not born yet…especially since they already mentioned their children. People who are born with mental handicaps might not be able to repent…does that exclude them from baptism?..

This is a good link for you to see the issue from a different perspective:

catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

 

[Miel]

The Catholic Church, has taken it’s understanding from the Hebrew understanding of family, since the Church was Hebraic from it’s inception by Jesus.
The Baptism corresponds to infant circumcision, if an infant is being baptized, which removes the stain of original sin. An action of faith and salvation is made by the priest and the community on behalf of the infant. The infant is saved and baptized into the death of Jesus. Those baptismal waters of each baptism are sanctified by the very baptism of Jesus by John, who being God did not need baptism, but we do.
The Didache speaks of the many forms of baptism by the Apostles themselves
Scriptural references have already been posted.

Infant baptism was highly desirable in the early Church due to persecution and disease and a shortened life span.

The Baptist view would be less family oriented.

I hope this helps

God Bless

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

In my readings of MacCarthur and listening to his radio show, etc. I think the man is not firing on all thrusters…

 

[stormy99]

I was born in a Catholic hospital as were my sons. I wasn’t Catholic then but I knew if either of my sons as infants were in danger of dying, they would be baptised immediately. Discussed in RCIA, at a time when many infants died…Catholics would baiptise infants just in case they didn’t live until they were old enough to decide on their own.

And when are you old enough…at 12…I don’t think so. I believe you need to be older with more experience. Our youngest son became a Catholic and I followed a year later…my husband was Catholic.

And who cares what the Baptists or Presbyterians say…the Lutherans will baptise infants at least some of branches…I don’t care what they say…I believe in what our Church teaches…

Being a Biology Major and an English minor…I sure did read a lot of literature…that no one knew what the author meant…enter the instructor and his/her view…hardly surprising.Some times I think it would be better if we didn’t let concern of what other religions say bother us…After all Mormons are told that the CC is the whore of Babylon…really sweet of them.

stormy

 

[adstrinity]

Great verses, thank you.

Could you explain why you’re sharing them, please?

Oh how I was hoping you’d ask (though, I’d thought for sure you’d know…perhaps you are inquiring for your own confirmation?)

It is the faith of those who brought the man, NOT the paralytic man, but, the faith of his friends that moves Jesus to heal the man. In all three of these gospels, we see, ‘because He saw their faith…’. In the same way, a parent or legal guardian’s faith is sufficient to confer baptism on their child or anybody else’s.

The friends. Not the man in question, his friends.

If that is true of no blood relation, how much more does this hold for parents and child?

 

[Nicea325]

I have a family. Could you tell me if I have any infants right now? My sister has a family. Presently, are there any infants in it?

My wife has 3 siblings with families. How many presently have infants?

And I have a family too and can you tell me all their genders? What languages do they all speak? Circular argument.

The above statement does not rebuke infant baptisms in any shape or form. As I said it before, not one opponent of infant baptism has been capable of showing me where the Jews EXCLUDED or did not consider infants or young children as part of the household.

BTW:

During the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a “decision for Christ.” Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

 

[Veronica7978]

And I have a family too and can you tell me all their genders? What languages do they all speak? Circular argument.

The above statement does not rebuke infant baptisms in any shape or form. As I said it before, not one opponent of infant baptism has been capable of showing me where the Jews EXCLUDED or did not consider infants or young children as part of the household.

BTW:

During the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a “decision for Christ.” Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

Well said.

 

[Zooey]

Oh how I was hoping you’d ask (though, I’d thought for sure you’d know…perhaps you are inquiring for your own confirmation?)

It is the faith of those who brought the man, NOT the paralytic man, but, the faith of his friends that moves Jesus to heal the man. In all three of these gospels, we see, ‘because He saw their faith…’. In the same way, a parent or legal guardian’s faith is sufficient to confer baptism on their child or anybody else’s.

The friends. Not the man in question, his friends.

If that is true of no blood relation, how much more does this hold for parents and child?

Well, I caught on immediately I read your post, and thought: .
:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Being_Brave]

It is the faith of those who brought the man, NOT the paralytic man, but, the faith of his friends that moves Jesus to heal the man. In all three of these gospels, we see, ‘because He saw their faith…’. In the same way, a parent or legal guardian’s faith is sufficient to confer baptism on their child or anybody else’s.

The friends. Not the man in question, his friends.

If that is true of no blood relation, how much more does this hold for parents and child?

 

[Being_Brave]

And I have a family too and can you tell me all their genders? What languages do they all speak? Circular argument.

The above statement does not rebuke infant baptisms in any shape or form. As I said it before, not one opponent of infant baptism has been capable of showing me where the Jews EXCLUDED or did not consider infants or young children as part of the household.

BTW:

During the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a “decision for Christ.” Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

 

[MarkBrown]

Those you speak of wrote the NT. There is NO evidence infant baptism was practiced during the first century.

You’ll probably tell me of the 5 families that were baptized. You’d have to prove there were infants in those families. Not all families have infants at all times. Of the thousands of NT baptisms, only 5 families are mentioned; IMO, not good odds.

Suggest you read the Martyrdom of Polycarph. Chapter 9:3, Polycarph states he has served the Lord for 86 years. We know he lived 69-155 A.D. That is 86 years. He was a disciple of St. John the Apostle. Possible, though I have not found it, he was baptised by St. John.

Other Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr (100-150) in Apology 1:15 talks of infant baptism and those baptised as infants remaining faithful for 60-70 years. Irenaeus (130-200) Against Heresies II:22:4 wrote "all I say, who through him are born again to God- infants and children, boys and youth, and old men.

So Justin and Polycarph provide the evidence you state does not exist. Polycarph baptised 69 AD and Justin wrote Apology @150 AD. Since Justin states 60-70 years, look at baptism @ 80-90 A.D. All within the First Century. It has now been established, via scripture and Church Fathers/Theologians the Church has baptised infants since the beginning. You can continue to deny, as does John MacAuther, infant Baptism. In so doing you go against scripture, tradition, reason and teaching of Christ and the Apostles.
I am sure you will not see it that way, I pray one day who will come to realize your error as I have done.

peace

Mark+

 

[Dokimas]

[SIGN]Dokimas;7031617]Sure it’s relevant. It shows the promise is for the future as when children are the age of understanding repentance.[/SIGN]

Interesting how you interrupted the phrase “and children who are afar off…” When I read that,
I immediately take it to mean future generations of children not born yet…especially since they already mentioned their children. People who are born with mental handicaps might not be able to repent…does that exclude them from baptism?..

This is a good link for you to see the issue from a different perspective:

catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

Sorry you misunderstood my point. I do NOT think the verse says ,‘and children who are afar off’.

The verse gives three catagories: **after repenting **— 1. those being spoken to, 2. their children, 3. those afar off.

Acts 2:
38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

 

[Dokimas]

Oh how I was hoping you’d ask (though, I’d thought for sure you’d know…perhaps you are inquiring for your own confirmation?)

It is the faith of those who brought the man, NOT the paralytic man, but, the faith of his friends that moves Jesus to heal the man. In all three of these gospels, we see, ‘because He saw their faith…’. In the same way, a parent or legal guardian’s faith is sufficient to confer baptism on their child or anybody else’s.

The friends. Not the man in question, his friends.

If that is true of no blood relation, how much more does this hold for parents and child?

There’s a difference between believing for healing and baptism.

Those healed were not necessarily healed inside for salvation.

 

[Dokimas]

And I have a family too and can you tell me all their genders? What languages do they all speak? Circular argument.

The above statement does not rebuke infant baptisms in any shape or form. As I said it before, not one opponent of infant baptism has been capable of showing me where the Jews EXCLUDED or did not consider infants or young children as part of the household.

BTW:

During the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a “decision for Christ.” Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

You make my point. Thank you, my friend. I don’t know if you have children or their ages if you do. That’s my point. You can’t know for sure that those 5 families had infants, therefore you can’t use those verses to say infants got baptized in the NT.

Thanks again.

 

[Dokimas]

BTW:

During the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a “decision for Christ.” Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been “baptized into Christ” (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.

Assume as you will.

 

[pnewton]

Assume as you will.

As you assume the didn’t have any younger children. This points perfectly to the reason sola scriptura is insufficient and why that question must be settled first.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I feel the symbolic aspect of infant baptism is good and powerful for the CC,
that the parents accept their responsibility to raise the child in the faith.

Obviously, a baby isn’t capable of repenting so the purpose is different than for Protestants.
Wouldn’t Confirmation be a more appropriate comparison with Protestant baptism?

No because the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches confirm infants right after baptism.

 

[Dokimas]

As you assume the didn’t have any younger children. This points perfectly to the reason sola scriptura is insufficient and why that question must be settled first.

So it’s okay to assume as long as you don’t believe in SS.