A Scriptural Critique of Infant Baptism by John MacArthur

[Veronica7978]

Seems you missed part of the quote.

Acts 2:
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

To whom is the promise for? To those that repent. All children have the promise when they understand repentance and repent. Infants don’t repent.

Of course families include infants if there are infants. My family now have no infants. Our youngest is 31. Our children don’t have children. We’ve all been baptized as ‘believers’ that repented and who have responded to the mercy, grace and love of Jesus.

The point was that not all families have infants at all times. Of the thousands of baptisms mentioned in the NT, only 5 were families. The odds are at the time of their baptisms, there were no infants. That goes along with the idea that repentant people get baptized.

I’m sorry but the part that you are referring to is not the relevant part pertaining to children or households. If you like to read that part, fine, but it adds nothing to this conversation. You are writing your own bible now with the "all children have the promise when they understand repentance. It says that nowhere in the Word. You are making that part up. It says the contrary…let the children come to me. Please have some reason and try to read it yourself.

 

[Dokimas]

I’m sorry but the part that you are referring to is not the relevant part pertaining to children or households. If you like to read that part, fine, but it adds nothing to this conversation. You are writing your own bible now with the "all children have the promise when they understand repentance. It says that nowhere in the Word. You are making that part up. It says the contrary…let the children come to me. Please have some reason and try to read it yourself.

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

BTW, do you believe infants can receive the Holy Spirit?

Not making anything up. Look at the verse you quoted. See the word repentance, then baptism. Babies can’t repent, can they.

I have children. They aren’t infants.

Examine your reason for thinking infants need to be baptized. I say an infant doesn’t need to be baptized because Jesus won’t reject them. As you said, Jesus said let them come to Him.

 

[Dokimas]

I understand your point of view. Since an infant cannot accept Jesus as Lord and Savior (because he does not have the use of reason), baptism is meaningless for him. Am I correct in your reasoning?

However, Jesus requires baptism in order to enter heaven (Jn 3:5; Mk 16:16). Since we are ALL born with original sin, we need baptism (Rom 5:18-19) regardless if we have the use of reason or not. Furthermore, Jesus clearly states that children are not to be kept away from Him (Mk 10:14). The Apostles baptized entire households (Acts 16:15, 33;1 Cor 1:16). This would include infants. There is no Bible passage which prohibits infant baptism.

The lack of reason does not prevent infants from becoming part of the New Covenant through baptism. In the OT, a child became part of the Old Covenant via circumcision (eight days after birth). This decision was, of course, a decision from the child’s parents long before the child could choose for himself to be “part of the Chosen People.” As in the OT, where parents supplied the decision until the age of reason, parents in the NT stand in for the child at his baptism until he can confirm this decision at the age of reason.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

How do you know Jesus is speaking of baptism? The context doesn’t call for that understanding. BTW, is there any other time water is mentioned in the NT without the word baptism and it means baptism?

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

This verse makes my point not yours. Notice the AND for salvation — ‘believe’ and ‘is baptized’. Why do you want to separate the two?

 

[Veronica7978]

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

BTW, do you believe infants can receive the Holy Spirit?

Not making anything up. Look at the verse you quoted. See the word repentance, then baptism. Babies can’t repent, can they.

I have children. They aren’t infants.

Examine your reason for thinking infants need to be baptized. I say an infant doesn’t need to be baptized because Jesus won’t reject them. As you said, Jesus said let them come to Him.

It is not “my reason.” It is from the Word of God and it is extremely simple. You refuse to answer the simple questions put forth (e.g., where is the exclusionary language? do families include infants?) because you know the answers to those questions. Scripture backs up infant baptism including the section you quoted. I’m sorry you have no infants in your family at this time. It appears you are taking this very hard. I pray you are blessed with grandchildren. The conversation has run its course.

 

[Dokimas]

It is not “my reason.” It is from the Word of God and it is extremely simple. You refuse to answer the simple questions put forth (e.g., where is the exclusionary language? do families include infants?) because you know the answers to those questions. Scripture backs up infant baptism including the section you quoted. I’m sorry you have no infants in your family at this time. It appears you are taking this very hard. I pray you are blessed with grandchildren. The conversation has run its course.

Where on earth are you getting I’m taking it hard that I’m not a grandfather? One daughter isn’t married so I’m glad she doesn’t have children. The other is quite frail and most likely it wouldn’t be good for her or a baby if she became pregnant. Therefore, I’m satisfied and trust God is in control.

Thank you for your opinion about my understanding. Sorry you can’t see from my point of view (not saying you should agree with me) because I agree it’s simple.

 

[Veronica7978]

Where on earth are you getting I’m taking it hard that I’m not a grandfather? One daughter isn’t married so I’m glad she doesn’t have children. The other is quite frail and most likely it wouldn’t be good for her or a baby if she became pregnant. Therefore, I’m satisfied and trust God is in control.

Thank you for your opinion about my understanding. Sorry you can’t see from my point of view (not saying you should agree with me) because I agree it’s simple.

I didn’t mean to assume. You just mentioned it so many times, even some times when it wasn’t warranted, so I began to think that you wanted some infants. I truly wish you nothing but well. God bless you brother.

 

[pnewton]

"Now, I would expect Roman Catholicism to engage in that practice because Roman Catholicism has two sources of authority. On the one hand, they have the Bible; on the other hand—and it’s as empty as my right hand—they have tradition. You see where the weight is. But, in the Catholic system, there is what is called “tradition.” It is known as “tradition” or the “magisterium.” It is the accumulation of materials outside the Bible that bear equal authority with the Scripture."

"In fact, the Roman Catholic Church asserts, that it is, the only recipient of revelation beyond the Bible…not only is it the only recipient of revelation, but it is the only and infallible interpreter of all revelation, both traditional and Biblical. So, when we know that Roman Catholics baptize babies, that fits into their magisterium, but when you come to Reformation people who say, “Scripture, only Scripture, only…” and **they had a Reformation and they basically dumped tradition and they dumped the magisterium **and they said, “It’s the Bible! It’s the Bible! It’s the Bible!” how come they hung onto infant baptism? It’s not there. It’s a relic of Popery. "

I have a personal story about JM. Note the importance that sola scriptura plays in this article. Indeed when I converted to Catholicism, I was a big fan of MacArthur, so I listened intently to his defense of sola scriptura, proving it from the Bible alone, of course. The thing was, he had to break from the Bible to prove his point. He kept inserting the word “sufficient” into I Timothy. I heard him do it. I heard his justification. I knew his reason to be faulty. That is it. Just like Luther had to right “alone” in his Bible, MacArthur had to interject his words too.

That is when I realize that sola scriptura was impossible, as it is the one thing that can not be found in Scripture. All this was thanks to John MacArthur, one of four people that helped me become Catholic.

 

[Dokimas]

I didn’t mean to assume. You just mentioned it so many times, even some times when it wasn’t warranted, so I began to think that you wanted some infants. I truly wish you nothing but well. God bless you brother.

Not a problem.

Thank you.

God bless you too.

 

[Dokimas]

I heard him do it. I heard his justification. I knew his reason to be faulty. That is it. Just like Luther had to right “alone” in his Bible, MacArthur had to interject his words too.

Gee, don’t we ALL (no exceptions).

 

[Veronica7978]

I have a personal story about JM. Note the importance that sola scriptura plays in this article. Indeed when I converted to Catholicism, I was a big fan of MacArthur, so I listened intently to his defense of sola scriptura, proving it from the Bible alone, of course. The thing was, he had to break from the Bible to prove his point. He kept inserting the word “sufficient” into I Timothy. I heard him do it. I heard his justification. I knew his reason to be faulty. That is it. Just like Luther had to right “alone” in his Bible, MacArthur had to interject his words too.

That is when I realize that sola scriptura was impossible, as it is the one thing that can not be found in Scripture. All this was thanks to John MacArthur, one of four people that helped me become Catholic.

 

[adstrinity]

You seem to be missing my point. If you tell me there’s infants in your family, then I’ll believe you.

The point is that all specific baptisms in the NT are done around repentance. Infants can’t repent. It is logical that families that get baptized repented, therefore had no infants.

Matthew 9:1-7
And entering into a boat, he passed over the water and came into his own city. [2] And behold they brought to him one sick of the palsy lying in a bed. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the man sick of the palsy: Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee. [3] And behold some of the scribes said within themselves: He blasphemeth. [4] And Jesus seeing their thoughts, said: Why do you think evil in your hearts? [5] Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins are forgiven thee: or to say, Arise, and walk?
[6] But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then said he to the man sick of palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house. [7] And he arose, and went into his house.

Mark 2:1-12
[1] And again he entered into Capharnaum after some days. [2] And it was heard that he was in the house, and many came together, so that there was no room; no, not even at the door; and he spoke to them the word. [3] And they came to him, bringing one sick of the palsy, who was carried by four. [4] And when they could not offer him unto him for the multitude, they uncovered the roof where he was; and opening it, they let down the bed wherein the man sick of the palsy lay. [5] And when Jesus had seen their faith, he saith to the sick of the palsy: Son, thy sins are forgiven thee. [6] And there were some of the scribes sitting there, and thinking in their hearts: [7] Why doth this man speak thus? he blasphemeth. Who can forgive sins, but God only? [8] Which Jesus presently knowing in his spirit, that they so thought within themselves, saith to them: Why think you these things in your hearts? [9] Which is easier, to say to the sick of the palsy: Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say: Arise, take up thy bed, and walk? [10] But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) [11] I say to thee: Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house. [12] And immediately he arose; and taking up his bed, went his way in the sight of all; so that all wondered and glorified God, saying: We never saw the like.

Luke 5:18-26
And behold, men brought in a bed a man, who had the palsy: and they sought means to bring him in, and to lay him before him. [19] And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in, because of the multitude, they went up upon the roof, and let him down through the tiles with his bed into the midst before Jesus. [20] Whose faith when he saw, he said: Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.

[21] And the scribes and Pharisees began to think, saying: Who is this who speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone? [22] And when Jesus knew their thoughts, answering, he said to them: What is it you think in your hearts? [23] Which is easier to say, Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say, Arise and walk? [24] But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say to thee, Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house. [25] And immediately rising up before them, he took up the bed on which he lay; and he went away to his own house, glorifying God. [26] And all were astonished; and they glorified God. And they were filled with fear, saying: We have seen wonderful things today.

 

[Todd520]

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?

 

[mark_a]

Mark, what does contraceptives have to do with anything?

You presume that today’s anti-family culture, where infants are present in most families for only a few years, was the norm in new testament times.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

May I offer a partial answer to the challenge of credo-baptism? Those of us who practice pedo-baptism also practice something called confirmation, at which time the young believer, about the same age as when credo-baptists recognize the age of responsibility, will declare their avowal to the promises made in their baptism. For my branch of the Lutheran Church, it is a three-year process. In our respective practices we are closer than this argument would suggest.

 

[Dokimas]

Matthew 9:1-7
And entering into a boat, he passed over the water and came into his own city. [2] And behold they brought to him one sick of the palsy lying in a bed. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the man sick of the palsy: Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee. [3] And behold some of the scribes said within themselves: He blasphemeth. [4] And Jesus seeing their thoughts, said: Why do you think evil in your hearts? [5] Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins are forgiven thee: or to say, Arise, and walk?
[6] But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then said he to the man sick of palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house. [7] And he arose, and went into his house.

Mark 2:1-12
[1] And again he entered into Capharnaum after some days. [2] And it was heard that he was in the house, and many came together, so that there was no room; no, not even at the door; and he spoke to them the word. [3] And they came to him, bringing one sick of the palsy, who was carried by four. [4] And when they could not offer him unto him for the multitude, they uncovered the roof where he was; and opening it, they let down the bed wherein the man sick of the palsy lay. [5] And when Jesus had seen their faith, he saith to the sick of the palsy: Son, thy sins are forgiven thee. [6] And there were some of the scribes sitting there, and thinking in their hearts: [7] Why doth this man speak thus? he blasphemeth. Who can forgive sins, but God only? [8] Which Jesus presently knowing in his spirit, that they so thought within themselves, saith to them: Why think you these things in your hearts? [9] Which is easier, to say to the sick of the palsy: Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say: Arise, take up thy bed, and walk? [10] But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) [11] I say to thee: Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house. [12] And immediately he arose; and taking up his bed, went his way in the sight of all; so that all wondered and glorified God, saying: We never saw the like.

Luke 5:18-26
And behold, men brought in a bed a man, who had the palsy: and they sought means to bring him in, and to lay him before him. [19] And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in, because of the multitude, they went up upon the roof, and let him down through the tiles with his bed into the midst before Jesus. [20] Whose faith when he saw, he said: Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.

[21] And the scribes and Pharisees began to think, saying: Who is this who speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone? [22] And when Jesus knew their thoughts, answering, he said to them: What is it you think in your hearts? [23] Which is easier to say, Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say, Arise and walk? [24] But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say to thee, Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house. [25] And immediately rising up before them, he took up the bed on which he lay; and he went away to his own house, glorifying God. [26] And all were astonished; and they glorified God. And they were filled with fear, saying: We have seen wonderful things today.

Great verses, thank you.

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

 

[Dokimas]

You presume that today’s anti-family culture, where infants are present in most families for only a few years, was the norm in new testament times.

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

 

[Being_Brave]

Hi. If you are trying to learn about the CC get the book “This is the Faith” and Catholism and Fundamentalism both very good books and will lead you to Christ,If I can help you let me know.PEACE

Thank you! My favorite book so far has been “Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic” by David Currie. I’m starting RCIA soon, so I jumped the gun and also got the Catechism and Compendium and I’m about halfway through the Compendium (jumping to the Catechism where clarification is needed.) I’m very sure this is where God wants me I’m a reader, so any suggestions for reference books is great!!

 

[Being_Brave]

…In the OT, a child became part of the Old Covenant via circumcision (eight days after birth)…

 

[Being_Brave]

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?

That’s a really good point. I think I actually said something like that to my BFF before (she’s Southern Baptist), and she said that baptism was just a symbol, like a wedding ring, and I told her my opinion and said that baptism for her was similar to confirmation in that it is a proclaimation.

It’s not exactly the same, but more similar that baptism, right?

 

[Zooey]

no Jesus did not say this. he said unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he shall not share in eternal life.“Amen Amen I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.” John 3: 5 No where in this entire chapter does Jesus say baptism is merely symbolic.

Jesus said, “Amen Amen I say to you, whoever believes ahs eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert [the symbol] but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it an not die. I am the living bread that cmae down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world” John 6:47-51
and further “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food [not symbolic] and my blood is true drink [not symbolic].” John 6:53-55. Nowhere in this entire chapter does Jesus say he is refering to a symbolic act, in fact he goes to great pains to explain the concreteness of what he is saying and doing.

what gall for a preacher to presume to tell Jesus what he meant. That gall alone is enough to condemn what this man is teaching.:sad_yes:

Dokimas:

BTW, is it your opinion infants can receive the Holy Spirit?

Yes.
“Except you become as little children, you shall in no wise enter the kingdom of God”.
“Let the little ones come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven”.