John MacArthur redefines "baptism"

[MarcoPolo]

From his sermon called “Resurrection Incentives” airing on the radio this morning, Calvinist John MacArthur begins in this excerpt with a quote of 1 Cor. 15:29:*“What shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?” Now, the term baptize is referring to Christian baptism [liably]. It’s the normal term. Some would assign it to some pagan custom, but it seems rather undefined. The most common understanding of this to anybody reading it would be Christian baptism. And I don’t see any reason to make it any other thing. Some people are being baptized in a Christian manner. Some people are coming to Christ is what it’s literally saying. Now mark this in your thinking: Whenever you see in the New Testament the idea of being baptized, it always has relationship to salvation unless it’s talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is a spiritual thing. But when you’re talking about water baptism in the New Testament, it is something that is synonymous with salvation. And that goes all the way back to the words of Jesus in the great commission. Because Jesus said go into all the world and make disciples, baptizing and teaching. And He didn’t teach baptismal regeneration. He didn’t mean “save ‘em by dunkin’ 'em.” What He was saying was “Go into all the world and make disciples first by winning them to Christ and then by teaching them.” In other words, from the very utterance of Jesus, baptism was a term used synonymously with salvation. And you see those words used that way in many cases. When Paul talks, for example, to the people in Acts 19 who were disciples of John and asked them if they’d been baptized. He’s not talking about some ritual. He’s really wanting to know if they’ve been saved by faith in Christ. So those are synonymous.
*So there you have it. When the Bible says “Be baptized,” what the author really means to say is “Be saved by faith alone.” http://yoursmiles.org/ssmile/wonder/s1010.gif

 

[ChadS]

From what I can see just standard Protestant argumentation. The Bible means one thing and one thing only except when it means something we don’t like then it doesn’t mean that at all.

ChadS

 

[JamestheOlder]

I guess if you have no Magisterium to refer to, and no sense of Tradition, you can invent your own religion. Just don’t call it “Christian”.

 

[valentino]

what shall we do who are baptised for the dead?Makes no sense.We are baptised for ourselves.We can’t wash away another’s sin by being baptized for another.

 

[Cristiano]

From his sermon called “Resurrection Incentives” airing on the radio this morning, Calvinist John MacArthur begins in this excerpt with a quote of 1 Cor. 15:29:“What shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?” Now, the term baptize is referring to Christian baptism [liably]. It’s the normal term. Some would assign it to some pagan custom, but it seems rather undefined. The most common understanding of this to anybody reading it would be Christian baptism. And I don’t see any reason to make it any other thing. Some people are being baptized in a Christian manner. Some people are coming to Christ is what it’s literally saying. Now mark this in your thinking: Whenever you see in the New Testament the idea of being baptized, it always has relationship to salvation unless it’s talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is a spiritual thing. But when you’re talking about water baptism in the New Testament, it is something that is synonymous with salvation. And that goes all the way back to the words of Jesus in the great commission. Because Jesus said go into all the world and make disciples, baptizing and teaching. And He didn’t teach baptismal regeneration. He didn’t mean “save ‘em by dunkin’ 'em.” What He was saying was “Go into all the world and make disciples first by winning them to Christ and then by teaching them.” In other words, from the very utterance of Jesus, baptism was a term used synonymously with salvation. And you see those words used that way in many cases. When Paul talks, for example, to the people in Acts 19 who were disciples of John and asked them if they’d been baptized. He’s not talking about some ritual. He’s really wanting to know if they’ve been saved by faith in Christ. So those are synonymous.
So there you have it. When the Bible says “Be baptized,” what the author really means to say is “Be saved by faith alone.” http://yoursmiles.org/ssmile/wonder/s1010.gif

I do not see how you get to that conclusion. John McArthur has a lot of disagreements with the idea of salvation without works. He is much closer to Catholicism than you would think, even if he would completely disagree with this statement of mine. Scott Hahn had a few comments in regard to John McArthur and this topic but I cannot give you the reference because it was on an old audio cassette tape.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I do not see how you get to that conclusion. John McArthur has a lot of disagreements with the idea of salvation without works. He is much closer to Catholicism than you would think, even if he would completely disagree with this statement of mine. Scott Hahn had a few comments in regard to John McArthur and this topic but I cannot give you the reference because it was on an old audio cassette tape.

I am aware of how he sometimes sounds Catholic, such as his praise of Christian mortification or hinting at purgatory or admitting to the primacy of Peter. MacArthur is only close to Catholicism when he’s not conscious that he is agreeing with Catholicism. I’ve heard dozens if not hundreds of his sermons. And I’ve said before that he often sounds “Catholic” but only when he is not consciously referring to Catholicism.

But this morning’s sermon is one of the ones where he derails. Saying baptism in Scripture doesn’t mean the rite of baptism is his paranoia of falling into so-called “legalism.” He denies baptismal regeneration in that excerpt and mocks it by saying “save em by dunkin em.”

 

[James224]

From his sermon called “Resurrection Incentives” airing on the radio this morning, Calvinist John MacArthur begins in this excerpt with a quote of 1 Cor. 15:29:*
“What shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?” Now, the term baptize is referring to Christian baptism [liably]. It’s the normal term. Some would assign it to some pagan custom, but it seems rather undefined. The most common understanding of this to anybody reading it would be Christian baptism. And I don’t see any reason to make it any other thing. Some people are being baptized in a Christian manner. Some people are coming to Christ is what it’s literally saying. Now mark this in your thinking: Whenever you see in the New Testament the idea of being baptized, it always has relationship to salvation unless it’s talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is a spiritual thing. But when you’re talking about water baptism in the New Testament, it is something that is synonymous with salvation. And that goes all the way back to the words of Jesus in the great commission. Because Jesus said go into all the world and make disciples, baptizing and teaching. And He didn’t teach baptismal regeneration. He didn’t mean “save ‘em by dunkin’ 'em.” What He was saying was “Go into all the world and make disciples first by winning them to Christ and then by teaching them.” In other words, from the very utterance of Jesus, baptism was a term used synonymously with salvation. And you see those words used that way in many cases. When Paul* talks, for example, to the people in Acts 19 who were disciples of John and asked them if they’d been baptized. He’s not talking about some ritual. He’s really wanting to know if they’ve been saved by faith in Christ. So those are synonymous.

So there you have it. When the Bible says “Be baptized,” what the author really means to say is “Be saved by faith alone.” http://yoursmiles.org/ssmile/wonder/s1010.gif

Of course, this verse the Mormons interpret to Baptize the dead by proxy and this is why they are so into geneologies. St. Ephraim said this verse means fasting and doing penances for those in Purgatory. Ambrose and Origen interpret this verse as the water of “Baptism” and the fire of “Purgatory”. Ps 65(66):10 says, “For thou, O God, hast proved us: thou hast tried us by fire, as silver is tried.” Then in Ps 65(66):12 says, " We have passed through fire and water, and thou hast brought us out into a refreshment." One of the symbols of Baptism is fire and this refers to afflictions and sufferings that begin in this world but continue into the next in Purgatory. The context of 1 Cor 15 is the afterlife. Look at 1 Cor 15:55, " O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?" Also, look at Mark 10:38 where Jesus says, " And Jesus said to them: You know not what you ask. Can you drink of the chalice that I drink of or be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized?" He’s talking about afflictions and sufferings.

 

[Georgia]

Of course, this verse the Mormons interpret to Baptize the dead by proxy and this is why they are so into geneologies. St. Ephraim said this verse means fasting and doing penances for those in Purgatory. Ambrose and Origen interpret this verse as the water of “Baptism” and the fire of “Purgatory”. Ps 65(66):10 says, “For thou, O God, hast proved us: thou hast tried us by fire, as silver is tried.” Then in Ps 65(66):12 says, " We have passed through fire and water, and thou hast brought us out into a refreshment." One of the symbols of Baptism is fire and this refers to afflictions and sufferings that begin in this world but continue into the next in Purgatory. The context of 1 Cor 15 is the afterlife. Look at 1 Cor 15:55, " O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?" Also, look at Mark 10:38 where Jesus says, " And Jesus said to them: You know not what you ask. Can you drink of the chalice that I drink of or be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized?" He’s talking about afflictions and sufferings.

As I understand it, don’t virtually all Protestant groups view baptism as merely a symbol? That was the case in the Fundamentalist Baptist church in which I was raised. I thought that was pretty much the universal belief among Protestants other than some Lutherans and Anglicans.

In my old church, the word could be used as is was done in the above quotes, but it was not referring to the sacrament. Does MacArthur mix the two? I am a little confused on where he is going.

 

[brb3]

John McArthur has a lot of disagreements with the idea of salvation without works. He is much closer to Catholicism than you would think, even if he would completely disagree with this statement of mine. Scott Hahn had a few comments in regard to John McArthur and this topic but I cannot give you the reference because it was on an old audio cassette tape.

I agree. John Mac is not easy to ‘pigeonhole’. He is a free-thinker. And, as you say, supportive of many Catholic teachings … even if he doesn’t yet realize it.

Please search for that Scott Hahn link / tape on J.M. I’d love to hear what Hahn has to say on J. Mac.

 

[brb3]

But when you’re talking about water baptism in the New Testament, it is something that is synonymous with salvation. And that goes all the way back to the words of Jesus in the great commission. Because Jesus said go into all the world and make disciples, baptizing and teaching. And He didn’t teach baptismal regeneration. He didn’t mean “save ‘em by dunkin’ 'em.” What He was saying was “Go into all the world and make disciples first by winning them to Christ and then by teaching them.” In other words, from the very utterance of Jesus, baptism was a term used synonymously with salvation.

I think you make a good point. John Mac seems confused on what Paul is saying here in 1 Cor. 15. about water baptism. But, then so are most of us who read this passage. It’s a mystery to the Protestants … most of whom won’t even attempt to explain.

It appears John is confused on what Christ taught on NECESSITY for water baptism. He does say Jesus taught ‘baptism’ was synonymous with ‘salvation’. Yet, he appears to believe Christ really is only concerned about ‘spiritual’ rebirths. That the evangelists are to teach all Nations about Christ … and and those taught will then experience ‘spiritual’ baptisms … perhaps, apart from water baptisms.

Now, in fairness, this is just a single snippet on John’s teaching on Water Baptism [and this being from a very confusing Chp. 15 ]. We will need to examine J.M’s full writings/sermons on this subject to know what he really believes/preaches.

Perhaps it best, before we lay out / examine John Mac’s full teachings on the subject of water baptism … that the OP explain for us the CATHOLIC explaination of Paul here in Chp. 15., on Water Baptism for the Dead, being performed by the early Catholic Church.

 

[brb3]

So there you have it. When the Bible says “Be baptized,” what the author really means to say is “Be saved by faith alone.” http://yoursmiles.org/ssmile/wonder/s1010.gif

I think we will discover that J.M. believes / teaches water baptism IS to be performed on all the new converts… but, ONLY after they come to a saving faith in Christ.

Classic example given by Protestants is Paul’s conversion. Paul came to faith in Christ and received H.S. [spiritual rebirth] via CONFIRMATION OF HANDS, and was SUBSEQUENTLY water baptized. They also use conversion of Ethiopian riding in chariot … who came to faith first, then determined he also needed to receive water baptism from the Apostle.

Its the old chicken vs egg argument. Which comes first … Confirmation or Baptism ?

Catholic Answer : BOTH !!! Do both on same day !!! Normatively Baptism first, then Confirm with Hands.

 

[wisdomseeker]

From his sermon called “Resurrection Incentives” airing on the radio this morning, Calvinist John MacArthur begins in this excerpt with a quote of 1 Cor. 15:29:“What shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?” Now, the term baptize is referring to Christian baptism [liably]. It’s the normal term. Some would assign it to some pagan custom, but it seems rather undefined. The most common understanding of this to anybody reading it would be Christian baptism. And I don’t see any reason to make it any other thing. Some people are being baptized in a Christian manner. Some people are coming to Christ is what it’s literally saying. Now mark this in your thinking: Whenever you see in the New Testament the idea of being baptized, it always has relationship to salvation unless it’s talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is a spiritual thing. But when you’re talking about water baptism in the New Testament, it is something that is synonymous with salvation. And that goes all the way back to the words of Jesus in the great commission. Because Jesus said go into all the world and make disciples, baptizing and teaching. And He didn’t teach baptismal regeneration. He didn’t mean “save ‘em by dunkin’ 'em.” What He was saying was “Go into all the world and make disciples first by winning them to Christ and then by teaching them.” In other words, from the very utterance of Jesus, baptism was a term used synonymously with salvation. And you see those words used that way in many cases. When Paul talks, for example, to the people in Acts 19 who were disciples of John and asked them if they’d been baptized. He’s not talking about some ritual. He’s really wanting to know if they’ve been saved by faith in Christ. So those are synonymous.
So there you have it. When the Bible says “Be baptized,” what the author really means to say is “Be saved by faith alone.” http://yoursmiles.org/ssmile/wonder/s1010.gif

And just how does one know that the other is saved by faith? how one would know that the other has faith? just how?
another thing is that he points out what Jesus says about going into the world and make disciples first by wining them to Christ and by teaching them. Of course before you can baptize someone he must first be tought about Christ and then if he is receptive then he must be baptized.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Now, in fairness, this is just a single snippet on John’s teaching on Water Baptism [and this being from a very confusing Chp. 15

He transcended just 1 Cor. 15 in the sermon and scoffed at any notion of regenerative baptism. And surely you are aware of the venom he has for the “sacramental system.” I have heard him say that the idea of sacraments is “works salvation” because he confuses the work of God versus work of man. He does not realize that sacraments are a work of God. Which reminds me…

A while back, I critiqued one of his sermons on Catholicism. It is uncanny how much he gets wrong. Here is the video (a word of warning, this video is chock full of errors, ignorance, and polemics). And these are some the errors:

• Error #1 “infant baptism is required”…huh? You mean once you hit a month old it’s too late if you’re not baptized?
• Error #2 Catholics go to confession out “of fear”. Nonsensical conjecture.
• Error #3 “venial sins don’t count”…huh?
• Error #4 he’s unclear on the development of Catholic theology on the time element of purgatory. His analogy of the 76 year old man dying spending a long time in purgatory after committing a mortal sin is flat wrong. The man will either go to hell if he doesn’t repent or could also have a minimal purgation or none if he confesses and has perfect contrition. He later errs and suggests it last “3 or 400 years or whatever”.
• Error #5 “purgatory is where you go because you didn’t make it to justification”. An error in fact. All in purgatory are justified and are bound for heaven.
• Error #6 total confusion over the terms “justified” and “righteous”. He actually describes Catholic teaching when he says God justifies sinners. He fails to grasp the perfection of heaven vs. the justification of the sinner.
• Error #7 “Catholicism damns because it’s a system of ‘works’”. No, Catholicism is sola gratia in which faith and works are inseparable. He also has no idea what the Church teaches a sacrament is. He could not even begin to convey it.
• Incoherent words around 4:20…he’s so sarcastic, I cannot understand what he’s saying. He neither knows what he is saying.
• Then he proceeds for a while on what he believes, which is wrong, but that’s not an error on Catholicism.

[/quote]

 

[bogeydogg]

MacArthur’s a hack why bother listening to him? I stopped when I was still a Baptist cuz his language is so sloppy that he blunders into saying things he doesn’t mean (at least I hope) and often contradicts himself.

 

[neophyte]

I stopped listening to MacArthur long before I became a Catholic, precisely because he says a lot of nutty stuff.

 

[James224]

As I understand it, don’t virtually all Protestant groups view baptism as merely a symbol? That was the case in the Fundamentalist Baptist church in which I was raised. I thought that was pretty much the universal belief among Protestants other than some Lutherans and Anglicans.

In my old church, the word could be used as is was done in the above quotes, but it was not referring to the sacrament. Does MacArthur mix the two? I am a little confused on where he is going.

I think you’re right. Protestants generally think Baptism is an ordinance, just something you do after you’re already saved. When he speaks of Baptism of the Holy Ghost, this is what we call Confirmation. We believe at Baptism that you are cleansed and receive the Holy Ghost and receive the full anointing of the Holy Ghost at Confirmation - a strengthening.

 

[brb3]

Here is the video (a word of warning, this video is chock full of errors, ignorance, and polemics). And these are some the errors:

I just spent the last several hrs. listening to this and John Mac’s 9-Part audio on the errors of the Pope & Papacy … on YouTube.

JM is badly, sadly misinformed and spewing venom & extreme error. A very sad commentary on a gifted preacher … who has allowed pride & prejudice to give satan entry to his ministry.

You were right Marco. JM is massively mistaken, and fighting the whole of Christianity … the Pope, most of Protestantism [who he feels desires to seek Ecumenism with Catholics], Billy Graham, etc, etc. The bulk of his hatred for Catholicism is derived from Charles Spurgeon’s writings against the Catholic Church. He also quotes M. Luther extensively.

I will not listen to or promote JM again … but, I will pray that his eyes / heart will be opened. He is every bit as bad as Jack Chick, in his opinion on the Catholic Church.

 

[elvisman]

I just spent the last several hrs. listening to this and John Mac’s 9-Part audio on the errors of the Pope & Papacy … on YouTube.

JM is badly, sadly misinformed and spewing venom & extreme error. A very sad commentary on a gifted preacher … who has allowed pride & prejudice to give satan entry to his ministry.

You were right Marco. JM is massively mistaken, and fighting the whole of Christianity … the Pope, most of Protestantism [who he feels desires to seek Ecumenism with Catholics], Billy Graham, etc, etc. The bulk of his hatred for Catholicism is derived from Charles Spurgeon’s writings against the Catholic Church. He also quotes M. Luther extensively.

I will not listen to or promote JM again … but, I will pray that his eyes / heart will be opened. He is every bit as bad as Jack Chick, in his opinion on the Catholic Church.

Thank GOD.
I am so relieved to hear that.

**This is a man who is extremely arrogant in his anti-Catholicism and sits in judgement of many preachers who don’t espouse his particular brand of Calvinism. Unfortunately, my brother-in-law received a doctorate from MacArthur’s Masters College and has his own church/denomination. He (and my sister) have also been poisoned by MacArthur’s hatred for Christ’s Church.

Interestingly - the written transcription of MacArthur’s tape in which he blasts the Catholic priesthood is heavily edited. Many of the most vitriolic and vile lies have been removed. I guess he did that because he KNOWS he had been exposed.

 

[MarcoPolo]

He also quotes M. Luther extensively.

Did you hear him quote Luther this morning that the “highest form of worship is preaching” or something like that? I wonder if Luther really thought preaching was even higher than the Eucharist which he did hold in high regard. At any rate, it was interesting to hear MacArthur make such a “truth claim” on the authority of an extra-Biblical source.

 

[MarcoPolo]

MacArthur’s a hack why bother listening to him? I stopped when I was still a Baptist cuz his language is so sloppy that he blunders into saying things he doesn’t mean (at least I hope) and often contradicts himself.

I stopped listening to MacArthur long before I became a Catholic, precisely because he says a lot of nutty stuff.

I totally respect anyone who would choose to not listen to MacArthur on the basis of his often ridiculous statements. I would definitely not recommend listening to him for anyone who is not well-versed in their Catholic faith because he may well mislead them. I guess I listen for 3 reasons off the top of my head:

1. He does stumble onto Catholic theology in different words (only when he is unconscious that he’s doing so too). See my posts above for examples.
2. He is kind of a butterfly pinned to the wall----something that I fancy to study sometimes. It’s kind of a window into the mind of a certain mindset. It can help one formulate how to communicate with similar thinkers one has discussions with.
3. Even if his interpretations often miss the mark, he does quote from Scripture a lot, and sometimes first thing in the morning on radio, his words faze out and I start thinking about the passage in question, and ideas flow.

But like you guys, there are times when I just shake my head and turn it off.