John MacArthur is Stirring Up the (Baptismal) Waters Again

[Rook]

His sermon on infant baptism was a repeat sermon from the mid 90's. He preached a 5 point sermon on infant baptism which I have read numerous times. He basically preached that exact sermon again, and to be honest I was not impressed. If he holds the position he holds based on conviction that is fine, but I wasn't impressed with his understanding of circumcision and its spiritual (not only physical) significance. I attended the night service where he preached on believer's baptism, and I found a few things quite interesting. They had a baby dedication before he preached, and MacArthur goes right out and says that children of one believing parent have a special role in the kingdom of God. After the dedication, some other announcements were made and the guy (not J-Mac) says something along the lines, it is wonderful how the Lord builds His church (in reference to the children).

This has been a joy for me though, considering I am a student at The Master's College. There have been some really good discussions, especially since everyone knows I believe the Bible teaches infant baptism.

I love Dr. MacArthur, and I'm thankful for him for many reasons. I think he is dead wrong about Psalm-singing being insufficient for worship, and I think he is dead wrong about his position on baptism, and of course his eschatology. I respect him because he really believes he is helping people stay away from a serious error, and for that I cannot fault him.

 

[Weston Stoler]

I love Dr. MacArthur, and I'm thankful for him for many reasons. I think he is dead wrong about Psalm-singing being insufficient for worship, and I think he is dead wrong about his position on baptism, and of course his eschatology. I respect him because he really believes he is helping people stay away from a serious error, and for that I cannot fault him.

agreed. He is the one who told me of the doctrines of Grace.

 

[NB3K]

I cannot understand why folks in the reformed camp continue to divide on this point and make it a stumbling block for other believers.

 

[JonathanHunt]

I cannot understand why folks in the reformed camp continue to divide on this point and make it a stumbling block for other believers.

And I cannot understand why this thread exists. Baptists preach in favour of Believers-Only Baptism and against Infant Baptism. Get over it.

 

[Rook]

I cannot understand why folks in the reformed camp continue to divide on this point and make it a stumbling block for other believers.

And I cannot understand why this thread exists. Baptists preach in favour of Believers-Only Baptism and against Infant Baptism. Get over it.

1) I don't understand how this is a stumbling block?

2) I agree that nobody should be shocked that MacArthur preached what he did. Shouldn't it be expected? Yes. The only shocker for me, and why I think this thread exists, was some of the content which I thought would have been better researched and understood by Dr. MacArthur. I couldn't care less that he "stirred up the (Baptismal) waters," he has every right to considering his convictions which are within the bounds of orthodoxy.

 

[DawnTreader]

The thing that bothers me more than his poor arguments is his general attitude, which has been going downhill for a while now. He is showing less and less simple Christian charity these days and it breaks my heart. Broad generalizations and straw men do nothing to further the argument. For sure, JMAC (Or Baptists in general, for that matter) don't have the market cornered on broad generalizations and straw men. They are things we should all look to banish from these discussions

 

[Weston Stoler]

The thing that bother's me more than his poor arguments is his general attitude, which has been going downhill for a while now. He is showing less and less simple Christian charity these days and it breaks my heart. Broad generalizations and straw men do nothing to further the argument. For sure, JMAC (Or Baptists in general, for that matter) don't have the market cornered on broad generalizations and straw men. They are things we should all look to banish from these discussions

Bumper! Huzzah!

 

[Herald]

I cannot understand why folks in the reformed camp continue to divide on this point and make it a stumbling block for other believers.

Jason, there are a limited number of places where the baptism debate exists. You'll see it on seminary campuses and online discussion boards. There may be a family or individual who is struggling with the issue within a local church context but it seldom turns into a church-wide debate. Seminaries and online discussion boards are incubators of sorts. There are diverse opinions but a shared interest in all things theological, baptism being one of them. The baptism issue is more than just a doctrine, it's a defining doctrine for Baptists and Presbyterians. More friction and sparks are created by baptism discussions than any one single topic - at least that's true on the Puritan Board. So, the stumbling block you allude to really isn't seen outside of these two incubators.

I offer one piece of advice (free - no charge). Study the issue until you are completely persuaded as to what is the correct view. If you come to that point be at peace with where you are. I'm not suggesting you bury your head in the sand and refuse to consider new information that may challenge your previously held convictions. Sometimes folks are completely persuaded of an erroneous view. It is to their benefit that they are challenged to consider new information that will, hopefully, lead them to a change of position. But if your view on baptism is within the bounds of orthodoxy, and in the absence of a previously unconsidered argument, be at peace. No Presbyterian is going to hell because they believe in baptizing babies and no Baptist is going to hell because they don't.

 

[Scholten]

Read the sermon. I must say he seems very agitated about the whole thing. The sermon is not very systematic nor exegetical. What say the paedos about his assertion that infant baptism was perpetuated in the church its for ability to secure political power?

Dennis, I often hear Baptists point out the (alleged) connection between paedobaptism and state churches. Certainly, at times in history, there seems to have been a connection. However, the origins of infant baptism have nothing to do with politics. The articulations of infant baptism in the patristic era have nothing to do with politics. The arguments for infant baptism among the Lutheran and Reformed have nothing to do with politics. So, I think it's a red herring. Baptists have traditionally been against two things, paedobaptism and state churches. It seems some have decided to link them into one issue for convenience.

One text that these Baptists refer to is The Reformers and Their Stepchildren by Leonard Verduin. The basic premise of the book is that the Reformers were just another kind of Catholic, and that the Anabaptists were the true reformers of the church, because they severed the church-state connection.

With respect to Rev. Verduin's works on this topic it is important to note that he made a serious mistake in quoting Zwingli. He quoted Zwingli as saying he was against infant baptism, but feared for his income. See the following for more information:

Verduin misquoted Zwingli - potentially significantly impacts infant baptism.

 

[NB3K]

I would ask MacArthur, for what purpose do you wish to preach a message on the subject of baptisim? I mean if we as "Reformed" brothers are united in the Spirit of Grace, why would one want to create a division on baptism? Where is the fruit of peace making if you are going to constantly stir the pot on a subject that is not edifying to the unity of the Church? I once watch a sermon on predestination by Mark Driscoll, and Driscoll ascerted that in his church Calvinism & Arminianism would not be a point in which their church would divide, but I wonder how Driscoll would feel if people wanted to practice infant baptism? The point that I am trying to get at is, so many of us would be willing to yield to compromising the doctrine of grace for the sake of peace, but would go to the grave proclaiming one view of baptism is heresy compared to the other. I know folks that are like the KJV onlyism crowd in their view of baptism. But how many are there that would fight tooth and nail for the Gospel of Grace of Jesus Christ?

The way I see baptism is this:

It is the Election of Grace that brings us into union with Christ. God the Father choosing us and engrafting us into Christ's birth, life, death , and resurrection, is what I believe to be the Baptism that we try to put on display for all to see in either or the other. Without God the Father choosing us in Christ, what benefit would one receive from either being immersed in water or having it poured on? NOTHING! We are not regenerated by water, but by the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is only going to bring to life those whom Christ died for, because it is the Father's will. The rest will be damned to hell no matter how many times they get baptised. This doctrine right here is what we as Christians everywhere ought to be united on. If we simply believed this one doctrine we all would be united in the Spirit of Christ! We would be stronger and would be less likely to treat the flock of God like the world treats its own, but we would treat it like Christ has with unconditional love, mercy and grace! We would be unified as the Father is with His Son as ONE!

 

[Don Kistler]

I think it's a pretty safe bet that John preached on this subject because he or his elders were getting questions about it from folks in the congregation. His church's bookstore has a wealth of Reformed books, both presbyterian and baptistic, and if folks are reading those books or are listening to men who subscribe to the doctrines of grace, they are inevitably hearing people refer to infant baptism.

So he's probably gotten questions such as, "Jonathan Edwards was sound, and HE believed in infant baptism. So why don't we?" Rather than answer that question 100 times, he probably felt it best to address it from the pulpit.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Regardless how well he sounds or how well he tries to present a "biblical argument" he's wrong. His presuppositions from dispensationalism makes him unqualified to even speak on the issue, let alone critique paedo baptism.