John MacArthur is Stirring Up the (Baptismal) Waters Again

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
In September, he preached two sermons: (1) Is Infant Baptism Biblical? and (2) Believer's Baptism. In both, he uses selected Scriptures, not concentrating on any passage in particular for his exposition.

Go to Grace to You and click on "John's Sermons." You can choose "by date" and they'll be at the end of the year "2011" list.

As for infant baptism, he is, of course, agin' it.
 
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?
 
I would imagine every baptist and baptistic preacher has preached on those subjects at some point in their ministry, some better then others. It is also true that most covenantal peadobaptists have preached sermons from their perspective. Personally I would be surprised and shocked in J Mac didn't preach on this subject from time to time - I would also be surprised if he preached in anything else but a provoking fashion.
 
steadfast7 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
I skimmed the sermon on Infant Baptism and found it rather superficial and did not really reflect much effort in trying to understand the covenantal arguments for paedobaptism (which is probably not surprising given the fact that Dr. Macarthur is Dispinsationalist). For example he says,

'Circumcision didn’t apply to girls. Circumcision was really a gift from God to protect Jewish women from forms of infection, to protect and preserve the nation. Say at all about their spiritual condition. If Baptism was a substitute for that, why didn’t Paul make his life so much easier by saying to all the Judaizers who were running all over everywhere demanding people to be circumcised, “Wait a minute. You guys don’t get it. Baptism replaces that.” That would have ended the argument. Then the Judaizers would have been satisfied. It never says that.

What about

Colossians 2:11-12 11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

It could at least be argued that Paul is indeed saying here that Baptism is a replacement of circumcision, could it not, or at least has some sort of equivalency?
 
JP Wallace said:
Colossians 2:11-12 11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

It could at least be argued that Paul is indeed saying here that Baptism is a replacement of circumcision, could it not, or at least has some sort of equivalency?
Click to expand...
the circumcision spoken of could not have been the physical act of displacing foreskin from male genitalia, but that which comes from repentance and faith in the promises of God. Baptism certainly fits well with that picture!

---------- Post added at 08:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 PM ----------
CharlieJ said:
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.
Click to expand...
It was a new factoid for me that MacArthur alluded to the Emperial edicts that condemned on pain of death those who were rebaptized. You gotta admit, that does explain why the practice became so enduring.
 
Oooooo . . . I feel so very threatened. (meant to be interpreted playfully)
Click to expand...

Well, Macarthur is a little scary. Just picture him wearing a jumpsuit and standing behind glass like Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs. " A Paedobaptist once tried to baptize my child, I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice glass of grape juice."
 
steadfast7 said:
the circumcision spoken of could not have been the physical act of displacing foreskin from male genitalia, but that which comes from repentance and faith in the promises of God. Baptism certainly fits well with that picture!
Click to expand...

Dennis you're missing the point surely? - why does Paul use the circumcision language in the first place? It is obvious he is not actually referring to physical circumcision, indeed that is his point - but he is drawing some kind of connection (in the Colossian context) between a legalistic Judaistic adoption of circumcision of the flesh that is being suggested to the Colossians (and Laodiceans) and he's saying 'don't do it - not needed' you have that which that physical circumcision signified - why re-adopt the OC symbol?
 
I thought that debate was for sale only, not for free distribution? I know it was at one time.
 
JP Wallace said:
I skimmed the sermon on Infant Baptism and found it rather superficial and did not really reflect much effort in trying to understand the covenantal arguments for paedobaptism (which is probably not surprising given the fact that Dr. Macarthur is Dispinsationalist). For example he says,

'Circumcision didn’t apply to girls. Circumcision was really a gift from God to protect Jewish women from forms of infection, to protect and preserve the nation. Say at all about their spiritual condition. If Baptism was a substitute for that, why didn’t Paul make his life so much easier by saying to all the Judaizers who were running all over everywhere demanding people to be circumcised, “Wait a minute. You guys don’t get it. Baptism replaces that.” That would have ended the argument. Then the Judaizers would have been satisfied. It never says that.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding me.

Has the man never read Romans 2:28-29? Romans 4:10-11?

How anyone can come to that statement about circumcision after having read the two passages above simply defies my comprehension. It is almost blatant ignorance to the nth degree.

I have had issues with MacArthur over the decades for numerous things (primarily eschatology), but this reaches to a whole new level. I really, seriously wonder about the man and his motives.
 
Bill The Baptist said:
" A Paedobaptist once tried to baptize my child, I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice glass of grape juice."
Click to expand...
Post of the week right there, folks! :D

On a more serious note, let's remember that this is an in-house debate. Salvation does not hinge on the mode of baptism.
 
J. Dean said:
" A Paedobaptist once tried to baptize my child, I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice glass of grape juice."
Post of the week right there, folks!
Click to expand...

Sorry for going off topic but:

In a missionary situation is it Ok to use fava beans instead of bread? :lol:
 
I disagree with MacArthur's third point especially - that baptism does not replace circumcision. I believe Colossians 2.11-12 makes precisely that point. AND (wonder of wonders), when MacArthur makes this point, he is disagreeing with his own note on this passage in his own study Bible. See page 1,788 in the English Standard Version edition of his study Bible.
 
Grant the man his primary assumptions, and I don't know why his teaching would be controversial.

Is it because he has such a big stage, or such wide reach? Alright, that's his providential setting. If he's wrong, he has that much more to give account of. Better to preach with an eye to the glory of God and a clear conscience--and make mistakes--than to hold back in order to maintain "market-share."

_________________

I have no idea whether this could be true:
Maybe the man has a loved one, and that person--in no small part due to the preaching of JohnnyMac--loves the Bible, AND has been investigating the formulations and arguments of systematically Reformed men, because clearly they loved the Bible too. And that loved one is being "tempted" to abandon things that JMA has believed and taught all his ministry. Things like dispensational reading of the Bible (contradicted by covenantal reading). Or other implications of traditional CT... like infant baptism.

I might be spurred on, in a case like that, to offer a double-barreled rebuttal to what I thought was error, the best I could give. I certainly would if the shoe were on the other foot.
 
JP Wallace said:
steadfast7 said:
the circumcision spoken of could not have been the physical act of displacing foreskin from male genitalia, but that which comes from repentance and faith in the promises of God. Baptism certainly fits well with that picture!
Click to expand...

Dennis you're missing the point surely? - why does Paul use the circumcision language in the first place? It is obvious he is not actually referring to physical circumcision, indeed that is his point - but he is drawing some kind of connection (in the Colossian context) between a legalistic Judaistic adoption of circumcision of the flesh that is being suggested to the Colossians (and Laodiceans) and he's saying 'don't do it - not needed' you have that which that physical circumcision signified - why re-adopt the OC symbol?
Click to expand...
Agreed. I knew it was just a semantic thing between us.
bookslover said:
I disagree with MacArthur's third point especially - that baptism does not replace circumcision. I believe Colossians 2.11-12 makes precisely that point.
Click to expand...
It's one thing for Paul to say that baptism and circumcision figure the same spiritual reality, but it's quite another to say that baptism replaces circumcision as THE covenant sign. This Paul never does. The knockdown argument never appears.
 
I love MacArthur. He was a formative influence in my life, an influence that continues to this day through his ministry and those of others he has admired. I don't think it's any accident that Iain Murray has admired Mac for years, despite their disagreements. No doubt he sees something of The Doctor's (Lloyd-Jones) evangelical separatism (yet non-fundamentalist) in MacArthur that is often lacking in other prominent evangelical leaders.

MacArthur has sometimes failed to be thorough when representing the views of others, and sometimes does so inaccurately or incompletely. Sometimes he comes across as intemperate to those on the other side in the process. I think this came across even with the recent series on "Young Reformers" that I basically agreed with. Many of his detractors engaged in ad hominem but some of the generalizations he made were bound to generate a little more heat than light. in my opinion that was particularly the case with some of his younger defenders. My guess is that series was a much bigger hit with people in the pews and older pastors than it was with the people he was trying to reach.

Although I'm not a Dispensational, I think a lot of what he said about premil and Calvinism is right WRT unfulfilled OT prophecy and Israel's "election." I think it is fair to state that many of the 19th Century British Reformed Historic Premils would agree with much of it as well and would have similar objections to amillennialism, all the while disagreeing with dispensationalism as well. (Some of them would probably even fit within certain contemporary definitions of "Christian Zionism." But that's basically a topic for another thread.) My point here is that the way MacArthur represented and then dismissed amillennialism at the beginning of the message was bound to turn any amil off, as well as some others. (I can't remember if I'm remembering the conference message or the first of the 3 messages he gave at Grace Church on the same subject around the same time. Either way, it would have basically made me shut down had I heard it as when I was an amil.)

As for the Mac-Sproul debate, I've heard paedobaptists state that Sproul wouldn't be their top pick to present their side either. If I've ever heard it, I don't recall much of it now. I think there was a Sproul-Alistair Begg debate at some point as well.

All that being said, there are plenty of non-dispensational Baptists who would argue that water baptism is not strictly analogous to physical circumcision in the way that Reformed paedobaptists view it. Speaking in general terms (and not necessarily this particular message) whether one agrees with that view or not, that's pretty much standard Baptist argumentation, and it long predates dispensationalism.

While I haven't looked at The Reformers and Their Stepchildren in several years, it appears to me that Verduin was certainly not without his flaws. If I recall correctly even he admitted he might have tilted too much toward the anabaptist side in reaction to the opposite tendency. But I don't believe that the book is wholly without merit. I think Reformed paedobaptists who subscribe to the American revision of the Westminster Standards would also be hard-pressed to argue that they would have come to a separation of church and state apart from Baptist influence and the results of the American Revolution (or some other related nefarious influence, depending on your perspective.) And of course some members of the board reject those revisions.
 
Last edited:
Funny how it is that John always is deemed to stirring the pot. I have followed him over for over 30 years, read and listened to most of his sermons daily, and read many of his books, ... stir the pot? yes,
is he right? I'm not qualified to answer that

In is defence I would note that he's still doing what he started over 43 years ago, "ONE VERSE AT A TIME" and in that endeavour his faithfulness out weighs some perceived incorrect theology according to those who do not even have less qualifications than John MacArthur. Just my 2 cents.
 
bookslover said:
I disagree with MacArthur's third point especially - that baptism does not replace circumcision. I believe Colossians 2.11-12 makes precisely that point.
Click to expand...
It's one thing for Paul to say that baptism and circumcision figure the same spiritual reality, but it's quite another to say that baptism replaces circumcision as THE covenant sign. This Paul never does. The knockdown argument never appears.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but hasn't that been the end result? Christians do not practice circumcision for any but medical reasons, while baptism is regarded as the visible entrance rite for the people of God.

Baptism has de facto replaced circumcision.
 
Sinners and Saints Radio 2.0 Episode 3 | Sinners And Saints Radio

The first of a multi-episode response to John MacArthur’s recent sermon opposing infant baptism. Pastors John Sawtelle and Adam Kaloostian dissect some of MacArthur’s introductory remarks and correct some of his misrepresentations of church history. Debuting the “Altar Call” segment, the hosts call their Reformed colleagues to recommit themselves to their ordination vows, including not only the sound preaching of the Word, but also the refutation of those that oppose Scriptural doctrine and practice as summarized in the creeds and confessions.
 
Hi:

There is some merit in the argument that Infant Baptism was supported by the government. This is because the major record keeping of a birth was the Baptism record in the Church. Governments needed these records in order to tabulate military duties, taxes, and population statistics. To condemn Infant Baptism because it was supported by the government is a logical fallacy. The governments at the time also supported the Trinity - like in the execution of Servetus - are we to reject the Trinity simply because the government supported it?

Blessings,

Rob
 
Gord said:
Sinners and Saints Radio 2.0 Episode 3 | Sinners And Saints Radio

The first of a multi-episode response to John MacArthur’s recent sermon opposing infant baptism. Pastors John Sawtelle and Adam Kaloostian dissect some of MacArthur’s introductory remarks and correct some of his misrepresentations of church history. Debuting the “Altar Call” segment, the hosts call their Reformed colleagues to recommit themselves to their ordination vows, including not only the sound preaching of the Word, but also the refutation of those that oppose Scriptural doctrine and practice as summarized in the creeds and confessions.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, did you listen to the episode?
 
The main body of the broadcast was interesting and put some very good points forward. But the "altar call" part at the end was a little over the top.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Confessor
  • Locked
Is belief in baptismal regeneration damnable?
2
Replies
38
Views
21K
Greg
Greg
O
  • Locked
Baptismal Responsibility
Replies
1
Views
3K
au5t1n
A
Romans922
  • Locked
Baptismal Efficacy
Replies
10
Views
4K
tewilder
T
P
  • Locked
Baptismal Regeneration
Replies
1
Views
3K
R. Scott Clark
R. Scott Clark
W
  • Locked
Baptismal Regneration and the WCF
Replies
24
Views
4K
Poimen
Poimen
Back
Top