Baptism Debate: A Credobaptist Position with John MacArthur

Who is a proper candidate for Christian baptism? In this message, Dr. John MacArthur presents an argument for credobaptism, the view that baptism is to be administered to professing believers alone.

[skeetstahmer]

Thank You Dr. John MacArthur, after listening to Dr. R.C. Sproul expound on Paedobaptism and then hearing your expository message regarding Credobaptism. I am no longer confused on the issue of infant baptism and agree with Gods revealed understanding provided to you through His word. I really appreciate Ligonier and Grace To You ministries. I am learning so much, may our Lord continue to blessed both institutions as we wait for His return. Shout out to Truth For Life with Pastor Alistair Begg, another GOD fearing BIBLE teaching ministry. Love in Christ,

[dunlapmichaell]

Best video I've seen on this I'm a Baptist attending and a member of a Presbyterian church. I've been struggling with this topic but this flushes that out. I'm finding out that I'm in reality a Reformed Baptist.

[supersurgelawncare]

Pastor MaCarthur’s unwavering faithfulness to the Word of God, regardless of where he stands amongst enemies of God or fellow brothers in Christ, is worthy of imitating

[capacfacefitness]

His arguments:
1.Infant baptism is not in Scripture.
2.Infant baptism is not the New Testament baptism.
3.Infant baptism is not a replacement for circumcision.
4.Infant baptism is not consistent with the nature of the Church. 
5.Infant baptism is not consistent with Reformational soteriology.

[bhandy]

Thank God for the faith in this servant! The light shown in your faith shines bright Pastor MacArthur. May God bless you brother. Shalom, Shalom

[robertnunez]

"The cray of the Reformation was not tradition, tradition, tradition; the fathers, the fathers, the fathers; but Scripture, Scripture, Scripture"

[CLeHitez]

Respect to Sproul. But there really is no contest here. Slam dunk for MacArthur.

[ministryoftruth]

I am as big of a fan of Ligonier as can be, truly. I want so badly to understand paedobaptism, but I simply haven't heard a biblical argument for it. The Presbys have easily the best theology I can find (I'm even a seminary student at a Presby college) and yet I just can't agree on this issue.
Even my beloved Doug Wilson could not give me enough Biblical evidence to change my mind. I don't see it. But I am so blessed by the reformed Presbyterians none the less.

[davidmacedo]

I listened to the two debaters and there is no doubt, for anyone who wants to be impatient, that John MacArthur's biblical arguments are much more convincing.

[Gordon-fb]

Missed this debate by minutes. But the responses were the same then. Thanks for ligioneer for putting this up😊

[lynngalyon]

As a minister of the Gospel and pastor of a local Baptist church I have never been asked or compelled in any way to baptize an infant. However saying that, if I had been asked or compelled to do so I would have had to refuse on Scriptural grounds. I have found in my 34 years of ministry that Scriptural ground is the best ground to stand on. Amen John MacArthur.

[Nick-dmwo]

The idea that we can’t infer things from scripture that aren’t explicitly stated seems silly, and that seems to be the only argument against paeodaptism. Given the full context of Gods covenants it doesn’t make sense not to make the inference of infant baptism. For all of biblical history the children of the faithful were included in Gods promises to his people AND RECEIVED THEIR SIGN, the idea this would suddenly change doesn’t make sense especially when that change isn’t stated; why would you assume it does? That seems like a much less rational inference to make than that God would continue to be faithful to those promises and as such the practice of giving the sign to children of believers would also continue, although the sign itself has changed in form. The more I look into this issue the less sense the Baptist argument makes, they say we’re making an inference while basing their argument on one themselves, that the sign of the covenant is no longer for infants even though biblically there is zero precedent for that being the case.

[waldensmith]

Great study to clarify Baptism from a Biblical standpoint. The word of God takes preeminence to support firstly salvation which secondly leads to baptism.

[maryloomis]

When the bible says entire households and families were baptized, children and esp.infants weren't counted? Soo...babies aren't part of the family?

[VLEEZY]

I thank you Lord for your Word
Help me to live it each day
Amen

[jacobhoppe]

I have listened to both sides of this discussion. I am settling into the Paedobaptist beliefs. I think it is very important to always view both sides of the discussion, to spend quiet time with God, study His word, and pray for clarity in the scriptures. Everyone should do this, and research all they can before making a decision. I’ve seen so many reasons why Credobaptism makes sense, and I understand why people believe it. But I have come to the conclusion that the scriptures do no back that up, and that Credobaptists tend to put God in a box in saying that baptism is nothing more than a symbol. I believe The Holy Spirit is present in the water in baptism and it is not said in any scripture to be a symbol. Knowing the difference between John’s baptisms and Jesus’ baptisms is important. When I hear people say that no infants were baptized in the New Testament, I would say that there are no accounts of someone professing their faith and using a baptism to show others that, using it as an outward and symbolic profession. I think both sides have reason to believe what they do. And I think it’s important to remember to act how Christ would act and have love and compassion for others who might not believe the same as you. At the end of the day, we choose to believe in God and will all have faults in our interpretation of scripture. Our sinful, human minds will never be able to fully understand or interpret it. Thanks for reading, God bless! :)

[theDrewzy]

Appreciate this debate. Was on the fence after hearing Sproul until i listened to this.

[jozamend]

Do a dub into Spanish please, it would be a great blessing!!

Hagan un doblaje al español por favor, sería de mucha bendición!!

[ihvepurpose]

What seems to be missing here is that baptism existed before ajohn the Baptist and the New covenant. Why do they not include the background of baptism to help clarify the idea of what it is and stands for.

[Levaix]

Powerful, powerful stuff. After listening to both of these messages and reading various other opinions, it seems to me that the biggest dividing line comes down to whether you see your relationship to Christ primarily as an individual or as a collective (I.e. as the visible church). It is likely that my culture and upbringing in modern America predisposes me toward the former, but it seems to be a definitively stronger stance to take. I appreciate and agree with John's statement that this is a confounding factor on the assurance of salvation for the individual. I love and resonate with R.C., but the position he laid out had some serious hoops that I'm unwilling to jump through. God bless him and everyone at Ligonier for hosting invaluable resources like this, even where disagreement exists.