John MacArthur | Infant Baptism | #johnmacarthur #paulwasher #voddiebaucham #rcsproul #billygraham

[DF-fobh]

The scriptures say in acts they baptized entire households

[cormundum_o]

This is why John MacArthur is not only a Nestorian, but not reformed.

[jaopreus]

Jesus said to baptize all nations, not all nations except for babies. No where in Scripture are infants excluded from Baptism. Jesus said let the little children come to me and do not hinder them. Baptism is being brought to Jesus. Don't hinder children from Jesus, it displeased Him greatly.

[Sweetpopsodacan]

Churches that dislike infant baptism are also doing something unbiblical; they baptise people multiple times!

There is an epidemic of people getting multiple baptisms because of this “believers baptism” dogma that baptism is a “profession of faith” which scripture never says. I met an alcoholic meth addict who has been divorced four times—and baptized four times! He said demonic things like “Jesus is afraid that’s why he hasn’t come back” and “heaven and hell are the same place” and “Satan wants to help me get to heaven.”

That’s the kind of person who gets baptised multiple times.

When you meet a person like him, put the baptismal water down and show him Romans 6. Baptism unites us with Jesus’ one death, one resurrection. Getting baptised multiple times is like trying to kill Jesus over and over again—but Romans 6 says we are the ones who are supposed to die to sin. Kill your sin! Keep your one baptism.

Show him John 3, Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus. We are reborn by water and spirit. If you believe now and had one baptism at some point in your life, praise god, you’re reborn! And Romans 6 says you now have the power to leave your life of sin.

One baptism into Jesus’ one death, one resurrection has washed you clean.

Johns baptisms don’t fit the standards for “believers baptisms” that modern Christian’s came up with today. Those standards come from John 3:16 and Romans 10:9—which don’t mention baptism at all but do talk about salvation and belief in what Jesus did on the cross.

That means Johns baptisms have the same problem as infant baptisms (neither group could profess faith in Jesus’ death or resurrection because people baptized under John hadn’t witnessed the death or resurrection yet).

The baptisms of John were done before Jesus was named Messiah. People were baptized before knowing who the messiah was, or what he came to do. Many thought he would overthrow the Roman government because of passages like Isaiah 9. Even Andrew, a disciple of John before he was a disciple of Jesus, was probably baptised before he knew Jesus’ name!

Lots of baptisms happened under John before Jesus’ name, purpose, and plan were fully revealed. Check John 1:33.

The problem is God sent John out to baptise people. God was Ok with baptizing people before they heard and believed in Jesus as messiah, God in flesh, sent to redeem the believers with his death and resurrection. So if infant baptism (of the children of believers) is wrong then it stands to reason you must also believe the baptisms of John were wrong. Neither group can profess faith to the standard of John 3:16 or Romans 10:9. What to do? How can people who dislike infant baptisms (of the children of believers) say their beliefs are biblical?

Credobaptists have tried to force Acts 8 and 19 to say three key apostle figures (Peter, James, and Paul) gave people baptized under John new baptisms. But that would mean the Apostle Paul’s words and actions contradict—he wrote Ephesians 4:5, which says there is “one baptism.” Paul also wrote Romans 6, which tells us *why* there is one baptism—because baptism unites us with Jesus’ one death, one resurrection. By the power of his blood we are washed clean and are now able to go and sin no more. There is no way the Apostle Paul baptised people (with water) multiple times in Acts 19.

But then what’s going on here in that passage? Read Acts 1. You don’t even have to leave the book you’re referencing! Jesus himself says John baptises with water, Jesus baptises with the Holy Spirit. People read the word “baptism” in Acts 19 and think it’s talking about water…but this whole story was supposed to be about people baptized under John receiving the Holy Spirit. That’s why it says when they heard they believed and received the Holy Spirit. Because that’s what Ephesians says happens—you receive the Holy Spirit when you believe. Jesus calls that a baptism in Acts 1.

No one in the New Testament gets baptised (with water) multiple times. Johns water baptisms are not invalid.

Someone needs to tell the credobaptists.

What do Johns baptisms have to do with infant baptism? Read Romans 11.

John only baptised Jewish “children of abraham” before they heard and believed. After their baptisms, people like the 12 disciples followed Jesus around, doubted many times, witnessed the death and resurrection, doubted some more, then they finally heard and believed. There is precedence in scripture for being baptised (as a child of abraham) before you heard and believed like infants do today. And there is no precedence for advocating for multiple baptisms. Baptizing the same believer over and over again must be stopped at once.

I don’t care if you like or dislike infant baptism…but that doesn’t mean you get to declare a brother or sister in Christ had an “invalid” baptism. If John’s baptisms stand firm, then a person baptised as an infant who believes now as an adult can be confident their baptism stands firm.

So if baptism is not a “profession of faith” how do we know who gets to be baptised?

Jesus said it in Matthew 28, you baptise disciples. Disciples pledge their allegiance to Christ, follow him around, and try to imitate him.

Matthew 28 also says baptism comes first—then you teach those disciples to obey God.

Credobaptist churches withhold baptism from the children of believers yet the freely teach their children to obey God. They are willing to treat their children like disciples at the dinner table, at church, and in prayer for several years as they grow up, before they profess faith)…much like Jesus’ disciples who were probably baptised early in Jesus’ ministry, followed him, ate with him, and received his instruction gladly—then one day, they heard and believed to the standard of Romans 10:9 and John 3:16.

If the children of believers walk and quack like disciples all their short little lives, then they are disciples. And Jesus said in Matthew 28 disciples are baptised before they are taught to obey.

Withhold baptism from your children if you wish—but don’t tell your brothers or sisters in Christ they are not born again Christian’s because of their infant baptisms. Don’t tell them they need new baptisms. Not only are you very wrong, multiple baptisms are not encouraged or required by the Bible, there is “one baptism (Ephesians 4:5)” and Romans 6 tells us why…not only is multiple baptism wrong, it’s also harmful to a person’s faith.

You’re telling them to kill Jesus over and over for the forgiveness of sins like the man I mentioned above who had 4 baptisms (and is still stuck in sin). You’re telling them Jesus’ power is small, it didn’t work the first time. Multiple baptisms is literally doubting Christ’s work for you on the cross.

Romans 6–kill your sin, don’t kill Christ over and over.

Also…McArthur is great, but he says infant baptism isn’t in the Bible, so don’t do it?

It’s interesting that people say there is no direct reference in the New Testament that explicitly says infants were baptized, so since we see no command or scriptural precedence for infant baptism, we should not do it.

But where in scripture were the 12 disciples baptized by Jesus? It’s not there. Shall we assume they never were?

No, we know the disciples were often baptizing people with Jesus (near where John did the same thing, even). They had ample opportunity to receive baptism even if they neglected to write about it in the Gospels. Likewise, Jesus himself was baptized before starting his 3-year ministry, so we know from who our God is in the past that God’s personality and his history of how he likes to do things shows the 12 were probably baptized somewhere early in Jesus’ ministry days, too, because God is consistent and unchangeable. Why would the disciples, who are supposed to imitate their rabbi, not get baptized?

Were the 12 disciples baptized? Ask a credobaptist and they would use this understanding of God, who he is and how he works, to say yes, the disciples were baptized even if scripture doesn’t expressly say they were. But those same people refuse to use that logic for infants. They refused to say household baptisms in the New testament were opportunities for the baptism of infants.

They also refuse that, based on who God is and how he likes to do things, that God would condone or encourage infant baptism. Which is why their churches don’t condone infant baptism and they exclude people who were baptized as infants from becoming members of their churches, which is discrimination.

There is no ruling from scripture that allows churches or Christian’s to practice favoritism or discrimination based on the circumstances of your baptism.

If johns baptisms stand firm, you have no cause for calling an infants baptism “invalid” because they cannot proclaim faith to the standard of John 3:16 or Romans 10:9. Those passages are about processing faith with your mouth…baptism isn’t mentioned at all.

Baptism is for disciples. It’s up to the parent to decide if, like Joshua, a disciple of Christ can say “as for me and my house we will serve the lord” which is what discipleship is all about.

It’s true, someone is right, someone is wrong about infant baptism. But all are believers, just like in Romans 14. So The Apostle Paul’s explanation on what to do with debatable topics like this one can be found in Romans 14. Paul is willing to rebuke the “correct” person for being unloving. So even if people who dislike infant baptism are “correct” they are very unloving and deserve rebuke for harming the faith of fellow believers who were baptised as infants. Telling them to get multiple baptisms is horribly unbiblical.

[Hogglefath]

I was baptized as an infant. And my faith is still strong. Does this mean my baptism is invalid?

[PH-pqvq]

Jesus said let the little children come unto me

[hudjahulos]

Children of at least one believing parent are holy - 1 Cor 7:14
Shouldn’t holy children be baptized?

Children can be saints - Eph 1:1, 6:1
Shouldn’t saints be baptized?

The kingdom of heaven belongs to children and those like them - Matt 19:14
Shouldn’t we baptize members of the kingdom?

Children are capable of belief and knowing the Father and having their sins forgiven - Matt 18:6, 1 John 2:12-13
Shouldn’t we baptize the faithful? The God knowing? The forgiven?

Children were explicitly included in the Old Testament sign of faith and nowhere in scripture are they excluded. We don’t need an argument to _include_ children in the symbol of the covenant, you need an argument to _exclude_ them. And don’t give me the regulative principle. If you give the Lord’s Supper to women, then you are doing something which is not directly seen in the Bible.

[josiah]

Wrong. Paul the apostle compares baptism to the OT practice of circumcision. Jewish males were circumcised at eight days old.

[toughbiblepassages]

He talks about how the church shouldn’t do things that are not in scripture, but all baptist churches practice “dedication” in replacement of baptizing the babies.. please explain where “dedications” are taught for newborns? You’re going to have to admit that babies play a role in the covenant community one way or another.. and the way they took part in the Bible was to receive the sign of the covenant (cause they were circumcised in the Old Testament) so what’s the sign of the new covenant that we are in? If the answer is baptism (and it is) then you have no grounds by which to deny them that sign.. as Paul says, “as it stands, they are holy” by virtue of the faith of the parents.

[puromichoacan]

Acts 16:15 (RSV) . . . she was baptized,  with her household, . . .

Acts 16:33 . . . he was baptized at once,  with all his family.

Acts 18:8 Crispus, . . . believed in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

1 Corinthians 1:16 . . . I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas . . .

[FortniteBlaster]

No where in the bible does it say to not baptize babies. Nor does it say in the bible one is “too young” or too impaired to be baptized. You are literally making that up because of Protestant dogma you’ve been taught.

The bible says baptize ALL nations, in the name of the father, son and Holy Ghost. If infants couldn’t be baptized, surely they’d say “baptize all men” or “baptize all mentally capable” but it doesn’t. And as we see with Peter and Paul, they baptize ENTIRE households. It did not say, they baptized only the men and women above (this age). It was the entire household, including the slaves and the babies. The early church did infant baptism as well. So unless you want to sit here and say the church that Christ founded was wrong for over 1800 years, your argument against infant baptism is unbiblical. Especially when Christ says “you must be like little children” yet you say not to give them the gift of baptism? Ridiculous

[wintershreve]

First infant baptism is biblical, second sola scriptura (in the classical protestant sense) means the bible is the only infallible source and the only source necessary to be saved, not the only source for all practices

[vhaddad]

The origin of baptism by the pouring of water rather than immersion goes back to the early centuries of the Church and is mentioned by Church Father Cyprian in the mid third century. Such was often called the baptism of the sick as it was neither practical nor charitable to confer baptism by immersion on someone who was very ill or dying, especially a deathbed convert.
There is also the case of the baptism of prisoners. It is held that St Paul himself likely conferred a non immersion baptism on the prisoners mentioned in Acts 16.
Also The Acts if the Martyrs, records of the court trials of early Christian martyrs, also speaks of prison baptisms. These are mentioned frequently and most assuredly were of a non immersion method.

[rizcar]

Well, the apostles and early church fathers apparently were mistaken by Christ and his disciples in thinking baptism is more than merely a symbolic ritual. So, tsk, they just got it wrong for 15, 16 hundred years.

[rileyb.franklin]

Just like dispensationalism is not in The Bible. If it's not in the scriptures you can't do it.

[ArrayzableMusic]

Never heard anyone say; "well, scripture doesn't forbid it - so we do it" .

[franka]

What’s wrong with claiming your child for Christ ?
Seems like good first step in faith for your child.

[tamaramalone]

May God bless John MacArthur for his devotion to spiritual truth, gospel.

[NathanielStallings-nfqi]

I suppose when Paul said that the Israelites were baptized when they crossed the Red Sea they left their children there. 1 Corinthians 10

[nateboy]

But the Bible doesn’t say anything about driving a car. Does that mean I shouldn’t drive a car?