For those who may be confused about why some Protestant churches retain certain Romish seeds within their theology such as infant baptism (paedobaptism), I thought it may prove helpful to post this straightforward and Biblical teaching from John MacArthur which demonstrates the difference between Biblical credobaptism (believer’s baptism) and the Romish tradition of paedobaptism as its observed by many – primarily “Reformed” – churches today.
Semper Reformada!
A couple of weeks ago I gave a message on the issue of baptism and when I introduced that I was going to do that, I said that I wanted to give a follow-up message on the issue of infant baptism and I’m going to do that this morning. Now, I confess that this may seem a little more like a theological class lecture; you may feel like you’ve just enrolled at the Master’s Seminary—that’s O.K. I warn you in the back rows there, who may tend to wander anyway, because you’re so far away—hang in there. This is really, I think, a provocative, and important, and far-reaching issue to deal with.
Let me explain for some of you who might not understand. There is a widespread belief in the Church that babies are to be baptized. And so, soon after their birth, they are taken to the church whether it’s a Roman Catholic church, or whether it’s a Presbyterian church, or whether it’s a Reformed church, or a Lutheran church, an Anglican church, an Episcopalian church…They are taken to the church and they are sprinkled with water on the head—a little bit of water is dripped on their head and that constitutes their “Christian” baptism. This is very widespread. This is all over the world, in fact. This is the influence of the post-reformation European church and it has spread wherever that influence has gone.
Now, the result of this is that you have baptized non-Christians all over the world. They were baptized as infants with what they believe was a Christian baptism and an initiation into the church—and an initiation into salvation. Yet, they are not Christians; they have never come to personal confession of faith in Christ and so they were baptized but they’re non-Christians. On the other hand, you have the same group of people who are actually not baptized at all because that baptism is not New Testament baptism. So, they are baptized non-Christians who have never really been baptized at all, in the true sense.
It is also true that many people are—particularly in that movement—many people do come to true faith in Christ. They may start by being baptized as an infant in a Presbyterian, or Lutheran, or Reformed church, or Anglican, or Episcopalian church, or whatever church it is that does infant baptism…they are baptized as a child, they do come to true faith in Jesus Christ, but are never baptized by immersion because the church teaches that that is not appropriate. In fact, after the Reformation, if somebody was rebaptized, who was baptized as an infant, they were labeled an “Anabaptist” and persecuted.
Continue reading here.
Pilgrim
thejunglemissionary
Bill
Manfred
abidingthroughgrace
Chris Hohnholz
Here’s a solid rebuttal to Pastor MacArthur’s position. It is important to understand that covenant baptism is not only historical, but it is biblical.
I do appreciate many of your posts on this blog. But this one is a bit troubling. We may disagree on the position of baptism, but we are in the same fight.
http://www.rbvincent.com/BibleStudies/macarthurbapt.htm
Peace,
James M McDonald
Pastor
Providence Church
http://www.providencepeoria.org
Infant baptism is not a “Romish” practice. It has been done since long before there was anything like what we recognize today as the Roman Catholic Church; certainly long before the so-called Enlightenment influenced certain theologians to think that one must be able to reason one’s way through one’s faith in order to be brought into the Church through baptism.
They (the RCC) did introduce the method of sprinkling or pouring, which I agree is not Biblical. Baptism–whether of adults or infants–should always be done by immersion.
I noticed that in his speech, MacArthur quotes Christ as saying “Just do these two things. They are symbols.” I’d like to know where this verse is…since this is a “scriptural” critique, after all.
Some other comments I’d like to make:
“1. Point number one, and this ought to end the argument: infant baptism is not in Scripture.”
While this is true, we need to be careful about insisting that everything we believe and practice must be spelled out in black and white on the pages of Scripture, because when we do, we put ourselves in the uncomfortable position of having to defend other beliefs and practices that are also not explicitly mentioned: original sin, the Trinity, etc.
There are certainly no clear, undeniable examples of infant baptism in the New Testament, but neither are there any examples of children waiting until the “age of accountability” before being baptized. I agree that an argument from silence is no argument at all; but it is also certainly no defense for the rejection of a practice that the Church has accepted for two-thousand years.
“Among the Calvinists—among the Reformed people—there is a very important principle which many of them like to use. It’s called the “regulative principle” and it says this, “If Scripture doesn’t command it, it is forbidden.” Now, if they would just stick with that, they would be all right.”
Really? Tell me where in the Bible women are commanded–or even allowed–to receive communion? It’s not in there, so I expect Mr MacArthur would agree that this practice also must be forbidden.
In the jailer’s house—Acts 16 is the next one…Philippian jailer. Paul, you remember, gave him the gospel, it says, “All heard the gospel…all were baptized.”
The Scriptures say no such thing! Acts 16:33 says “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.” It doesn’t say anything like “All heard the gospel…all were baptized.”
Likewise with this: “…in the case of Lydia, it’s the same thing. We must understand the same thing must have occurred—they heard, they believed, they were baptized.”
Acts 16:50 says “And when she [Lydia] was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.”
“Stephanas: They heard, they believed, they were baptized”
1 Cor 1.16: “And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.”
I thought this was a “SCRIPTURAL” critique of infant baptism.
Sorry, I can’t read any more of MacArthur’s butchery of the Scriptures…
Pastor James,
I read the article which you linked to and there were several troubling comments which are more than enough for me to discredit the author’s rebuttal of of MacArthur’s teaching on infant baptism.
1. However, some of them might not be comfortable with our “easy in, easy out” standard of membership. We embrace the doctrine that the Church, as people see it, is a mixed multitude, not unlike Israel of old. We don’t wait until we are absolutely sure that somebody is truly saved before we admit her to the fellowship of the Church.
2. To demand a regenerate membership, that is, only those about whom we are sure have been converted, is wicked and violates the Word of God.
3. Those who deny the faith by rejecting clear-cut biblical truth or by a wicked and unrepentant way of life, and who rebelliously continue in such must be put out of the Church. But the Church may not exclude others; her doors must be open to all.
4. The question often arises as to how we can maintain the purity of the Church with such an easy policy of accepting people. My response is to affirm that the ordinances of the Church are means of grace to God’s elect and a purgative to reprobates. In the Eucharist true believers receive the Lord Jesus, really and truly, but those who rebel against God receive his curse, including sickness and death.
These four will be enough to start with. Bob Vincent is either speaking from the silence of Scripture or is at best using similar truths found in Romish church when it comes to the means of grace.
This, I believe, is where the true breakdown of many within the “reformed” churches and “evangelical baptistic” churches truly differ is in their understanding of ecclesiology. The ordinances are NOT sacraments and they are NOT a means of grace.
When one considers the ordinances to be a “means of grace” it is easy to understand why one would want (yea, would desperately need) to ensure that infant baptism is at the very least in some way supported by Scripture which is why covenantal theology often makes the illogical jump of New Testament Church being the same as Old Testament Israel.
To say that to demand a regenerate church membership is wicked and violates God’s Word is a delusional attempt to keep people ensnared in wrong and unbiblical thinking. The Bible knows NOTHING of a church that accepted unbelievers into its midst.
I for one am thankful for the mystery of the Church which was revealed to the apostle Paul. I am thankful it was not merely a rehash of old Israel, but that which is completely different and set apart unto God – a Bride who will make herself ready when the Bridegroom appears to establish His earthly kingdom.
Til He Comes in Glory,
The Desert Pastor
I enjoyed this post. I was beginning to think the only other Baptist on this site besides me was Spurgeon and Voddie baucham. Ha! Ha!
Why do I keep getting a frowny face?
I am a happy guy.
My Baptist church continues to baptize 6 year olds and 8 year olds with a simple statement of faith. If you are going to hold to believers baptism, you need to show evidence of the rebirth in some form before baptism.
While I do not rule out the possibility of an 6y with true faith, it is not the norm. The is no functional difference between baptism of a 6y and baptism of an infant. Neither can show evidence of a believers life.
I see valid points to both beliver’s baptism and whole house hold baptism. But if you hold to beleiver’s baptism, stop baptizing children because they can repeat what the Sunday school teacher taught them.
Matt,
Re: the Philippian jailer
Where does Scripture tell us there were infants in his house? It simply says “he was baptized, all he and his household.”
Acts 16:32-33 (NASB)–And they spoke the word of the Lord to him, together with all who were in his house. And he took them that hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, all he and his household.
Notice the pattern. Paul and Silas spoke the word, they believed, then after hearing and believing they were baptized. And again, no mention of infants–that must be read into the texts.
———————-
Re: Lydia
Again, she heard the word, THEN she was baptized. And no infants, unless you read them INTO the Scriptures.
Acts 16:14-15 (NASB)–A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
Again, the pattern? Paul speaks, Lydia responds, then after hearing and believing she is baptized.
Excuse me, fourpointer, where does it say “they believed”? Are you reading that into the Scriptures?
Like I wrote in my previous comment, if you reject the practice of infant baptism because the Scriptures do not specifically mention it, how can anyone justify allowing women to receive communion? That also is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures.
Pastor Harold: I had the same problem – I used to always get the upside green drunken triangle. I had to start my own blog to get the cool tidal wave. There are easier ways to change your “avatar” (I think it’s called) but I couldn’t figure them out.
Matt,
Yep, you’re right. They heard the truth, and Paul baptized them even though they never showed any signs of repentance.
You aren’t serious, are you? Read what it says in the Scriptures!!!! “REPENT and be baptized.” It’s a package deal. A person can be dunked all they want, but if there’s no repentance, it’s just so much filthy rags.
Of Lydia: The Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. What, you think she just kinda stroked her chin and said, “I’ll think abolut it”? I don’t know how much clearer it can be!! She believed and responded to what Paul was saying!!
Also, consider the jailer. He had already been told the gospel by Paul as the Roman jail was being shaken at midnight. Or did Paul just say, “OK, everybody in the pool whether you believe this or not!” And no mention of infants.
Matt–come on, be serious. You can’t honestly believe someone should be baptized before they believe.
As far as women receiving communion. 1st Corinthians 11 talks about the congregation coming together for communion. No mention of men only. Try reading it sometime.
Thanks for posting this Coram. I experienced unkind backlash when I stated Acts 2:41 gives the grounds for baptism “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized”. How can an infant receive the Gospel? The rebuttal I got was that the book of Acts was ‘historical’.
If baptism were truly essential in salvation, then what about the thief on the cross? The baptism we all need is that of the Holy Ghost. All who receive this baptism will undergo immersion.
God bless!
I agree with the view that Baptism does not save anyone, and is not a requirement for salvation. I also agree that infants, Scripturally, are not to be baptized as an ordinance of the Church.
Just think it’s sort of funny how it works out. MacArthur is against infant baptism, and some people argue for infant baptism on the grounds that Acts is “historical.” MacArthur is about the staunchest cessationist I know, and cessastionists generally support their position by stating that Acts is “historical.”
Thank you for stopping by and sharing the link, Pastor McDonald. I must agree with The Desert Pastor’s assessment of the so-called “solid rebuttal” – in fact it was nothing of the kind. To be frank I found the piece to be rather meandering and incoherent.
See here’s the thing, infant baptism is pure, undiluted Popery. It’s rooted in Romish error and no amount of intellectual or eisegetical gymnastics can change this simple fact. Tradition is very powerful, and it’s manifestly true that men are all too easily enthralled with and ensnared by their own peculiar vain traditions.
In the light of scripture we can see that Romish infant baptism – a variant of which is practiced by many Reformed churches today – is really quite absurd. If the Reformed churches are standing over and against the scriptural teaching of the symbolism of believer’s baptism as described in MacArthur’s piece, AND they’re standing over and against the Romish teaching of infusing saving grace in their version of paedobaptism then what is the point of Reformed infant baptism insofar as it being an ordinance whereby the church is to bring honor and glory to Jesus Christ? The rankest Papist lapdogs would say their infant baptism honors Christ and brings Him glory by the mystery of the infused salvific grace of the sacraments, and the credobaptist would say that believer’s baptism honors Christ and brings Him glory by the public proclamation of faith in Him and the sharing in his death, burial and resurrection symbolized by the immersion. What honor and glory does paedobaptism bring to Christ? Exactly none.
It’s pathetic, dead sacramentalism.
It’s empty ritualism.
It’s dead religion born of the vain traditions of men.
The Reformed are often also keen to point towards OT circumcision as an example of their NT “covenantal” infant baptism, yet the act was circumcision was PURELY SYMBOLIC. The practice served to outwardly identify ethnically Jewish males with ethnic Israel, period. And as you may recall the inspired Apostle Paul in his warning against the Judaizers had no small discourse with the churches scattered in Galatia about utter futility of relying upon the external practice of circumcision in his epistle by the same name. “But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?” – Galatians 4:9
In the final analysis we find that Reformed paedobaptism doesn’t claim to “infuse” saving grace like Rome, nor is symbolic of a living, professing saving faith like believer’s baptism, so what are we left with? I’ll tell you – a ghastly, appalling, shriveled, doctrinally outmoded appendage of Popery that should have been severed hundreds of years ago, but which instead is still desperately clung to with the zeal of cultic fervor.
It’s really quite sad.
Matt – fourpointer and The Desert Pastor are offering you godly counsel, please prayerfully heed it. Also your position that children are born with faith in Christ and “unlearn” it is grossly unbiblical and constitutes a flat denial of original sin, which is a bedrock principle of orthodox, Biblical Christianity. All babies are born fallen in Adam, they’re not “sinless” nor are they morally or ethically “clean slates”; in point of fact according to scripture they’re not even neutral about Christ, much less are they inclined towards Him with living faith! Human beings are sinful from the womb and are in desperate need of salvation. In fact if babies were born sinless they could never die during infancy because the wages of sin is death.
MA – I was thinking the exact same thing about that particular use of the books of Acts…scary…
lyn, You’re welcome! This is an important issue that ought to be clearly understood by all professing believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.
DP – “On another note — I have written more than a few comments regarding my comments on cessationism and it is not based by using a statement that Acts is “historical.” I am convinced that there are plenty of Scripture references and principles without relying on a mere statement regarding historicity.” :)
I didn’t think you could let that one slide…*grin*
pastorharold – This DefCon contributors are overwhelmingly credobaptistic, though not necessarily “Baptists” in the denominational sense. I hope this helps clarify things a bit.
In Christ,
CD
Fourpointer,
Thanks, but I can do without the smart alecky response.
You’re right, and I agree: responding to God does require belief and repentance. What I was saying was that “they believed” is not in the text you quoted.
No I do not think someone should be baptized before they believe. But I also believe that infants are born with Faith in Christ. They unlearn their faith as they grow up and learn to reason and learn to rely on themselves (that’s why Christ said we need to have faith like a child). I know that any Calvinists reading this blog will probably disagree, but I believe that an infant who dies goes straight to heaven. If this is the case, it can only be through Christ, somehow. And if it is through Christ, then that child is Christian. If he is being raised in a Christian home hearing the Gospel, he has never not heard the Gospel, and he has never not had faith in Christ. (faith in the sense of trust; faith in the sense of relationship with Christ) If the child is a Christian, then he is a member of the body of Christ. If the body of Christ is the family of God, then it must include children, not just rational adults, because the Church is relational, not just rational. And if he is a member of the Church and is saved, then why deny the child baptism?
I have read 1 Corinthians; thank you for the encouragement.
But I am curious why you are satisfied that the word “congregation” must include women, but the word “household,” despite the consistent testimony of the Church through the ages, must not include infants and young children.
Matt,
Thanks for stopping by. The word congregation would be what we refer to as the ekklesia or assembled believers in a local gathering. Being an avid reader of history and church history, I am afraid that true biblical Christianity would be in disagreement with you on several points regarding a “household.” Infants are born with a depraved nature due, but I (probably along with the majority of our readers) would like for you to produce Scripture references that tell us infants are “born with Faith in Christ.”
As for who makes up the body of Christ, a quick read of Ephesians will make it abundantly clear that it is ONLY made up of those who have a living relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. It is those who were ONCE dead in trespasses and sins that were made alive in Christ. Unlike what you presume into the Scriptures, they weren’t alive in Christ then became dead over time in trespasses and sins and then eventually found themselves in Christ again.
The bottom line is that infants CANNOT receive Christ, and I do not believe that any individual whether a child or an adult should be brought into and placed UNDER the waters of baptism
until such time as they recognize the responsibility of the Christian life and evidence a life changed by the Holy Spirit. For those who wish to use history, we could wax eloquent on what it meant to early New Testament age individuals who placed their faith in Christ. They knew EXACTLY what would happen and what it meant to take a stand for Christ. Read “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs” if you have any further questions.
*******
On another note — I have written more than a few comments regarding my comments on cessationism and it is not based by using a statement that Acts is “historical.” I am convinced that there are plenty of Scripture references and principles without relying on a mere statement regarding historicity.
Desert Pastor,
Thank you, but I still fail to understand how “congregation” must include women (1 Cor 11.28 says “a man”–ἄνθρωπος–ought to examine himself before receiving communion. No mention of women) and that “household” must not include infants. Elsewhere in the Bible, “household” includes servants and livestock (Gen 24.2: “Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his household…” Ex 20.9-11: “the seventh day is a Sabbath day of rest dedicated to the Lord your God. On that day no one in your household may do any work. This includes you, your sons and daughters, your male and female servants, your livestock, and any foreigners living among you”), and yet your position is that it cannot include infants and young children. Okay.
We believe that a child baptised into the Church is in a living relationship with Christ, through His Body the Church. They have been made alive in Him. Perhaps you can explain to me what it means to “recognize the responsibility of the Christian life” and what this has to do with relationship. If my mentally handicapped neighbor, who can barely spell his name, can’t recognize or understand or articulate the “responsibility of the Christian life,” is he also not a candidate for baptism? How much rational understanding is necessary, would you say, in order to save us?
I’m afraid you won’t find a passage that says “children are born with Faith in Christ.” However, I think we agree that the Scriptures are clear that one must have Faith in Christ in order to be saved; One cannot be saved apart from Christ. So one must belive one of two things about children who die without having made a rational decision to follow Christ: They either
a) go to hell, or
b) go to heaven.
If you believe in “a”, then our discussion really ends here because we have too little comon ground. Christ said “to such as these belong the Kingdom of Heaven.” That does not sound to me like someone who is willing to condemn little children. If “b” then they have an inherent, innate faith in Christ and should be baptised. Remember that children are never told to have faith like adults, but rather vice versa.
I’m sorry, but I’m not going to get into a discussion with you about “total depravity.” Suffice it to say that my Church does not subscribe to the Augustinian/Anselmian idea of original guilt.
As an avid reader of history and church history, I’m sure you’re aware that infant baptism was a practice that went largely undisputed until the Reformation, and that was endorsed by early Church Fathers such as Ireneus, Gregory Naziansus, John Chrysostom, and Cyprian of Carthage among others. I’d be curious to see how many Church Fathers believed that baptism was merely a “symbol” and nothing more?
By the way, if baptism is merely a “symbol” and nothing more, then why such a strong objection to infant baptism? If it has no significance other than the symbolic, then what’s the harm? Every church I’ve been to that objects to paedobaptism will offer communion to anyone and everyone without the least hesitation but would never think of baptising an infant. They’ll conduct “baby dedications,” but God forbid those should ever include water!
Matt said: We believe that a child baptised into the Church is in a living relationship with Christ, through His Body the Church. They have been made alive in Him.
You’re long on opinion, but short on scripture Matt.
The Bible teaches that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Based upon the plain teaching of scripture, and in light of your comments above, is it your belief that all those who are being baptized as infants are really and truly saved (eternally secure in Christ) because their baptism seals them in a “living relationship with Christ”?
In Christ,
CD
I am not saying that infants are saved because of having been baptised. I believe that an infant who dies before being baptised is saved also. I am saying that an infant (or adult) is brought through baptism into a living relationship with Christ, in His body the Church.
Can you tell me please where “a plain reading of Scpripture” reveals to us that baptism is merely symbolic?
I think–again, perhaps only my opinion–that a plain reading of Scripture suggests that baptism actually accomplishes something:
1) It replaces circumcision (Col 2.11–12)
2) Facilitates the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2.38, 22.16)
3) Brings about an infusion of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2.38; Ezk 36:25-27)
4) Marks incorporation into the Body of Christ (Jn 3.5; 1Co 12.12-13)
5) Is key to a person’s Salvation (Tts 3:5; 1Pt 3.20-21; Rom 6.3-4; Mk 16.16)
Now, I admit I’m certainly no Greek scholar, so before you tell me how my plain reading of Scripture is faulty for this or that reason, consider that maybe, just maybe, the Greek Fathers I named above (actually Cyprian was probably Latin) understood the meaning of the Greek text better than you or I or the Reformers.
Matt,
I’d love to interact with your arguments here, and will do so, but please clarify something for me before I do. Based upon your comments is it your belief that baptism is a means to salvation? In other words when you say baptism “accomplishes something” are you saying that baptism either precedes salvation, or else that salvation really, truly, and effectually occurs at the moment of (or in conjunction with) baptism?
In Christ,
CD
pastorharold,
You have the free will to get a new avatar!
You can choose one or submit one of your own, as I have done. Go to http://en.gravatar.com/ and get your best avatar yet!
CD,
We don’t believe that salvation occurs at a particular moment in time, but rather is a process. What we call “salvation,” Protestants generally call “sanctification.” This is the process of losing self and gaining God. One of the things someone can do to bring about salvation/sanctification is to be baptised.
M
Okay, I’m grown up enough to know that I’m not going to change any minds by posting comments on an internet blog. But, perhaps we can meet halfway. Perhaps someone reading this is willing to at least agree on the following:
1) That if “congregation”/”church” in 1 Corinthians must include women, then “household” in Acts, at the very least might include infants,
2) That if the “The Scriptures Don’t Explicitly Command It, So Therefore It Is Forbidden” argument doesn’t apply to women receiving Communion, then it shouldn’t apply to infant baptism either,
3) That churches baptising infants is not any more problematic than churches allowing anyone and everyone off the street to receive Communion, willy-nilly, without any hesitation whatsoever,
4) That there is nothing in Scripture, or in the Patristic writings, or in any of the Ecumenical Councils that states that baptism is merely a symbol and nothing more,
5) That there is, however, evidence to the contrary,
Any takers?
Sadly, some people who come to this blog of late seek to ensure that their own lack of true happiness and freedom (as found only in Christ) entraps others. They think that by simply making statements such as “Evolution is still true.” that it makes it so. If they are right (which they are not), they why do they not have all the answers? Why not allow us to believe what we wish to believe in peace?
The answer lies in the fact that the human heart (every human heart including that of children) is totally depraved and does not seek after God — see Romans 3:10-14! It annoys them that the answer lies outside of their own little box and that God refuses to condescend to being made into the image of man whom He (God) created to serve and love Him.
For those who are wondering, we have snipers who try “hit and run” techniques but cannot be bothered to respond to answers given directly from God’s Word. Many (if not most) of these comments are deleted, but every now and then we feel it necessary to respond for the purpose of our other readers!
The Desert Pastor
Desert Pastor,
If that was directed at me then I sincerely apologize for offending anyone. I truly do not intend any hit-and-run tactics. If anything I have written came off that way, then I humbly ask your forgiveness, because that was not at all my aim. I–like most other contributors to this blog, I suspect–really want nothing other than fair, scholarly, biblical consideration of the points that unite and/or divide us as brothers in Christ.
Matt
Okay Matt,
Here is the deal. Let’s take this to its logical conclusion. Well, at least it seemed logical enough for the warped, heretical teachings of men like “st.” Francis was a sissy who believed that animals had souls and could therefore be baptized. Therefore, let’s follow the working of your logic and your hermeneutical approach.
1) If “congregation”/”church” in 1 Corinthians must include women, and “household” in Acts, at the very least might include infants, then knowing that most people consider their pets to be part of the family, we could actually at the very least include the dogs and horses of Lydia’s house and that of the Philippian jailer. They ALL got dunked!
2) Realizing that “The Scriptures Don’t Explicitly Command It, So Therefore It Is Forbidden” argument is not acceptable in some circles as applies to 1) women receiving communion and 2) to infants being baptized, then it should not explicitly or even implicitly forbid 3) the baptism of pets that are in the family household composition.
3) We must acknowledge that churches baptizing pets on “Receive a Blessing for Your Pet Sunday” is not any more problematic using this logic and understanding of Scripture than a church baptizing infants, “willy-nilly, without any hesitation whatsoever” AND regardless of no faith on the part of the recipient (whether pet or infant).
4) That there is nothing in Scripture, or in the Patristic writings, or in any of the Ecumenical Councils that states that baptism of pets is not acceptable (well, at least to the Romish church),
5) And that there is however, no evidence to the contrary of the above stated arguments!
Willing to go this far? If not, why not? If so, then we have a bigger issue at stake!
Looking for a church willing to “baptize” my PitBull,
The Desert Pastor
P.S. – Just wanted to add that I am being deliberately facetitious with some humor added!
Hello Matt,
No, that was not directed at you, but at a resident sniper who likes to show up every now and then and only has one bone to pick and it normally involved something like “Evolution is true and there is no God.” I appreciate your being quick to respond though and for being willing to come and discuss. The resident sniper has been blocked from any further discussion on this blog, but he still tries! Persistent, but sadly deluded.
The Desert Pastor
Desert Pastor,
Should I take that to mean that you’re not willing to agree with any of the five points I presented?
Has your argument really become: it’s silly and stupid to agree with animal baptism, so therefore it is silly and stupid to agree with infant baptism?
No, I’m not willing to accept animal baptism and here’s why: the Church has NEVER baptized animals. Ever! Maybe some nutcase in Assisi or elsewhere did or wanted to. But it is not something the Church has done. However, the Church has baptized infants for many, many centuries.
Now, can we be serious, Please? No more strawmen. Just scholarly discussion.
Thanks.
So, now how about those five points. Can we agree on those or not?
p.s. I’m glad to know your previous comment wasn’t for me.
“Just wanted to add that I am being deliberately facetitious with some humor added!”
Just saw that…
Thanks!
:)
Matt said: CD,
We don’t believe that salvation occurs at a particular moment in time, but rather is a process. What we call “salvation,” Protestants generally call “sanctification.” This is the process of losing self and gaining God. One of the things someone can do to bring about salvation/sanctification is to be baptised.
Thank you for being so forthright, Matt. I had suspected that you subscribed to a Romish works-righteousness soteriology. Given your unbiblical position which conflates justification and sanctification you stand guilty, according to the Word of God, of believing and teaching another gospel against which the inspired Apostle Paul pronounced anathema in his epistle to the churches scattered in Galatia (see Galatians 1:6-9).
With this in mind it’s really quite pointless to continue a discussion about the subject of infant baptism when your eternal soul abides under the wrath and curse of God, and I’m fully persuaded that it would be worse than cruel for me to quibble with you about peripheral doctrinal matters when you are in desperate need of salvation.
Let me be very blunt, Matt; if you are trusting in a process of salvation then you are without Christ and without hope.
According to the Holy Bible you are trusting in yourself (your works) to earn a right standing before God, which thing is utterly impossible, and which is in fact grievous sin. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone and it is a once for all declaration made at the bar of God’s Holy Justice which occurs when guilty sinners humbly come empty handed to Christ by faith, trusting in Him alone, which results in His perfect righteousness being miraculously imputed to them by God’s unmerited grace once and for all. This is God’s gift of salvation, His free offer of grace to all who are willing to come unto Him.
Sadly your “process of salvation” completely nullifies God’s grace and totally negates what Christ did for men, turning scripture upon its head and trusting in what men do for Christ. The distinguishing characteristic between Biblical Christianity and all forms of false religion is the simple fact that true Christianity is the pure and true religion of God’s achievement in Christ, whereas all other religions which are based upon what men do for their god, man’s achievement by works. But the Holy Bible teaches us that grace cannot be of works or else it is no longer grace, but debt, and the Bible teaches us that those who refuse God’s grace, and instead choose a life of works-righteousness will have their debt paid in full by God. And since no man can be justified by works, because the scriptures teach us that man’s “good deeds” are as filthy rags before the Lord, we then find that the man who trusts in himself (his good works) is actually heaping sin upon sin; and we know the wages of sin is death and eternal condemnation.
Do you think your good works are greater than the good works performed by the Apostle Paul when he was attempting to earn a right standing before God?
“…Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless… – Philippians 3:4-6.
And what does Paul think of the righteousness he earned?
…But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung… – Philippians 3:7-8
The Bible teaches us that a man doesn’t become holy through obedience, Matt; in fact precisely the opposite is the case. A man becomes obedient through holiness. Christ imputes His righteousness and seals His own with the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation, which begins a lifelong process of being conformed into the very image of Christ, which process will be culminated when the saints are finally perfected in heaven (see the Ordo Salutis in Romans 8:29-30). It’s only by this imputed righteousness, the very righteousness of Christ Himself, that men are made holy and empowered to become obedient to God in order that they might live out a lifestyle of holiness before His face.
In your present state you have no hope of heaven, only the promise of hell. Ask yourself one question Matt: What would happen to your eternal soul if God required it of you this very night? According to scripture there is no purgatory, there is only eternal damnation in hell fire forever, or else there is eternal bliss in the presence of the Lord forever (see the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31).
Where are you right now in your personal process of salvation, Matt? Are you ready to face your Maker? The Holy Bible says a born again believer can know with assurance that he is really and truly saved – forgiven and justified by God.
“The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God; and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” — Romans 8:16, 17
Does God’s Spirit bear witness with your spirit that you are His child and joint-heir with Christ right now at this moment, Matt? If not, you too can know this assurance, but you must deny yourself, and your religious conceptions, and count the cost of following Him who bore the sins of the world upon his bloodied, scourged shoulders. The gate is narrow and it’s certain that both you and your religious baggage can never pass through together, you must lay it down and pass through alone bringing nothing but your own sin and shame before His throne.
Jesus Christ will meet you there, he’ll exchange His glistering, pure white garments of perfect righteousness for your filthy rags of sinful, corrupted works. He’ll call you His own, and give you rest. His grace is sufficient for you.
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. – 2 Corinthians 5:20
I’m praying for you, Matt.
In Him,
CD
CD
I appreciate your candor.
But I do not, in fact, subscribe to the “Romish” doctrine of works-righteousness at all. I’m not sure where you got the idea that I did. I do believe that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. But that it is not a “once for all” decision. But rather that we are required to take up our cross daily and accept that free gift of salvation. Repentance is not something that one does once…but hundreds, thousands of times over one’s lifetime. That’s how one becomes holy, not just called holy. I am not trusting in myself or my works (maybe you didn’t notice where I said that sanctification involves “losing self”). I repent of my evil ways every day. That’s how I become holy, that’s how I become a “partaker of the divine nature,” that’s how I take up my cross. Not by relying on myself, but by giving up on myself. That, my brother, is a process.
I agree that there is no purgatory.
And I also wholeheartedly agree that I am in desperate need of salvation. We all are…
I thank you for your prayers.
Matt
Matt,
You said: But I do not, in fact, subscribe to the “Romish” doctrine of works-righteousness at all. I’m not sure where you got the idea that I did.
The big clue for me was when you claimed that salvation was a process when you stated:
We don’t believe that salvation occurs at a particular moment in time, but rather is a process. What we call “salvation,” Protestants generally call “sanctification.” This is the process of losing self and gaining God. One of the things someone can do to bring about salvation/sanctification is to be baptised.
According to infallible scripture salvation IS NOT “a process”. If you are talking about “processes” in relation to salvation then you are – by definition – talking about works righteousness, and if you’re working for salvation (a right standing before God) then you’re nullifying grace, period.
Christians are holy by definition because they are hidden in Christ. The thrice holy One True and Living God looks upon believers as though they had lived Christ’s life of perfect obedience and righteousness. Believers don’t become holy as though there were something lacking in Christ’s finished work. It’s only because of Christ’s imputed holiness that men are enabled to take up their crosses daily and follow Him in a spirit of joyful and humble obedience as they are conformed into His image from grace to grace through the Spirit-empowered process of sanctification. Again, it’s impossible for men to add to Christ’s finished cross-work by their deeds, which – despite your protests to the contrary – is precisely what you are claiming to do.
In this thread you are: A) Claiming to believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone – AND – you are: B) claiming to be engaged in a process of salvation. These two concepts are mutually exclusive, and Biblically irreconcilable Matt. “A” simply doesn’t equal “B”. Salvation is a one-or-the-other proposition; both can’t be true and the scriptures are crystal clear about which concept is Biblically supported (*HINT* It ain’t B)!
I am not trusting in myself or my works (maybe you didn’t notice where I said that sanctification involves “losing self”).
Yes, I saw that, and I also saw where you conflated justification with sanctification. Words mean things, Matt, and if you’re trusting in your process of salvation to save your soul then you are presently damned and you abide under the wrath of God. If you’re not trusting in a process of salvation then you shouldn’t claim that you are, and then turn around and say that you’re not. Please be consistent.
This is a very serious issue because by claiming that salvation is a process in which you are personally engaged you have articulated your adherence to a soul damning false gospel. There is a false repentance that is devoid of contrition and is in fact nothing but intellectual assent to the truth claims of Christianity and a prideful presumption upon God’s mercy. There is a show of pietistic, moralistic religion even among those who name the name of Christ, MANY of whom will one day hear terrifying words from Christ’s own lips when he casts them from His presence in divine judgment declaring: “Depart from me…I never knew you!”
In closing I couldn’t help but notice that you didn’t respond to any of my questions, so I’ll ask again:
What would happen to your eternal soul if God required it of you this very night?
Where are you right now in your personal process of salvation?
Are you ready to face your Maker?
Does God’s Spirit bear witness with your spirit that you are His child and joint-heir with Christ right now at this moment?
In Christ,
CD
Coram Deo,
Respectfully, I came came here to discuss infant baptism, not to debate whether or not I truly believe about salvation what I claim to believe. And certainly not to be told that I’m hell bound; I’ll leave that determination up to God, thank you.
I’ll try my best to articulate this as concisely as possible, and then hopefully we can get back on topic.
I believe–and the Bible agrees–that works are an important element in our salvation. NOT because we’re trying to earn our way out of hell or make up for something lacking in Christ’s work on the cross.
You define salvation as “a right standing before God” in which case, you’re right, no amount of works will accomplish that.
To me, salvation isn’t merely “a right standing.” It is being perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect. Not seeming perfect, or appearing perfect. But actually being perfect. Salvation isn’t God looking at us as if we were holy…it is us actually becoming holy.
“In this thread you are: A) Claiming to believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone – AND – you are:B) claiming to be engaged in a process of salvation.”
I apologize if I didn’t make myself clear before. I believe that Christ did all the work necessary for my salvation (Christ alone). My role in the process is to accept His free gift of salvation (faith alone). If you don’t think that takes any effort, then I applaud you because You are far holier than I. It requires, for me, daily, sometimes hourly repentance. It requires me to take up my cross, to deny myself, to walk in the light, to confess my sins, to obey His commands, etc… You get the idea. I cannot do any of that without God’s grace (grace alone).
“What would happen to your eternal soul if God required it of you this very night?”
I would prefer to avoid, as you put it, a prideful presumption upon God’s mercy.
“Where are you right now in your personal process of salvation?”
Only God knows. But I can tell you that if I begin to regard myself as anything other than a miserable sinner, then, you’re right, I am damned.
“Are you ready to face your Maker?”
No. I am terribly prideful, and sinful, and impatient, and unworthy. There is still far too much of my life that I have yet to hand over to God.
“Does God’s Spirit bear witness with your spirit that you are His child and joint-heir with Christ right now at this moment?”
I hope it does. I’m not sure I’m really the right person to make that assessment.
I’d like to suggest that you consider whether the following verses support the notion that our salvation requires no effort whatsoever on our part:
Mt 7.21-6; Mt 10.40-2; Mt 19.17; Mt 25.31-46; Lk 6.46; Jn 13.17; Rom 2.6-8, 13; 1 Cor 4:4; 1 Cor 9.27; Gal 5.6; Php 2.12-3; 1 Ti 5.8; Heb 10.26-8; Jas 2.14-26.
I would also be curious to hear your take on the use of the phrase “being saved” in 1 Cor 1.18 and 2 cor 2.15.
Thanks,
Matt
Actually, disregard that last sentence if you would. We can save that for another time.
Right now, I’m just interested in finishing up our discussion of infant baptism.
Thanks,
M
Matt,
Your answers worry me.
We are certainly miserable sinners as you point out. Every lie we’ve ever told, every penny we’ve ever stolen makes us worthy only of eternity in hell. But, Jesus either paid the price for our sins or He didn’t. We’re either born again and headed to heaven, or we’re dead in our sins and headed to hell. How long do you think it takes for God to make you born again? Do you think it takes weeks, months, years or just moments?
It’s not an admirable act of humility to doubt whether Jesus paid the price for your sins. It’s an act of blasphemy to doubt whether His blood is adequate payment for your past, present and future sins. Can He remove your transgressions as far as the east is from the west or not? The fact that you doubt your rebirth is not doubting yourself, but doubting God.
1 John 5:13 says, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.”
CD pointed out Romans 8:16, “The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.”
You responded that someone else should judge whether the Spirit bears witness with your spirit. That makes no sense. Others are good at judging your works, but they can be easily fooled. Your salvation is between you and God.
The verses on good deeds you point out show that true faith naturally produces good works. If you lack good works that’s one way to verify that you’re not truly born again.
If you don’t have complete assurance of your salvation, and you don’t know whether you have received the Holy Spirit as the deposit on your life and eternity, you probably haven’t. Stop whatever it is you’re doing and go to Him in humility and beg Him to save you. Beg Him for the faith you lack. Don’t stop until you’ve received complete faith in the finished work of Christ.
Thanks,
Bill
Bill,
Thanks for your input. I can see that we have gotten away from the original topic, and I have noticed myself having to answer the same charges over and over, so this will be my last reply to this thread until we can get back to infant baptism.
“How long do you think it takes for God to make you born again?”
It takes an instant. But that doesn’t make me sinless. I am still a sinner. I sin every day.
“It’s not an admirable act of humility to doubt whether Jesus paid the price for your sins. It’s an act of blasphemy to doubt whether His blood is adequate payment for your past, present and future sins.”
Bill, I do not doubt Christ and His work (nor did I ever say or suggest that I do). I doubt my ability to respond to it the way I ought.
“Can He remove your transgressions as far as the east is from the west or not?”
Yes. But I continue to sin. So, I need to continue to repent.
1 John 5:13 says, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.”
What “things” was St John writing about? Did he say that you can “know you have eternal life” if you have made an intellectual assent to the idea of Christ, or answered an altar call, or prayed the “sinner’s prayer” and then you’re locked in and there’s nothing you’ll ever need to do ever to keep youself from falling away? No. He tells us we need to…
Walk in the light (1.7),
Confess our sins (1.9),
Obey His commands (2.3; 3.24; 5.2,3),
Obey His word (2.5),
Walk as Jesus did (2.6),
Love our brother (2.10),
Don’t love the world or anything in it (2.15),
Do the will of God (2.17),
Continue in Him (2.28),
Do what is right (3.7),
Keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight (3.22),
Love one another (4.7),
Confess that Jesus is the Son of God (4.15),
Live in love (4.16),
Believe that Jesus is the Christ, Son of God (5.1,5,10)
Love God (5.2)
Know that He hears us (5.15),
Keep ourselves from idols (5.21)
That’s how we can “know” we have eternal life…by continued repentance, by running to obtain the prize (1 Cor 9.24-7).
“You responded that someone else should judge whether the Spirit bears witness with your spirit. That makes no sense. Others are good at judging your works, but they can be easily fooled. Your salvation is between you and God.”
I’d rather you not attribute to me things I did not say, Bill. Please read my comment again. I did not say someone else should judge me, only that I am not the right one to assess my progress toward Christlikeness. Only God can do that.
“The verses on good deeds you point out show that true faith naturally produces good works. If you lack good works that’s one way to verify that you’re not truly born again.”
While I certainly agree that lacking good works is a sign of deficient faith, perhaps you might reconsider how you read some of these verses:
Rom 2.13 “the doers of the law shall be [not "have been"] justified.”
1 Cor 9.27 “But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” Surely you wouldn’t accuse St Paul of doubting the adequacy of Christ’s sacrifice…
Php 2.12-3 “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Ditto
Heb 10.26-28 “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation.” Ditto
Jas 2.14-26 “…by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” It doesn’t get much clearer than that.
“If you don’t have complete assurance of your salvation…”
I do have complete assurance in Christ’s sacrifice…but not in my consistent and continued ability to receive and accept it as I should.
“Stop whatever it is you’re doing and go to Him in humility and beg Him to save you…”
I do every day.
Matt
Matt,
It appears you agree that there’s nothing you can do to earn your salvation. However, it seems you believe that there’s something you can do to keep your salvation. Am I incorrect?
God doesn’t need a Christian’s money, repentance, humility, good attitude, or any other kind of service. We get to serve Him out of gratitude. If we’re serving Him to prove ourselves worthy, or keep our salvation, that’s a sin, and you don’t understand the gospel.
You said, “I do have complete assurance in Christ’s sacrifice…but not in my consistent and continued ability to receive and accept it as I should.” You don’t really trust Christ’s sacrifice. Did He save you or didn’t He? Is He capable of saving you or not? Do you think you’re just too sinful for Him to save?
Jesus is capable of making you born again. You can know for certain whether you are going to heaven. Yes, you’re a sinner who can’t make himself born again. It’s God that makes you born again, and you have NOTHING to do with it. You’re still trusting in your own ability to do something, even if it’s just humbly accepting a gift. That is a sin, and you need to ask God to save you.
Just for my own interest sake, what kind of church do you go to? Are your beliefs representative of your church’s teaching, or have you come to believe these things on your own?
Thanks,
Bill
Matt,
This is going to sound very harsh, and there’s no doubt that you’re going to think that I’m attacking you, but I’m not. This being said I want to tell you the truth in no uncertain terms. I’m not interested in arguing about the color of the tapestries with a man who’s stubbornly camped out in a burning house, and I’m not going to play word games about paedobaptism with someone who claims to be in the “process of salvation”. Please understand – I want to say this as plainly as possible – based upon your comments here you are deceived, and you’re under deception, and you’ve embraced a soul-damning false gospel! The gravity of this matter cannot be overstated.
Those aren’t my words, they’re the words of the inspired Apostle Paul to ALL those who have trusted in ANOTHER GOSPEL, which you personally claim to have done (i.e. “process of salvation”). I don’t know how to make it any plainer to you – only God can open your eyes, I can’t.
Please, please go and sit down with your Bible and pray fervently that God would open your eyes to His glorious Eternal Gospel of Grace, and then carefully and prayerfully read the book of Galatians. I’m recommending Galatians in particular in your case because your religion – as you’ve described it – is exactly the same religion as that which was taught by the Judaizers: a religion of fleshy, grace-nullifying works righteousness. Of course you’re not calling for people to be circumcised and keep the Jewish ceremonial laws, but your error is precisely the same as theirs because by your own admission you are adding works to grace, which thing is anathema. I’d also highly recommend that you read this piece by John MacArthur entitled Complete In Christ.
Your false epistemic humility (e.g. “I do have complete assurance in Christ’s sacrifice…but not in my consistent and continued ability to receive and accept it as I should.”) is an abomination to God, Matt. Why are you so focused upon yourself? Why are you measuring upon yourself and what you do, or don’t do for Christ? What in the world are you even talking about here? It’s not about you, Matt.
It’s about Christ.
It’s about what Christ accomplished on that cross.
It’s about Him.
You’re like starving man, sitting at a banquet table filled with all manner of goodly food and drink and whining and dissembling and wringing your hands about how much you doubt in your ability to partake of the bounty set before you! Do you think that type of absurd and nonsensical behavior would honor the host of the banquet? How much less it honors God! In fact how much it dishonors Him and His perfect once and for all sacrifice!! You insult Christ with this type of insipid and ungodly drivel! Begone with such haughty, spiritual-sounding religious hypocrisy! This type of false “humility” is simply a thinly disguised form of unapplauded religious pride, and it’s demonic.
Based upon your comments here it’s more than obvious that you are a self-righteous, religious moralist, which is perhaps the very worst kind of hypocrite, and is representative of the type of person for whom the Lord of Glory reserved His sternest rebukes. Please, please, please flee from your false religion of self-righteousness! You claim faith in Christ, just as the Judaizers did, you claim grace, just as the Judaizers did, you claim salvation is a gift, just as the Judaizers did, and just like the Judaizers you add one itsy-bitsy, teensy-weensy, little bit of “and” into the mix and utterly corrupt the Eternal Gospel of Grace, heaping condemnation upon yourself.
Justification isn’t faith “and”, nor is it of faith “plus” anything, it’s faith alone and it’s a once and for all declaration not only of “not guilty”, not only of “forgiven”, but of “perfectly righteous in Christ”. Christ already finished the race, Matt, there’s nothing left for you to add to His finished cross-work, and your puny efforts to do so are excruciatingly blasphemous. “Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:3). Are you a fool, Matt?
Again, the root of your error is the fact that you are guilty of conflating justification and sanctification, just like the Romish whore. Please repent of your self-righteousness; please flee to Christ and look to Him alone Who is able to save your soul to the uttermost.
FAITH is the only instrument of justification. If you’re relying upon or trusting in any other instrument other than faith alone for your justification before the One True and Living God, the Infinite Creator and Judge of the universe, then you’ve believed another gospel and you are presently condemned and are spiritually dead in your trespasses and sin.
I’m praying for you.
In Him,
CD
Bill,
“Just for my own interest sake, what kind of church do you go to? Are your beliefs representative of your church’s teaching, or have you come to believe these things on your own?”
I confess the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints, Bill. Not a “Romish” distortion of the Faith, and certainly not a Protestant abomination disguised as a “reformation” of the “Romish” faith. I confess the Faith of the Apostles, and of Sts Ireneus and Polycarp, and Ignatius and Athanatius, and of Maximus the Confessor and Basil the Great and John Chrysostom and the Desert Fathers; I confess the Faith of the martyrs who suffered under Roman and Communist persecution and of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
I worship within the Church, the Body of Christ, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Fullness of Him Who fulfills everything in every way, which has preserved and taught and lived the Ancient Faith, undistorted, undiminished, undefiled for two millennia and counting: the Holy Orthodox Church.
Coram Deo,
Thank you, you’ve told me several times that I am going to hell; you need not tell me again. You may rest easy knowing that you have done your part and may now leave me and the salvation of my soul to the mercy of God.
I will read John MacArthur’s article, but if he mangles and misquotes Scriptures the way he did in the sermon above, I’ll stop reading.
May I suggest something for you to read also? It’s called “The Ascetic Ideal and the New Testament.” (You can find several other worthwhile articles here.)
Thank you all, this has been fun. But, as I said before, I came here to discuss infant baptism, not to be told over and over that I’m damned to hell. So I will leave you (again) with my five propositions. Unless it’s in direct reference to the subject of infant baptism, you won’t be hearing from me again on this thread.
Forgive me,
Matt
1) If “congregation”/”church” in 1 Corinthians must include women, then “household” in Acts, at the very least might include infants,
2) If the “regulative principle” doesn’t apply to women receiving Communion, then it shouldn’t apply to infant baptism either,
3) Churches baptising infants is not any more problematic than churches allowing anyone and everyone off the street to receive Communion, willy-nilly, without any hesitation whatsoever,
4) There is nothing in Scripture, or in the Patristic writings, or in any of the Ecumenical Councils that states that baptism is merely a symbol and nothing more,
5) There is, however, evidence to the contrary
Matt,
I read through the tragic and deluded article that you linked above. If you really believe the sort of nonsense contained in that article, then it’s very easy to see why you are so manifestly confused. Your satanically energized false religion denies the Biblical teaching of Sola Fide, it rejects the full inspiration of scripture (the article actually claimed Paul was guilty of “imprecision of language” in his epistle to the churches in Galatia – even though he was writing the perfect Word of God under inspiration of the Holy Spirit! Amazing!), and it embraces the cowardly spiritual escapism and inherent mysticism of ascetic monasticism, and finally it is guilty of conflating justification and sanctification into a synergistic soul-damning false gospel which thing is anathema.
By all appearances your faith tradition is a horrid fleshy milieu of gnostic, legalistic, Mystery Babylon, works-righteousness religious bondage to which you are helplessly enslaved, being without Christ and without hope. It stands shoulder to shoulder with Rome, being guilty of all the same grievous doctrinal errors as the Great Whore herself, except for perhaps being innocent of some of her worst abuses, and short just one “Vicar of Christ”.
Please flee to Christ alone.
In Him,
CD
True Christianity is so difficult for the unregenerate person to comprehend. People are born with an innate understanding that there is a God, and that, because of the hidden wickedness of their own hearts, they are not righteous before this God. So far, so good. But here is where the problem appears. Unregenerate sinners are blind to spiritual truth. Therefore, they grope about in the dark, and come up with this plan: “I will do enough good things to make up for my bad things, and God will be pleased.”
This flies right in the face of God’s revealed truth, which is found in the pages of the Holy Bible, (Ephesians 2:9) but it makes a certain type of worldly, humanistic sense. After all, are not people supposed to do good things? The answer is that people are supposed to do good things, but not as a way to make God our debtor. Instead, God, in His grace and mercy, and for Christ’s sake (Ephesians 4:32), forgives us our sins when we trust in Him, and that motivates and empowers us to do good things.
“Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.” (Colossians 3:13) Notice what comes first in that verse. Christ forgives me first, then I am able to forgive others. Not the other way around: I do not earn Christ’s forgiveness by first forgiving others. The following verses shed even more light: “And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.” (Colossians 3:14) Charity (self-sacrificing, giving, Christian love) is first the act of God. And it is the bond of perfectness. We are to love others because Christ loved us first, and gave Himself for us. (Ephesians 5:20) Christ’s love is so perfect and its bond is so unbreakable that the natural result is for me to want to emulate it after I have experienced it. However, even when my love fails, Christ’s love is still effectual. For Christ to reject the regenerate would make His love less than perfect, and His bond weak and breakable. These things simply cannot be.
Well said, MA. Yet I’d ever so slightly modify your very first sentence and say “True Christianity is impossible for the unregenerate person to comprehend.” (1 Cor. 2:14)
Only the regenerate can receive the things of the Spirit, yet herein is the hope of the true and faithful believer, the real evangelical: the knowledge that those whom God has foreknown and predestined unto salvation will infallibly come to saving faith in Christ by the hearing of the Eternal Gospel of Grace!
Salvation is of the Lord!
Our God is amazing!
It is for this hope we labor, knowing our labor is not in vain; fighting as if everything depended on us, yet knowing all the while that the battle is the Lord’s, and everything depends on Him whose Name is Faithful and True. Amazing grace!
In Christ,
CD
It is abundantly clear to me that you have all run out of plausible arguments (if indeed there ever were any to begin with) to defend your opposition to paedobaptism. So, I have decided to change my mind and engage this new topic of conversation.
Coram Deo,
If your oppostion to the Orthodox Faith were the result of studied research and investigation, then I might be inclined to take your warnings and threats–and anathemas(!!!)–a bit more seriously. But it really could not be more obvious to me by your comments that you know nothing about Orthodox Christianity.
Not that I blame you. Most Protestants don’t. Most Protestants–including you, apparently–think that there are two, and only two, possible options within Christianity: the “Romish” faith, and the Protestant alternative.
In other words, our only choices as Christians are
a) the semi-Pelagian, works-righteousness theology of Rome, or
b) the fatalistic, Calvinist determinism embraced to one degree or another by all Protestants.
a) the authoritarian, dictatorial model of papal ecclesiology in which one man is the “vicar of Christ,” or
b) the subjective, relativistic, humanistic, rationalistic Protestant approach in which every man is his own pope.
a) a demanding slave-driver god, who requires that we accomplish the impossible task of working our way out of damnation, or
b) a cruel, arbitrary Orwellian god, who has created some people for the sole purpose of damning them to an eternity in hell.
Well, I am pleased to inform you, CD, that there is another option. A better option. The right option.
The Orthodox Faith is faith in the God of the Bible, the God Who is Love, Who desires that all men be saved and brought into union with Him through His Son, Jesus Christ, Who came to earth to reconcile, to bring all mankind back into communion with Him and to restore in mankind the likeness of God.
If that’s more than you can stomach, then good luck to you. You’ll be in my prayers. But when you deride and mock and slander the Church, you’re not insulting or discouraging me or my faith. You’re rejecting the very Body of Christ. When Christ said “he who rejects you, rejects Him Who sent Me,” was He speaking to Luther or Calvin? Was he speaking to Joseph Smith or Mary Baker Eddy? Was he speaking to you? Was he speaking to me? No! He was speaking to the Church. Not to any individual or any spin-off or splinter group, but to His Church. So I advise that you tread carefully when issuing “anathemas.”
I have a challenge for you, CD. Do some research and try to determine which church–the Orthodox Church or yours–most closely resembles the Church of the first century. Which one worships, believes, teaches, lives, and administers itself most like the early Church? Read the Early Church Fathers–Ignatius, Ireneus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr for starters–and see which church is more consistent with their witness.
I know many, many former Protestants (myself included) who have done just that and have come away with the shocking, even disturbing, realization that there is one Church that can clearly demonstrate continuity between its present self and the Church established at Pentecost, that can be shown to have steadfastly adhered to and taught the “faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), that consistently and accurately reflects the teaching of the Scriptures.
The truth, sir, is that every single Protestant attempt at Christianity exists for one reason and one reason only: because of someone’s opposition to Rome. The most vituperative and abusive language you can muster will never change that fact. If you would like to offer another plausible defense of your church’s existence other than as a reaction to Rome, then I’m all ears.
The Orthodox Church is not simply another denomination. It is not another attempt at opposing the pope. The Orthodox Church has for two thousand years been the “Pillar and Foundation” of the Christian Faith. All other Christian traditions try to trace their family tree back to the Apostles, but none of them—no, not even the Roman Catholic Church—can do so without grafting their branch onto the trunk of the Orthodox Church; it has never needed to be rescued or recovered; it never experienced a Reformation, or a counter-Reformation, or a restoration, or a revival; it is and has for twenty centuries been the living fulfillment of the continuing New Testament Church, the very “Body of Christ.” It is the very same Church described in the New Testament. It has preserved the Faith unchanged since Pentecost. That, sir, is a historical fact. If you choose to reject Christ’s Church, then that’s on you. But you cannot with any intellectual integrity argue that there is another church that has a better claim on being the historic, Apostolic Church of the New Testament.
Now, if you would like to engage in a scholarly discussion like grown-ups, CD, then I am more than willing to answer any questions you may have. But if you would rather go back and forth taking shots at each other like children, then I can do that, too. Your choice.
Matt
p.s. St Peter himself says that St Paul’s writings can be “hard to understand.” Would you like to accuse him also of the unthinkable crime of calling St Paul’s language “imprecise”? Look, nobody’s saying that Paul’s writings aren’t true or inspired, only that they can be easy to misread. If you would like to assert that the entire Bible is completely free of imprecise language, then I would like to know why there are thousands upon thousands of “Christian” demoninations out there that can’t seem to agree on what exactly it is that the Bible says.
Hello Matt,
I have much I could say about paedobaptism, but have not done so for a couple of reasons. 1) I have been quite busy with my work and my ministry. 2) More times than not, we have found that alot of people who come by do so with no intention of learning, but want another venue to air their beliefs. On the other hand, there are a few who want to know the truth and ask questions so that they might discern through the aid of the Holy Spirit what that truth is. I must admit that as I read your comments which of the two camps you are in – sadly, I believe it is towards the first.
On one last note for now, there are more than two options (or three as you state) in regards to churches. I hold to the historic baptistic doctrine of the Bible which can be traced and documented down throughout church history. I am NOT a Protestant, did not come out of Rome, and am certainly not a part of the Orthodox church which I have had ample opportunity to study. I am afraid that your facts are misleading at best. Hopefully more on that later as I have more free time.
The Desert Pastor
Hi,
I have been talking to a friend who says it is necessary to be baptized in order to be saved.. I don’t believe that and I also brought up the thief on the cross.. here is a link that he gave me: http://www.sjchurchofchrist.org/thief.shtml
But, I do have a question, if baptism isn’t necessary for salvation then why was Jesus baptized? Any why do so many scriptures indicate that in order to be saved you must repent and be baptized?
Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when He had been baptized, went up immediately out of the water. And lo, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting upon Him.
Mat 3:17 And lo, a voice from Heaven, saying, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Thank you,
Brad.
Brad,
Jesus didn’t need to be saved. He was sinless, and didn’t have any sins that needed to be forgiven. He was never dead in His sins, so He didn’t need to be born again as Jehovah’s Witnesses teach. He was baptized out of obedience and as an example to us. We should also be baptized out of obedience and gratitude–not to be saved.
In Acts 10:44-48, Peter gave Cornelius’ household the gospel, and they were born again, as was evident from their receiving the Holy Spirit. Only after that were they baptized.
In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul said he wasn’t sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. If baptism is necessary, wouldn’t he be remiss in not baptizing people?
All non-Christian religions teach that we can make up for our sins by performing good deeds. Catholics say you have to take communion. Mormons say you have to learn handshakes in the temple. All of that is bribery. No good deed makes up for sin.
We have an infinite debt to pay, and it’s impossible for us to pay it. It must be paid by God Himself. If we get baptized in order to have our sins forgiven, that’s bribery, and we’re trusting in our own good deeds rather than Jesus.
Thanks,
Bill
Matt,
To answer your question about women taking communion in relation to your use of 1st Corinthians 11, may I point you to 1st Corinthians 11:1-17. Paul spends a good length of time talking about how men AND WOMEN should act in the church. He then goes directly into talking about coming together for communion. He does not stop and say, “Now what I am about to say is only for you men.” He addresses these verses to men and women.
Verses 14-20–
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse. For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.
So we see here that Paul is talking about the WHOLE congregation–men AND WOMEN–and how they should act in the church, especially when they eat of the Lord’s Table.
Fourpointer,
There are really only so many times I can go over this, so I’m going to copy and paste a comment I made to Coram Deo over on this thread.
I’m afraid you’re missing my point, CD. I’m not suggesting that the validity of communion of women can’t be inferred from the context of Scripture. I believe it can.
What I am saying is that if you apply the “regulative principle” (which according to John MacArthur is “If Scripture doesn’t command it, it is forbidden.”) to infant baptism, then either you must apply it to everything including communion of women, or have the integrity to admit that you’re okay with applying the “regulative principle” to some things and not others. Or, option 3, you can show me where in Scripture communion of women is commanded; not implied, not suggested, but commanded.
If you can do one of those things, then I will leave you alone and never comment again on the “regulative principle.” Deal?
Matt,
Sure, if you can show me in Scripture where the Trinity is stated in no uncertain terms; not implied, not suggested, but stated explicitly. Of course I believe in the Tri-unity of God. Why? Because although there is no verse that clearly says, “God is a Trinity” or “Jesus is God,” there are many verses that clearly portray Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as being as much God as the Father.
So, leaving aside such things as Dr. MacArthur’s ideas about “regulative principle,” and any other extraneous issues, let us focus solely on the Scriptures. It is obvious from Paul’s words to the Corinthians that women were expected to take part in communion–go back and read THE WHOLE CHAPTER. I don’t know how much clearer Paul could have made it. When he writes about the Corinthians taking communion, it is addressed to the whole congregation–to men and women. You can’t simply take a few verses out, stick them in a box, and separate them from the rest of Scripture. The fact that women are expected to take communion is not “implied,” is not “inferred,” but is clear by Paul’s words, and is a principle that is exegeted (drawn out from) the Scripture.
By the same token, to say that the example of the Philippian jailer is “proof” that infants can and shoulkd be baptized is eisegeted (read into) the text that is not there.
Your constant twisting of and ignoring of the clear words of Scripture are not serving your case whatsoever. And it probably is a good idea that we end this conversation, because if you will not be convinced by the Scriptures, then nothing else will convince you.
As far as thinking you were Romish–sorry, but from your firm belief that baptism somehow “saves” infants, that being one of the foundational beliefs of Papists, it wasn’t much of a leap. It’s something one person does for another, the merit of which is transferred to the passive party. Much like Mormons who baptize for the dead, believing their “righteous act” is applied to the other person.
I’m not sure what trinitarian theology has to do with this.
Or why one of the arguments put forth by the author of a sermon posted twice on this blog is now suddenly an “extraneous” issue.
Oh, wait…yes I do. Because it can’t be defended.
Fourpointer, I read 1 Corinthians 11 again (and again), just to be sure that I’m not missing something, and I have to tell you, maybe I’m just not very smart, because I still don’t see where women are commanded to receive Communion. I do see where it says that a “man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup,” but I’m afraid I see nothing about women examining themselves, or even receiving Communion at all.
Look, I’m not trying to argue against communion of women. I’m only trying to demonstrate that the argument against infant baptism because “It’s not commanded in Scripture” is bogus.
If you would like to continue defending the belief that the Bible in no way even suggests that infants and young children should be brought into the saving life of the Church through baptism, please be my guest, but keep the following verses in mind:
“In him you were also circumcised…having been buried with [Christ] in baptism.” (Col 2.11–12)
“…baptism that now saves you” (1Pt 3.20-21)
“no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” (John 3.5)
“He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3.5)
“We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that…we too may live a new life.” (Rom 6.3-4)
“this promise is for you and your children” (Acts 2.39)
“To such as these belong the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt 19.14)
“You can’t simply take a few verses out, stick them in a box, and separate them from the rest of Scripture.”
I couldn’t agree more. That is exactly what you’re doing by insisting that infants have no part in the New Covenant, and should not be brought into the Church at the first opportunity.
I have not said that the example of the jailor is “proof” of anything. What I did say is that it is absurd to insist that “household” in the book of Acts cannot possibly include infants…especially when “household” elsewhere in the Bible included even servants and livestock. Are you really unwilling to accept that “household” might include infants?
I am not twisting or ignoring Scripture. What I am doing is accepting an interpretation of Scripture that has been handed down from the Apostles, and which differs quite a bit from yours.
I will be convinced by Scripture. What I will not be convinced by is your faulty interpretation of Scripture.
Here’s the bottom line, fourpointer. Christ established His Church for a reason. That reason is not so you can decide for yourself what is and is not acceptible doctrine and practice (Prov 12.15, 14.12). It is so that, through the Church, the Holy Spirit can reveal to us “all truth.” The Church, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has determined that infant baptism is an acceptible and necessary act. You can argue all you like about why you think the Church is wrong in this regard, but if you think that somehow the Holy Spirit has chosen to give you some sort of special revelation that He has not given to the Church, then I think you really should have your head examined. Honestly.
matt said: “Here’s the bottom line, fourpointer. Christ established His Church for a reason. That reason is not so you can decide for yourself what is and is not acceptible doctrine and practice (Prov 12.15, 14.12). It is so that, through the Church, the Holy Spirit can reveal to us “all truth.” The Church, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has determined that infant baptism is an acceptible and necessary act. You can argue all you like about why you think the Church is wrong in this regard, but if you think that somehow the Holy Spirit has chosen to give you some sort of special revelation that He has not given to the Church, then I think you really should have your head examined. Honestly.”
Please acquaint yourself with our Rules of Engagement, matt. Consider yourself duly warned.
Moving right along, your little “c” church (the EOC) isn’t “The Church” (the ekklesia, the called out ones, the Biblical Body and Bride of Christ, the TRUE CHURCH) as you erroneously claim. You’ve been sold a false bill of goods, you’ve been duped, you’ve been lied to, and you are perpetuating that lie here which thing shall not go unanswered.
The simple truth is that the EOC is a harlot false religious system, just like her harlot half-sister the RCC. Both are guilty of perverting and twisting the scriptures and attempting to usurp the authority of God’s Holy Word by subordinating it and elevating their own vain traditions of men above – or else at a minimum equating them to – the authority of the Holy Writ. Both of these false harlot churches (the EOC and RCC) are corrupted and both teach gross, soul-damning error even as both arrogantly and deceitfully claim to be the “True Church” with “True Apostolic Succession” when the sad reality is that both these false religious systems are founded upon, and lead myriads of deceived souls unto, the very gates of hell itself.
I certainly believe that God Almighty can miraculously save the spiritually blinded adherents of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, just like he can save Muslims, Buddhists, animists, atheists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and everything in between, but in each case His miraculous gift of salvation will come despite the teachings of the aforementioned false religious systems, not because of them.
I’m praying to my Father in heaven that he might supernaturally open your eyes, matt and that by His power alone He would replace your heart of stone with a heart of flesh in order that you would turn away from your false religion of self-righteousness, and turn unto a simple and living faith, trusting in Christ’s finished cross-work alone.
In Christ,
CD
CD,
Thank you for the warning, but I really didn’t say that to be mean or ugly; I truly do think that fourpointer, and anyone else who honestly believes that his personal interpretation of Scripture is superior to two thousand years worth of scholars and theologians, really does need to have his head (and his heart) examined.
As for the rest of your comment, please refer to my latest comment(s) on the other anti-Church thread on this blog.
All the best.
Matt
Acts 16:34 (NASB)–And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.
So, am I to understand that the whole household believed–including the infants and livestock? How exactly does an infant believe? If indeed the whole household–infants included–were baptized, then we must also determine that the whole household–infants included—believed.
As far as anyone else who honestly believes that his personal interpretation of Scripture is superior to two thousand years worth of scholars and theologians, really does need to have his head (and his heart) examined. I like how you say you don’t call people names, then tell us we need to have our head examined. Way to be consistent. I know that many have taken this position over the years (including Calvin and Luther), and just as many have taken the opposite stance. What I’m wondering is when did the writings of men become equivalent to Scripture? And are you saying that men can’t be wrong?
Now, as far as wondering “where Trinitarian theology comes into it.” You asked for ONE PLACE where women are to be COMMANDED to be offered communion–for which I gave you a clear exegesis of the passage in 1st Corinthian 11, which you have decided isn’t good enough to fit your theology (then you would have US get our head examined). Yet, there is not ONE PLACE that wraps up the Trinity in a big, shiny bow. I gave that example in response to your challenge to “show me where in Scripture communion of women is commanded; not implied, not suggested, but commanded.” In other words, Matt, show me where in Scripture the Trinity is EXPLICITLY stated–not implied, not suggested, but explicitly stated. Yet you and I would both agree that the Trinity does exist. True?
A clear, unbiased reading of 1st Corinthians 11 would show one that women are to be offered Communion. Unless you honestly believe that your personal interpretation of Scripture is superior to two thousand years worth of scholars and theologians. And because you would deny women receiving Communion, you have also shown us that we don’t need to forgive women who trespass against us. Matthew 6:14—For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
Women are not justified by faith. Romans 3:28—Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
Christ’s righteous act did not apply to women. Romans 5:18—even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
We don’t have to live peaceably with women. Romans 12:18—as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.
If someone prophesies, they do not edify women. 1st Corinthians 14:3—But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men.
The grace of God has not appeared to women. Titus 2:13—For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.
Now, if that infant is “saved” because they were baptized, then they grow up and lead life that is heathen and ungodly, are they then “lost”? If so, then Christ is made a liar. John 10:26—And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. Paul is also made a liar. Romans 8:39—[No] created thing shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Unless you believe that the baptized infant is forever saved, and can live in any manner of life they want.
And what does that say about Romans 10:9-10—if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. How does an infant make that confession unto salvation?
I belong to an Anglican denomination. I believe in Padeobaptism, not because it saves the infant who is baptized, but I believe it brings them into the covenant God has given to his people.
This is not unknown in the Bible, since an alien could live amongst the Hebrews and still benefit from the covenant blessings, at least according to the Pentateuch.
In Corinthians Paul writes that an unsaved spouse is sanctified through the union with their saved spouse. This is another example of someone living under the promises of God.
This will probably be the last post I leave here, since I’m seeing alot of superiority ideas, and “my faith is stronger/better than yours” which should not exist in the Church. If you follow the same God, the same Christ, then stop the senseless bickering.
Abbie,
If you have the true gospel, I would agree that infant baptism isn’t something to bicker over, although it is an interesting discussion. However, Matt (in the above comments) shows that he has a false gospel–a gospel of works. If the truth of the gospel isn’t something worth bickering over, I don’t know what is.
Thanks,
Bill
Some of these comments are just as Romish as paedobaptism. They need to go on and on and on for volumes until you go “ok infant baptism is true if someone went through all this trouble to write a 5000 page book about it” Presbyterians and Papists are alike like that.
I Got more out of the comments, then the article it self! I was wondering how to deal with passages that the RCC use for infant baptism and I feel very equip now.
A lot of times RCC would use the church fathers and the apostolic fathers to prove infant baptism is a biblical practice but what they fail to understanding Because a practice could be trace back little bit after the apostles times, does not make it biblical.
John and paul fought against Gnostic, which is Hersary and these people who first started to spread this ” new mystic jesus” probably heard and some contact with the apostles, so because we can trace back Gnostic back to the apostle age, should we say see! We can trace it back to the apostles so it haves to be biblical?
How do we decide what is biblical? By testing it with the word.