MacArthur vs Sproul Baptism Debate

[BBAS 64]

MacArthur vs Sproul Baptism Debate


If You have not heard or seen it…..

 

[bling]

What I would add to MacArthur side is: If Christian Baptism replace circumcision then what replaced John's baptism? John was baptizing circumzied Jews, so John was not replacing circumcision, but Christian baptism did replace John's baptism.
All the males in the promised land were to be circumcised no matter what faith they had. A young man could see each day he was set apart by just looking down, but if a baby is baptized how can he be sure he was baptized?
Infant baptism does nothing for the salvation of the baby as it grows older (it does not mean they are saved), but even though adult baptism does not save the person it does provide a physical outward real experience to what is going on inwardly (spiritually).

 

[fhansen]

MacArthur vs Sproul Baptism Debate


If You have not heard or seen it…..

First the host remarks that the topic of baptism is highly controversial. But in the ancient churches there’s never been any controversy over such basic teachings as these, which have been agreed upon since day one. Then MacArthur goes on to say that he supports believer’s baptism going by scripture, since he rejects anything akin to tradition or a historical Christian legacy to begin with (even though the NT canon, itself, is part of that legacy), but not infant baptism. It’s obviously all primarily guess-work!-as if Scriptural exegesis is all our faith is based on, reducing it to nothing much more than, ‘I think my exegesis is better than yours!’ Huge quantities of confusion and ignorance result which he demonstrates unashamedly as he pontificates on and on with his bible-based ”knowledge”.

Then Mr Sproul comes on and praises John for his unwaveringly strong adherence to the doctrine of Sola Scripture while then proceeding to disagree with him completely on the topic debated…based solely on Scripture. The irony is fairly humorous. Mr. Sproul also states with admiration the fact that such is the strength of Mr MacArthur’s faith in Sola Scriptura that he knows John would change his view in a moment if someone could convince him by Scripture that the opposite view from his own is right. So the faith, again, would then hinge on my being convinced of one plausible view over another apparently somewhat less plausible view. Wow! Such a strong and solid foundation for one's POV regarding God’s will! Sorry, couldn’t help the sarcasm. Funny guys though, smart, confident- and kinda funny in their own way.

 

[Butterball1]

The irony of this debate is BOTH are wrong about water baptism and truth about baptism cannot be found from this debate.

 

[BobRyan]

MacArthur vs Sproul Baptism Debate


If You have not heard or seen it…..

Thanks for sharing this. These are two people I really enjoy listening to -

Eight times out of ten I agree with Sproul's sermons - but on this topic I start out on MacArthur's side of the debate. The Bible provides no support for infant baptism and both MacArthur and Sproul agree that there is no command in the Bible for infant baptism, nor is there any description of infant baptism in either OT or NT. Interesting that they both agree on that point.

However - I think it is instructive the way Sproul starts his case by admitting two key things.
1. There is no Bible instruction calling for infant baptism.
2. His entire case from the Bible - is only from "inference" not from direct command in scripture

He adds to it the idea that "the Bible has no command against infant baptism" - but that would be like saying "the Bible has no command against drawing with crayons all over the Ark of the Covenant" which while technically "true" does not fit the treatment due to a sanctified, set apart thing made Holy by the Word of God.

Sproul first debate point talks about whether one can equate circumcision (in the OT) to baptism in the NT - with the hope that since circumcision applied to infants then by extension so would baptism apply to infants in the NT.

1. But there is no "repent and be circumcised" command to infants in the OT. If they had to first repent they could never have been circumcised even in the OT.
2. There is no "corresponding to that - circumcision now saves you ... which is an appeal to God for a clean conscience" in the OT
3. There no "teach them - then circumcise them" command for infants in the OT
4. And it only applied to males in the OT
5. What is more as we see in Acts 21 - the Jewish Christians were still being circumcised EVEN though they were also engaging in baptism. They did BOTH - before and after the cross. One did not replace the other.

What I would add to MacArthur side is: If Christian Baptism replace circumcision then what replaced John's baptism?

In fact why were they being baptized at all by John if they had already been circumcised? Clearly there was no concept by those who practiced it - that baptism and circumcision were the same equivalent by-faith statement.

Sproul makes the argument that baptism is the sign of the New Covenant -
1. The New Covenant is in Jer 31:31-34 - there was no baptism
2. The New Covenant was the "one Gospel" Gal 1:6-9 in the OT by which Moses and Elijah stand with Christ in glory - in Matt 17... neither one of them were ever baptized.

Sproul makes the argument that circumcision was a sign of the Old Covenant made with Abraham
1. No Bible text in NT or OT says the Old Covenant was made with Abraham.
2. The term Old Covenant is only found in the New Testament and only applies to Sinai Covenant. Not to Abraham.
3. Jesus said "Abraham saw my day and was glad" and Gal 3:8 says "the Gospel was preached to Abraham"

Sproul argues that "circumcision signified faith" -
1. Whose faith?? - not the faith of the infant that is for sure.
2. Apart from faith - is there salvation? "by grace are you saved apart from faith"? No such text.
3. Sproul argues for "justification by faith alone" in the OT 1:10:00 which is true - but never shows an infant capable of that "by faith alone" appeal for justification.
4. At 1:12:50 Sproul says Abraham is circumcised after faith, belief, repentance not before.. Which is a huge problem for infants and also is a problem for Sarah if that were the only way to enter Covenant relationship - it would only be valid for believers.

Sproul argues that "God not only permits but explicitly commands that the infant son of Abraham be circumcised"
1. God not only permits the continuation of baptism beyond the cross - but commands it... Repent and be baptized.
2. In the OT the command for infants was not "repent and be circumcised"
3. Joining as a member of a nation group is fully qualified by virtue of birth alone. Joining as a member of the body of Christ - by faith alone needs more than biological birth as Christ said in John 3.