I was baptized at age 14, but only got saved this year being 23. I had no clue as to what Christianity was other than going to church and doing good things. I didn't know Christ on a personal level apart from the stories I heard, but had no clue about the spiritual meanings. I thank God for my life. I've benefited much from Mr MacArthur, Mr Sproul, Mr Washer, Mr Voddie and many others of their substance. Much love from Africa
I feel sorry for people who become Christians, would like to be baptised and are not permitted to do so by C of E as they are already ‘christened’ They are offered ‘confirmation’ instead which is not in the bible
I was in a similar position, being dunked and soaked early on. As since there was no repentance, since I didn’t even know what that means. At 46 I recognized that I wasn’t baptized and should be, I struggled with this, but after lots of prayer and studying .
I love both of these men. I look to them both for guidance in my walk with God. My only wish is that I could have met R.C before he left this earth. I hope to meet Dr. MacArthur someday.
Christ is the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). In the Old testament typology, the blood was painted upon the doorposts of each each Israelite household (Exodus 12:11) And the blood was also placed in water and sprinkled upon the people (Numbers 19, Leviticus 14). And this typified the blood of Christ. And if you had understood the type you would have known the meaning of the prophecy also : "In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness. " Zechariah 13:1 and fulfilled in Acts 22:16 "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." "This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that bears witness, because the Spirit is truth." (1 John 5:6)
I love and respect both of these men, and they have both contributed greatly to my spiritual growth, my Biblical convictions, love for truth, and my preaching and teaching. That said, MacArthur, in my opinion, clearly gave the best, most cogent, most fluid presentation. Sproul was grasping for ways to tie together that which is strictly, and erroneously, 'implicit' in the Scriptures with regard to infant baptism. Jesus said, "Go, therefore, and make disciples ... baptizing them ...". An infant, or even a toddler cannot understand and embrace the truth of the Gospel to become a true disciple, which is necessary for salvation. No person reading through the Bible would come up with infant baptism on their own. It is a 'forced' practice left over from the RC church which we know has led so many astray through the centuries.
I agree with you, pscassidyoahu. I have been helped by the teaching of both John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul. I have been able to learn more about doctrine from both those men. I don't always agree 100% with everything they may say at times, but that is where we as Christian's have to read our Bible's and seek the Lord to guide us and teach us through the Scriptures by the help of the Holy Spirit. John MacArthur, in my opinion, definitely takes the right stance about infant baptism. I have found nowhere in Scripture to make room for or allow infant baptism. I believe the Word of God lays out the proper sequence, so to speak, Repentance of sin, Faith alone in Christ, and then Baptism upon a profession of faith in Christ.
@@brockmitchell3989I'm not sure any Xtian could say definitely circumcision didn't include faith because God isn't explicit. John admitted circumcision was the sign of the old covenant. How is faith not part of the old covenant? Therefore, circumcision includes faith
@@micahmatthew7104 these 2 gentlemen are talking with respect to eachother and you have to react in this way? I don't gree with John either, but there's no need to talk like that because he has a different view than you
John MacArthur's presentation was full of quoting the Scriptures, straightforward and clear. I love RC Sproul, and though he is with the Lord now, his presentation was strained, confusing, and chaotic because there is zero Scriptural support for infant baptism. Baptism is a symbol of being buried in death with Christ, and raised from the dead with Christ. It is meant to be a testimony of a new believer signifying his or her agreement with this important truth. It is also the first command given by God, thus an opportunity to show the world who we acknowledge as Lord.
@DTuck, Not really. Paul never described baptism as a symbol thereof. It's only commentators who insert that in Romans 6:3-4. The idea of baptism having a symbolic purpose has no Biblical support. Paul said Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. He did not say I am symbolically crucified with Christ, he said I am crucified with Christ. And he also said baptism is where one is crucified with Christ Romans 6:4-6 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. [5] For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: [6] Knowing this, THAT OUR OLD MAN IS CRUCIFIED WITH HIM, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. There is also no support that Baptim's purpose is meant to be a testimony of a new believer or to show the world who we acknowledge as Lord. That is also inserted into the Bible as there is no such Biblical language. Acts 9:18-21 the world found out who Paul acknowledged as Lord through his preaching, not his baptism.
@@Rejoran Interesting perspective, and yet it requires a leap of logic to arrive there from what I can see. There is only a spiritual component to being crucified with Christ as no one, including Paul, was literally crucified in that instance. Christ literally died and was placed in the tomb. When we are baptized, the same thing does not happen to us. Sometimes we simply need to work off the wisdom that God imparts us.
@@dtuck3407 I agree with you that he was and we are crucified with Christ spiritually. If one believes the baptism referred to in Romans 6:3-4 is baptism in water, then the rest of what happens in baptism in water in verses 5-7 is unavoidable. Do you know of a scripturally viable alternative purpose for believer's baptism in Jesus name?
Baptism is a sign of a work of God (regeneration) not a work of man (profession of faith). This being the case, there is no obstacle in principle to its application to infant humans who while passive are nevertheless capable of receiving God's grace and salvation. As for Bible support for it, there are multiple lines of evidence converging on the same conclusion. If you read Charles Spurgeon's commentary on Psalm 84:3 you may be astonished to see how with his expository hat on top of and covering his antipedobaptist one, he actually ends up making a de facto pedobaptist statement of children's church membership which effectively means game over for this whole discussion.
@@Shikuesi Them's a lot of fancified words to essentially say, "It's not in the Scriptures, but we do whatever contortions are necessary to support this unbiblical practice." We are capable of receiving God's grace at whatever age He chooses to impart it, it is something only God can give, and by definition is given without a single work being done by us. Are you saying that babies cannot receive God's grace APART from this unbiblical practice? So, while citing the excellent Spurgeon as being the 'be all to end all' for this discussion, that is merely an arrogant assertion on your part, and one I wonder if Spurgeon would have made himself in like manner. The difference betweem Sproul and MacArthur is the same in essence as yours and mine- Sproul ran to and fro over the entire countryside to achieve only this- in his ***opinion*** infant baptism can be made to resemble circumcision, whereas MacArthur took the text at face value. I am not emotionally invested in this argument, so I am not meaning to be on the attack, but I know how often the written word of us fallible humans can be misunderstood. I would wish grace to you, but I don't want to force you to have to do a work to receive it . . . ; )
This was just excellent and if anything should be proof that both sides of the debate take it seriously and should not divide God’s church. May this lead to more tolerance and respect on both sides.
It is heart warming to hear two very well respected brothers in Christ agree to disagree. It reminded me of scripture when Paul and Bernabas agreed to go their separate ways in peace. God bless these men!
@Bennett McCoy Scripture alone and Faith alone, where does he deny it? The five sola teachings come from Protestant Reformation. Give me a specific doctrine he teaches that is not Sola based.
I have to agree with John on this one , I was baptized at 8 yrs old and don't even remember being 8 yrs old. Then came back at 22 yrs old to fix what my parents had tried ❤ Amen 1:21:43
This implies that baptism is about YOU. About what YOU do. There is a work going on, but not by YOU. The Lord reaches down with his grace to save YOU in the waters of baptism. It has nothing to do with your ability to think at a certain age. It’s HIS gift, not your work
Thanks to both of these godly men for taking time to expound this issue. I must say John MacArthur offered consistent biblical text to support his position, while R.C. Sproul attempted to bridge Old and New. Paul's ministry to Gentile believers would necessitate clear teaching on this regarding their children because it would not have been assumed. John, continue to stand firm on Scripture!
Wow blown away by MacArthur's argument! It really solidified my conviction that only believer's baptism is biblical, and certainly the only consistent view if you hold to the regulative principle. Love both these brothers.
I thank God for using these men in my generation to help spread the truth and help guide me in my walk. God bless you pastor MacArthur and may God watch over pastor Sproul. Thank you both for your faithfulness.
I went to a cruise several years ago. It was sponsored by Dr James Kennedy. He was ill and died at the time. He was replaced with Dr. Sproul and debated the issue of infant baptism. He was persuasive but we have to follow Scripture
@@davidbarnes5280 Annnnd what church would that be? The one that confesses sins and claims Jesus is Lord because of you have faith and do that then hate to break it to you, they are both part of the church of Christ. but if you mean needless modifiers to deny someone's Christianity for whatever reason then that puts you as the judge and that's only reserved for God. No one can ever fully know if someone is saved or not and both of them have done a huge net positive for the Christian world regardless of your opinion. It's not healthy to walk around and be a gatekeeper it's your job to ensure that the people you hate are given the gospel. Calm down, it's not that deep. RC Sproul and John M are fine. Thank God none of us are God but God.
What made this two a brothers? They both aiming for truths, they see the best in each other not the part that they won't agree with each other! My respect for them.
I admire those that control themselves when discussing conflicting opinions. I can disagree and still love the person that I disagree with..... sometimes I have a problem with getting heated. I don’t know if I get frustrated or just never learned how to stay calm when it’s something I am passionate about. Anyway confess your faults to one another right....I’m willing to learn, listen, humble myself to gain those good things from the Lord.
This is an amazing example of how tradition alongside with the degree from philosophy on R.C's part blinds otherwise incredibly insightful and bright man. I have heard many of his sermons but I have never heard him using so much of speculative approach as well as philosophy as in this one. John was like a machine gun with his direct Scriptural quotations and their impact on this matter as well as pre-answering those sinking straws that R.C. would try to get hold off. John won this debate not because he is smarter not at all. He won it because he spoke the biblical truth on the matter. I love both of these men and they have beem amazing blessing in my wall with the Lord. They showed us, how we should lovingly approach one another even when we disagree. We've got lot to learn from those humble servants. We all do... Praise the Lord
This debate helped me better understand why many who believe Reform doctrines hold to infant baptism. I love R.C. Sproul and really wondered why he would believe in infant baptism...and it was good to understand it from his perspective. The "setting apart" of the child does not guarantee that the child will be saved, and Dr. Sproul admits this saying that just as outward circumcision of Jewish boys did not guarantee their being right with God (i.e. Jesus words to the Pharisees), so this outward expression of a covenant position does not guarantee the inward truth of any individual, that is still left with the Lord. Great discussion, and I agree with both of them regarding what was said about it...because both supported how they approach this matter with what the Bible says and what it doesn't say. Love them both, great men of God.
I am certainly not, and never will be, in the ranks of theological knowledge these two men are in. But I noticed Dr. Sproul said there was no explicit statement in the NT prohibiting infant baptism. What about when the Ethiopian asked Philip, "Here is water. What doth hinder me to be baptized?"...Philip's response was, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest". Babies don't believe. Sounds like an explicit qualification to me.
Yep . Researched it and it appears you are correct in 2 of the 4 formal equivalencies. Still, water baptism must be a sign of something that has (past tense) taken place in our life and a way of identifying with Christ.
Exactly. Babies have no way of "believing" ANYTHING! They aren't even potty-trained yet, much less have decided to turn from sin to faith in Christ. To THEM, baptism is merely a bath (and a cold one at that).
I have a very disturbing picture of Sproul actually hailing Satan (the devil's hand sign) during a sermon. I would appreciate an answer from him as to what that hand gesture means to him. I attended a Conservative Baptist church, and at the end of the sermon, that pastor closed his eyes and held out his hand in front of him, making the devil's horn hand sign, as he said, "The sign of the times." I asked him after the sermon why he did that (Jesus said, "If someone offends you, go to him and tell him." This pastor stared at me blankly without answering. So the next week I brought several pictures of many unsavory characters hailing Satan in that manner, such as Anton la Vey at a Satanic altar, and Charles Darwin, and stars at the 2014 Grammy's, who donned devil's horns as they held up their hands in the Satanic salute. Instead of showing any remorse or contrition, the pastor blew up at me and ordered me not to spread it around. I immediately left, and now, because of the truly ungodly experiences I have had in Baptist churches, will not even give any of these false teachers a greeting, "for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works" (2 John 1:10).
I would still give anything to ask him what the Satanic salute (or devil's horns hand sign) means to him. Some people have tried to tell me it means "I love you" in sign language, and that's true. However the problem is that sign language was invented by Helen Keller, who was a Theosophist and occultist (Satan loves nothing better than hiding in plain sight).
After the Lord saved me He led me to join an old-fashioned Missionary Baptist Church, which, like just about all Baptist churches, rejected infant baptism. Although I agree with John MacArthur on this issue, I must say that RC Sproul provided the best case for infant baptism I have ever heard or read. Both men did a great job presenting their case.
@@lewisdavis6357 Hi Lewis. Like most things, “old-fashioned” probably means different things to different people. What churches like ours mean by that expression concerns the nature of salvation. We believe that salvation is an experience in which the Lord Himself, through the Holy Spirit, bears witness with our spirit that He has forgiven our sins and given us eternal life. We encourage all who follow after righteousness, they who seek the Lord, to repent towards God and seek His forgiveness until He Himself answers our prayer personally. Anything short of that is simply conjecture on the part of the sinner that they have thought the right thoughts, or said the right words, or done the right things, etc.. Put another way, they received honor from men rather than seeking that honor which cometh from God only. The Holy Ghost reproves us of sin, else we would never have desired or sought the Lord. He also reproves us of righteousness once He has imputed Christ’s righteousness to us.
@@lewisdavis6357 The gospel is pretty much defined in 1 Corinthians 15: 1-4: it is what Jesus did in order to reconcile us to God. My reply to you was more about what God requires of us. The latter obviously hangs upon the former, so I can see why one might call it the ‘gospel’. However, my experience is that when it comes to instructing sinners what they must do to be saved, I typically hear them taught to be baptized in water, or to repeat a ‘sinner’s prayer’, or to ‘trust in the accomplished works of Christ’, or ‘live a good life’, or some similar thing. I seldom hear it said ‘seek God in penitential prayer until He saves you’ or to ‘break up the fallow ground: for it is time to seek the Lord UNTIL HE COME AND RAIN RIGHTEOUSNESS UPON YOU”.
Just thought of something why should it matter if ‘Baptists’ reject infant baptism? The point is irrelevant because Baptists don’t believe that is the time and place of when one is saved and becomes a Christian. So I don’t get the beef.
Sproul introduced some thoughtful concepts to this debate for which I am grateful. I was intrigued to hear how he would counter MacArthur's cogent presentation. Thanks to both men for whom I have the very greatest respect.
"The Bible doesn't teach against infant baptism." It doesn't have to. It teaches over and over to "believe and be baptized." I think it's needless to say that it's for those who can confess faith. Let's have infants partake in communion as well. Lol. I'm with MacArthur for this one. Voddie Baucham also stands by credobaptism.
Babies are incapable of believing or making a confession of faith like the Ethiopian eunuch Acts 8:33--38. Deacon Phillip baptized him in Jesus name in a spring
@@davidortega357 David, I agree with you 💯. Babies are innocent, and know nothing of right verses wrong, good verses evil. Until you reach the age of accountability, you are innocent of sin. Babies obviously, are pure, and need not be baptized!
Circumcision was also to be done in faith when Abraham did it. They still circumcised babies though, a seal of the covenant that was for Abraham and his children. It’s not crazy to think that baptism within the new covenant is for believers and their children (Acts 2:39)
@@davidortega357 when someone is an adult a confession of faith is needed. In the old covenant if an adult wanted to join the Jewish community they would need to be circumsised only if they believed in the God of Abraham. But within the covenant, Abraham circumcised his children, because the promises of God were for him and his children.
@@alfiegalpinmusic hello brother… please read Colossians 2:11-14 where it speaks of the circumcision of the New Testament and baptism. If you notice in the text it also talks about faith and seems to me to affirm believers baptism.
+Ken B and I strongly suspect that you believed the same way before this video also. Sadly that is not an argument to diminish +Kat B position. As RC suggests (@1:00:45) we should all desire to be pleasing to God and faithful to the word of God despite our traditions.
I was making an observation and no intention was made to diminish anyone's position. I would say 99% of people who watch this video already know how they believe and are just looking to prove that they are right in their own mind. I would assume you are one of the 99% just like me. I watched the video to see if I might be wrong but neither speaker gave any more info than that which I already knew. I respect both of these men greatly and I actually like John's preaching more than RC. Actually I don't think I have ever heard RC preach.This is an argument that we will only know the answer when we get to heaven. But I am pretty certain that no will care! Now for you to judge me and say that I am diminishing someone's belief greatly saddens my heart and is a bit offensive. Read my comment and please tell me where I said Kat B was wrong or diminished her tradition of baptism.
There is no where in scripture that teaches a prohibition of infant baptism either. Jesus said let the little children come unto me for such is the kingdom of God. Case closed.
Well said John,You know,we both have Preached this exact same message,discourse from the age of 20,,, 45 years .and to this day,many refuse to come to it.Amazing,,,,
Believers baptism is based on scripture infant baptism is based on assumptions , insertions of the text , tradition , history , dancing all over the Bible
It depends on which wagon you ride, scripture speaks of circumscision, sprinkling, consecration , washing are all old testament precepts of the tabernacle, that find there equivalence and fullfilment in the new. The language of the early believers reflects this.
Amen, and thank you RC Sproul for pinpointing the truth on every level, of the word of God regarding infant baptism being "the visual sign of the spoken promise, unto the children who are made holy by the profession of faith in God by at least one parent.The promise of God to those who put their trust in Him." Only God knows the answer to this subject and we, as born again Christians have the Bible from which to learn. Not one of us can "prove" a thing, though on the subject of baptizm. However, I was baptized as an infant and as an adult God drew me to Himself through HIs Son Jesus Christ. The most important point to me is that God Himself knows who are His. God knew me before the foundation of the heavens and the earth, and He knows I am His. God was there when I was baptized, of that I am certain because I read the Bible and believe scripture. The word "holy" is not randomly used in the Bible. I have learned and enormous amout of scriptural theology from both MacArthur and Sproul ove rthe years, and respect them both highly. 1 Corinthians 7"14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
The Bible is very clear. There is no mention of infant babtism. Jesus died on a cross for our sins. Nothing we do can save us or our children. I have never seen a baby confess his sin. Nowhere is infant babtism mentioned. However it is mentioned that you should neither add or remove anything from Scripture, because it causes division. Not even Jesus when He quited Scripture added anything. Jesus was circumcised as a Jewish baby. Why do you think He let John babtize Him as a grown man? It was both as an example and in order to receive the Holy Spirit. Read John. The Bible is NOT written for Theologians or their opinions, but for simple people who beleive that the Bible is true. "... Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.” Mark 10:15 NKJV From Scripture: "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made WITHOUT HANDS by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, BURIED WITH Him in baptism, in which you also were raised (past continues tense) with Him through FAITH the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead (present tense) in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having WIPED OUT THE handwriting of REQUIREMENTS that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having NAILED IT TO THE CROSS" Colossians 2:11-14 NKJV bible.com/bible/114/col.2.11-14.NKJV "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but TEST the spirits, whether they are of God; because MANY false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that CONFESSES (a baby cannot confess) that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not CONFESS that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now ALREADY in the world. You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world." I John 4:1-4 NKJV bible.com/bible/114/1jn.4.1-4.NKJV "Flee also youthful lusts; but pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. But AVOID foolish and IGNORANT DISPUTES, knowing that they generate strife." II Timothy 2:22-23 NKJV bible.com/bible/114/2ti.2.22-23.NKJV Babies are saved through the grace of God who send Hos son to die on a cross for human sin. Nothing we can do can save us. Our confession of our sins and admitting that we can only be saved through the grace of God, then babtism IN water (not sprinkling). Then living as a new born Christian through the Holy Spirit which God will send, to guide you while you study the Bible.
I was baptized at the age of 21 in the name of Jesus Christ my Children when they came of age got baptized as I did my daughter at 12 my son at 11 they bother received the holy ghost and spoke in tongues to that's the way the church continues for the promise is unto you and to your children I raised my kids in the true church of Apostolic Oneness christian church
Sorry RC. You were just schooled in Scripture. How anyone could walk away from this debate thinking there is any validation for infant baptism is inconceivable to me. If you want to sprinkle your baby, go ahead, God doesnt forbid it. I just wont sprinkle mine because God never said to do it from Genesis to Revelation
Great debate with 2 equally valid points. A person can not be truly Biblicist and hold to all of Orthodox Christianity and it's foundational creeds without being in error.
This is one of the best debates I've heard, although it is usual for each to have time to challenge the others presentation and pose and answer questions from the other. Where is the question time that was announced in the intro? There are numerous listed at right bu it doesn't seem that any are the one that follows this debate.
I consider this two men to be inspired by God and I have learned so much from their teachings even though they belong to a different church. We have to think about both points of view for they are really interesting but what I really admire from them is that they both teach us about God's love for humanity and the sacrifice of his beloved son. And the passion they dedicate to this subject is beyond amazing!!
the 2 positions don't have to be considered mutually exclusive. When you ARE baptized as an "adult", you CAN make your profession. When the baby gets old enough, they make their profession(or not), but can go astray, just as the circumscribed could go astray.
It’s not about YOU. It’s not about YOU having to express to the world your faith. It’s not about YOU and your knowledge of religion. It’s HIS gift to you. Baptism now saves you. It’s HIS work, not yours. This tells us according to Paul’s teachings baptism is for all, children included, not just people that feel they have ‘arrived’ at some preconceived knowledge level. American Christianity screws this all up.
Are you telling me you believe a parent can get their baby wet, and that baby will now be saved because of the works performed by another person other than Christ?
Sorry. You've got your first word wrong. You wanted to write WRONG. Not great. Otherwise you would belong to those who support wrong teaching in the church. ;)
I think that R. C. Sproul has a deeper theology. Many baptist believers including John MacArthur don't realize that we also believe in "believer's baptism." The Reformed Infant Baptism is not telling you to give up the "believer's baptism." It is not less than that, but more. It is about the covenant.
C. J. Fang I just left a reformed church (RCUS) because I discovered after a couple years that the “pastor” was NOT regenerated. Also, baptism means “immersion “!
@@BelieveOnlyJesus My friend, do you think R. C. Sproul and those Presbyterians don't know what you mean about baptism, or there's something you may not know?
Believers baptism isn’t biblical only man made from denominations! Jesus nor the disciples taught it! And Luther didn’t teach it either only the false denominations!
So if someone is not baptized, but believes in their heart that God raised Jesus from the dead and confesses with their mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord, are they saved? Paul seems to think so. “because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” Romans 10:9 ESV
This was amazing! RC Sproul was incredible. I remembered Acts 16 which indicated that the parents and their household were baptized which truly set them apart from the Gentile world. Wow. I never saw that Scripture like this before!
Yes he is always amazing. But in this case he is wrong and was lovingly crushed by his giant friend of one of the best preachers ever namely John MacArthur. The Bible is clear, Roman Catholics came up with infant baptism and they give exactly same defence as R.C. did. It is a Catholic nonbiblical wrongness.
@@jakesanders136 That text isn't talking about salvation or baptism. In 1 Cor Paul is answering a letter sent to him by the Corinthian church. One of those questions had to do with the validity of a marriage between a believer and an unbeliever. The concern was, if one of the marriage partners was lost, was that still a pure marriage and were the children legitimate in the eye of God. Paul makes it clear that even though a believer ought not marry an unbeliever it is still a true marriage and the children are legitimate. The idea is not "should they be baptized"? If there were the case then the unbelieving spouse should be baptized as well. As pastor Charles Spurgeon said, 1 Cor 7 is a dry text if ever there were one - for it has nothng to do with baptism.
RC sproul said some thing that were very interesting, things i never saw before, an interesting point at best, but john is so good at all that he teaches, that he destroys ever one in his path, and that is why i have his Bible, so that i can read every thing he has learned over many, many years of study....John MaCarther teaches true Christian faith.
He's not the best teacher and I know John for a long time. Love him as a brother in Christ but RC is a far better and biblically sound teacher,and a host of others. John is a bit shallow and incomplete. I hope you get to see it
@@danielpura9572 I find it interesting of JMac to always weave into his discussions how wrong the Catholic position is wether it's Rome or Eastern Orthodox. It's a sneaky diversion tactic. I liked RC's opening remarks concerning explicit vs implicit content. Nowhere in Scripture does it state explicitly to baptize infants. And nowhere in Scripture does it explicitly state that Scripture is the sole rule of faith. Yet both JMac and RC adhere to Sola Scriptura.
@@m4641 Actually, Scripture does indicate that it is the sole rule of faith as seen in these verses. *2 Timothy 3:15-17 (ESV):* "and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." And. . . *Galations 1:7b-8 (ESV):* "but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."
@@marthahicks8569 It's interesting how we both read the two passages that you cited and derive at two diametrically opposed conclusions. It's also interesting to me that anyone who purports Scripture as the sole rule of Faith disregards Paul's words pertaining to Tradition. Suffice to say, let's agree to disagree.
Mac does win the debate on length of the presentation, attacking the other side with quotes of ones own resource against them in a twisted way, but also logical reasons why infant baptism is not necessary for salvation nor ought to be practiced.
Ezekiel 36:25, "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you." "26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules."
"Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." John 15:3 The above verse you stated cannot refer to New Testament church baptism, for the church is not in view, but rather the nation of Israel. Are you stating that this sprinkling will be some form of baptism upon the nation of Israel's reconciliation with God? The water in Ezekiel 36:25 refers to the cleansing from idolatry of the heathen, not a rite of admission into a church.
@@reformedheart CONTEXT: 1. The land (now desolate and in the hand of Israel's enemies) will be restored to their possession and abound in fruitfulness v.1-9 The people will be regathered and restored back to their state, "better... than at your beginnings", they will possess the land that God has appointed them, this land being that which God promised to Abraham and his seed, the land between the river of Egypt and the river Euphrates (Genesis 15), and will multiply in it . v.12-15 Idolatry will no more be found in the land as it was and has been through their history. The land will be cleansed of its pollution, and God's name will be sanctified in them. v.16-23 They will be gathered out of all nations whither they have been driven, and will be cleansed from their sin. God will grant them a new heart, and will regenerate them fully and completely. He will put His spirit within them, the stony heart of sinfulness be removed. They will keep His law v.24-27 They shall dwell as a restored people in the land which God share to their fathers, be His people once more, and He will be their God v.28 The land will multiply its increase, for they will receive the blessing of fellowship and communion with their God, no more curse upon the country v.29-35 The heathen around them will recognize the God of Israel as the covenant keeping God who restores that which has been torn down. v.36-38 Where is the church? The church has no land...no waste cities...no sin from which it must needs be cleansed, that having been accomplished by Christ as Calvary. Conclusion: the church is no where in view in this precious promise of Israel's restoration as a nation to their God in fulfillment of His promise to Abraham. Baptism is not in view, no matter badly you wish to justify sprinkling as a legitimate mode of baptism, much less infant sprinkling. My friend, baptism is a much clearer doctrine in scripture if you do not seek to superimpose millennia of extrabiblical and unbiblical traditions upon it. Hope this proves helpful to you!
@@reformedheart With respect, God chose us IN CHRIST before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. IN CHRIST, elect, not IN CHRIST, not elect. Honestly, not sure how that fits squarely within the context of sprinkling, but in any case, God has not fulfilled every promise He made to Israel to the church...impossible. Read Genesis 15. God has promised us no land, no continuing city, no enduring national identity... Much harm has been done in the name of Christ to the name of Christ because certain religious groups, both Catholic and Protestant, have embraced that idea and carried it to its logical conclusion, a religious nationalistic government... Besides, you cannot simply write "church" in every instance God spoke to "Israel" without arguing that God has lied to them. While you might chalk that up to God's determinate counsel or secret purpose in lying to them, that would certainly lend no confidence to you if you count your position before God as secure. If God has cast off His people Israel, when He promised that He never would, then for any purpose that suited Him He could cast off you. I don't know if this would interest you or anyone that would see this message line, but here at the BAPTIST MISSION we are presently conducting a study on spiritual Israel and national Israel. I would love to have you listen in, live streamed Wednesdays at 4pm EST. Here is a link to the playlist of these studies. I do believe that we can in good faith disagree one with another, and I do hope you have found the exchange to be respectful from my end. If you would find this resource to be of any help, I would count it my honor. God bless you! Wednesday Bible Studies: th-cam.com/play/PLAF8o1-Gf-BmqBmzRDiEn7qB2ASRAzFvc.html
@@CanadianGospelMission God chose His people before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4). What the Old Testament promised, the New Testament fulfills. Ezekiel 36:26-27 promised the "new heart" that God regenerates His people by the Holy Spirit in the NT (Rom. 2:15; 2 Cor. 3:3; John 3:3-8). Sprinkling is not a must but a preference. BTW, don't write something like a bunch of raw texts, be concise and use paragraphs, and don't put links. Otherwise, no one will read it.
The Apostles are the foundation of the church, Eph. 2:20 these men were commissioned to go into all the world and preach the Gospel, those who believe and are baptized will be saved, those who are not will not be saved. Mk.16:15,16 The church began on the Day of Pentecost with more than 3000 Jewish men, women, boys and girls were all baptized in Jesus name. This movement continues to impact believers around the world. Water baptism in Jesus name is important for salvation.
The truth of the baptism of the Holy Spirit (during the period of dispensation of grace till the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled at the time of the Great Tribulation) after the baptism by water in the past. Rightly divide the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15 > Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (1) The Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven to the Jews and Water Baptism of Repentance. However, baptism of the Holy Spirit, in the period of dispensation of grace, is through faith in Yahshua and not through the laying of hands of priests or pastors etc; or by water.) Also remember John the Baptist in Mark 1:8 > I (John) indeed have baptized you with water: but He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Mathew 3:11 > I (John the Baptist) indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: (Yahshua baptises with Holy Spirit without water). John 20: 22 > And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Repent and be baptised (as in Mark 1:8 and Mathew 3:11 above), versus, I was not sent to baptise (as in below). 1 Corinthians 1:17 > For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. [If you believe that Yahshua died for your sins, was buried, and then resurrected then you are sealed (baptised) by the promise of the Holy Spirit.] Ephesians 1:13 > In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, (The books of Peter is written to the Jews as is evident by the reference to his sheep - the strangers scattered outside in 1 Peter 1: 1, 7, 8) Acts 2:38 > Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
And that repentence and remission of sin should be preached in his name among all nations ( jew and. Gentile ) beginning at. JERUSALEM. ACTS 2:38 IS FOR ALL MANKIND ON EARTH EVEN AS MANY AS THE LORD THY GOD. SHALL CALL. ACTS 2:38-39-47. ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS NEVER PART OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD OF SATAN YES THE RCC IS THE WORLDS LARGEST. CULT
Sir, I have been in a bible believing church for many years we do hold a ceremony when a child is born, we call it a Christening, however, I have never ever heard anyone say the Christening cemented the child's salvation or that the child was guaranteed salvation because the child was sprinkled with water. The Christening is a public statement of the parents to promise to raise the child as a Christian, teaching the child the Holy Scriptures in agreeance with the scripture, Train up a child in the way he shall go and when he is old he will not depart from it. It by no means offers any guarantee of salvation.
Babies don't know why they are getting baptized, the meaning of baptism is to repent from being a sinner and to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. This is why John the Baptist only baptized people that were aware of sin.
@Proverbs 21:30 But Christeningdoes not save your child nor does it mean you as a child were saved as taught in the catholic church or Lutheran or Episcopal and you've been taught wrongly both of these pastors are bible believing and teaching please listen again
@Proverbs 21:30 all Israelite first born male babies who lived past 30 days went through this type of ceremony. Including Jesus Christ himself. So it is kind of more tradition more than sacrament .
As someone who believes in infant baptism being more likely what Scripture allows, I found RC unconvincing. Also I disagree with both men as to the importance of the debate. Had the specific question of infant vs adult only baptism been so important, Scripture would be clearer. The fact that Scripture is not clear leaves the conscience free to adopt either view.
The entire issue is reconciled if one realizes that the Bible presents household baptism (see Acts 16:33 "he and all his straightway" - there is no limitation on this - young, old, babe - all are included). See also 1 Corinthians 10:2 - "all were baptised" - again - no limitation - ALL included young, old, babes, etc.
Hi Jonah - No, I'm not saying there had to be babies; only, that we cannot exclude the distinct possibility that there might have been babies. Pharaoh tried to divide Israel in Exodus 10 - attempting to separate the "little ones" to stay behind by saying "Not so: go now, ye [that are] men, and serve Jehovah." Ultimately, Moses (a type of the Lord in delivering His people) said "Not a hoof shall be left behind" - this section of scripture shows how Satan would seek to divide a household; but that, thankfully, God is showing His thoughts for deliverance "householdly". This links up further with Exodus 12 where deliverance for the Israelite was by household. And, yes, young children can believe and that brings up the reality that Christian households should be held/conducted in fidelity to the Lord and His interests. God then will honor that and household baptism shows the Christian's expectation that their baptised little one shall be brought by God into salvation. The Lord said in Genesis 18, "For I know him that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of Jehovah, to do righteousness and justice, in order that Jehovah may bring upon Abraham what he hath spoken of him." I hope this all is agreeable to you.
Keith Petersen not precluding the possibility does not guarantee you are right. The Bible doesn't preclude baptism for the dead (which at least is mentioned by Paul) but that doesn't mean it should be practiced. Furthermore, I think credo-baptism much more accurately shows children the radical transforming power of the gospel and that until they repent and believe in Jesus, they cannot truly be a part of the kingdom. Of course little children can't exercise saving faith either which is a requirement for baptism.. By the way thanks for being respectful. I hope you take me the same way, too many brothers and sisters break fellowship over things like this. Baptism is important but it's not a gospel issue.
Hi Jonah - Yes, I see so often that Christians "bite and devour" in their communications/posts (Galatians 5:15) - so wrong. That section to which you refer in 1 Corinthians 15 ("baptised for the dead") is clearly a reference to those already dead but having been baptised and Paul then linking this reality to baptism for those presently living. The enemy was trying to discredit resurrection and Paul was showing that resurrection is a reality and that, if it weren't, baptism became meaningless. The apostle is not at all suggesting that the dead be baptised. Part of the confusion regarding baptism is not understanding that it is never done by the baptised person - always by someone for them and the confusion can be exacerbated by the fact that it is shown in Acts that those who became saved under God's hand were then baptised. This is simply since they had never been baptised (see Acts 10:47-48, etc.). The simple principle in the NT as to household baptism is seen in Acts 16 - "Sirs, what must I do that I may be saved?" This is in the singular, and the following verse continues in the singular "thou shalt be saved, thou" and then the "house" is included - "And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house." Then we see that the word was spoken to "all" in his house - "And they spoke to him the word of the Lord, with all that were in his house". All can only mean "all" although, obviously, a babe would not receive the word. Then, "he and all his" were baptised. It is a household baptism. All would include babes - you cannot say it would not - and whether there were babes or not or unbelievers, as well - it is presented by the Holy Spirit that it is a household baptism. It is also important to restate that the "all" who were baptised might include those who did not have at that time the necessary faith for salvation. Faith is not a prerequisite for baptism. As said earlier, understanding the principle of household baptism reconciles all difficulties as to baptism. Here is a link that might interest you as to this subject: www.bible-ministry.com/letter-baptism Some think that, without baptism, a person cannot be saved. However, the thief on the cross became saved at that time - he could never have been baptised to the Lord's death since he would have died on the cross. I apologize for running to a bit of length. Have a safe year-end.
I have tremendous respect for RC Sproul and appreciate what he teaches. I don’t agree with him here and I wish he was still alive to answer one question, maybe some of you who agree with him can answer it. So if a child from a believing family is baptized as an infant, when they are old enough to realize they must repent and accept Jesus themselves, are they to be baptized again? If so, what’s the point of the infant baptism. If not, why not? That is exactly what the New Testament teaches, repent and be baptized.
While I don't agree with it. The reasoning I have heard is the idea that covenant children (infants with believers as thier parents) are baptized as babies in the belief that they will one day come to know God's saving Grace. That baptism says "you are part of the church and will be cared for" (I'm paraphrasing there, could be missing some important points) A presbyterian pastor used Philippians 1:6 "And I am sure of this, that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion" the rest of the verse says "at the day of Jesus Christ." The idea being a good work has begun in an infant's life at baptism and it will benefit them as they grow towards a personal faith. That they WILL one day come to faith. I'm not the best to represent this side as I'm not fully convinced nor fully understand the reasoning for infant baptism. I'm somewhat indifferent at the moment. I had a friend baptized in the Catholic church bas an infant. When they became a believer as an adult they wanted to be obedient and be baptized. But the Presbyterian church they attend said the infant baptism in a trinitarian church was valid.
@Jenn Fisher Good comment. And that is EXACTLY how Roman Catholics would defend this wrong doctrine of infant baptism. R.C. in this case tried to hold to old Roman Catholic made up non biblical doctrine. There is a reason why the highest amount of converts to Roman Catholicism are Presbyterians and Anglicans....
Nope, the baptism comes to fruition and is realized when the covenant child repents and confesses Christ. I would much prefer a family only practice credobatpism than dilute it’s significance by baptizing twice. Your first baptism was a true, meaningful, and real sign of the promises of God to His people. :) A second baptism effectively says, “not really”
Matthew 18:2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. The little child didn’t argue or look for a place. The child only obeyed Jesus and accepted their place.
Hi Suzanne, I actually agree with RC. I think he presented his case much more convincingly than John, and in fewer words. RC's point, I think, was that all of scripture is about our Lord Jesus, and the continuity of covenants is important. While circumsision is not analogous to baptism, the sign of the covenant, whether circumsision or baptism, is relevant. But we can disagree, and still be friends. As RC said, all of us just want to please God.
@@twicegod9160 how so? He never said what possible benefit infant baptism had. “Tell them they already received the sign,” being the strongest argument is, in my humble opinion, vastly inferior to allowing the children to choose to participate in the covenant sign upon their confession of faith. I was hoping he would help me understand why anyone supports infant baptism. He failed. While I do not feel infant baptism is sinful, I see no benefit.
RC God consists of 3 persons who ever existed during before creation, as God Son is with man and as God Holy Spirit is in man. We should include/mention the 3 of them in our baptism.
There is...“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism” (vv. 11-12). - Colossians 2:8-15
We must be baptized in water and in spirit before we can enter into God's kingdom but circumcision is a tradition of man that has no relevance as to what makes a man worthy or unworthy of inheritance.
I like what dr. McArthur said in his opening statement, that we should not be considered divisive when we bring up arguments to the norm. in fact, the body of Christ is Thoroughly divided already, so much so that you can hardly call it the body of Christ! It definitely is not "one body", but multiples. this kind of discussion is exactly what is needed to draw the leaders of Christianity together and become one as Jesus and his father are one. It should include all sectarian leaders, not just sproul & MacArthur. plus all of them including Sproul and MacArthur need to be willing to admit where they are wrong and change their doctrinal beliefs. it's a start.
WickAndTallow love your comment and especially the last words that both men need to admit when they are wrong in their teachings. Which very difficult for both to accept 😊
I love R.C. Sproul, but I will never understand why he affirmed infant baptism in his life. It's just not in the bible as Macarthur said. Again, I love R.C. But this is something about him I will never understand.
In the book of Acts 2: 38-39, St Peter clearly states that the promise of baptism and therefore new life in Jesus Christ, includes children. We also read in the whole book of Acts how many at times a whole household were baptised(Acts 16:33) and a whole household will include children. Also it's good to look back to history and find out if infant baptism has always been part of the Christian faith. And the answer is YES. You can read church fathers after church fathers throughout the centuries from 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th etc. Our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ says that, we should not prevent the little children to come to him. We also knows that baptism does and truly saves (1 Peter 3:21; John 3:3,5-6)
If I'm not mistaken, the Presbyterian Church is foundationally separated from the reformed Baptist Church based on this one doctrine. It seems strange to me that anybody would believe infant baptism, but as far as I know, most Presbyterians believe this doctrine and think it's strange that anybody would not believe it.
@@Shikuesi after listening to Sproul entirely on this issue, I look at the paedobaptism position with much more empathy and understanding. I definitely see how somebody could read the Bible and assume this position. I still only affirm credobaptism, but Sproul is the only person I've listened to on the issue that has made me question that stance. You're absolutely right as well. It is a good analogy, but I think that there is a distinction in that the Old Testament gives specified instruction for infant circumcision, but the New Testament doesn't do the same for baptism. I'd be lying if I said that the implication of child circumcision doesn't continue to challenge me on this view.
Why is this even up for debate. It blows my mind. Why don't we just walk around with some holy water of baptism, and sprinkle people whether they want it or not. It may annoy them, but we have work to do. Nowhere in the Bible is there any time where any unwilling, unacknowledged or unrepentant human being of any age, was baptized without their consent by repentance. The only reason baptism even means anything at all, is because of grace through faith in Jesus. Without that, it's nothing but water good for cooking food and doing dishes.
Rick Stewart Of course we are complete in Christ, but there are many things we do in obedience to Christ, in remembering what He has done for us... and to do good works in the world. We take communion, but we understand doing so does not save us. Yet, we are complete in Christ, so why do it? 1 Cor 1, verses 14-17 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. Paul *did* baptize some in water, though. Why would Paul do this? Yes he goes on to say that it was not his calling to do so, but doesn't the fact he did it show that it was a valid practice in the church? Paul was not sent to baptize, but to preach. There are other people in the church who have the time to baptize in water, to explain its symbolization, but Paul wasn't that guy. Others in the church could take that responsibility, though *he did baptize some*.
+Rick Stewart You are not remembering or are not aware that Paul spent three years learning from Jesus before he went before the church with his revelation. Jesus already had revealed to Him what the Lord would show and teach him beforehand--for three years. So, that explanation that Paul was still learning... so he baptized some by mistake, really doesn't hold up. Also, the context of 1 Cor is that there are others who ARE baptizing. It's not that the baptizing is wrong, but that the cliques people were creating saying they followed such and such because of who baptized them, was wrong. See Galatians 1:15-24 where Paul recounts this. He certainly wouldn't have started baptizing people after this revelation and three years apart, if it was not a duty of the church (much like communion). So, the baptisms Paul did do, would have certainly been after these three years. And, to think that the issue of the water baptism John performed would not have come up in all that Paul learned over this time, would just not be reasonable. --- 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. 20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they glorified God because of me.
+Rick Stewart sorry but I think you're making the assumptions here. I've simply explained Paul's time following the revelation of who Jesus really is, was THREE YEARS. I'm sure he learns much in that time. Apparently, you don't think he learned enough such that he would do baptisms as an oopsy-daisy. I wonder what other oopsy-daisies he did as a powerfully called early church founder. Paul clearly says he baptized but that it wasn't his mission. His mission was to preach. He was coming against the cliques and man-following. You are assuming that Paul learned at some point baptism wasn't a part of the churches duty to do, when in fact he never says that, ever.
So where was the public when Philip baptized the Ethiopian? I didn't see any, but they might have been there, even though there is no mention of a public church meeting, except by the two we know were there.
Rinda Rossouw the Baptism Paul is speaking about in this verse, is not water Baptism. There were actually several different types of baptism in the Bible, but many people mistakingly only see one, with water.
What must i do to be saved then Peter said unto them repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin and you shall recieve the gift of the holy ghost ACTS 2:38. ACTS. 19:2-7.
I appreciate my parents having me baptized when I was an infant. My parents did this as an act of faith, so their hearts were in the right place. However I wasn't mature enough to repent at that time in my life Acts 2:38. Even though I believe John MacArthur had a stronger argument on this I also believe R.C. made a good case for supporting infant baptism as an act of faith. Circumcision vs Baptism shouldn't divide us.2 Timothy 2:14
Sorry, I disagree with you. There is one Lord, one faith & one baptism. Baptism is when you receive the forgiveness of your sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. As a former Catholic, I struggled with this but saw through scripture that this is false doctrine. If God asked us to crawl naked through glass for 10 miles and recite the American national anthem backwards in a French accent for the forgiveness of our sins, would you do it? I’ve been a minister of the Gospel since 1995 - if you wish to talk privately on the matter I’d be more than willing to help understand what I scripturally know now.
Infant baptism based on Matt 19:14 (NIV) Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” Your parents did what Jesus said. 👍👍
@John 3:19 baptism is a sign of covenant with God in new testament, same as circumcision in old testament. Acts 22:16 And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’ Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God In Catholicism, there are 2 forms of baptism: #1 by water as a sign of covenant with God. Infant baptism follows Jews tradition, circumcision. It's like what Jesus had, circumcised at 8 days old. #2 by Holy Spirit as known as Sacrament of Confirmation. Being baptised doesn't mean you will go to heaven. It's rather a step forward for being saved a.k.a. not going to hell. Someone who has been baptised can lose their salvation if they don't maintain it, just like what Paul says in Galatians 5. The covenant (either circumcision or baptism) will not save you if you let yourself fallen away. This is why in Catholicism, faith AND works (following Jesus teachings) are needed for our salvation. You can't earn it but you can lose the free gift given from the Father (James 1:17).
@John 3:19 To be remain in Him (John 15:1-11), first of all the Bible tells us we must have faith in order to be saved (Hebrews 11:6). In the Scriptures, we see faith also involves assent to God's truth (1 Thessalonians 2:13), obedience to Him (Romans 1:5, 16:26), and it must be working in love (Galatians 5:6). What is working in love? We can find them in Matthew 25:31-46. Our thoughts (Matthew 15:18-20) and words (James 3:6-12) are accountable as well. Where does our assistance come from to reach our heavenly destination? Philippians 4:13 says it all, "I can do all things in Him who strengthens me."
@John 3:19 No. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6) When speaking of salvation, Jesus offered more details than just his words quoted above. For example, consider these three verses: He who believes and is baptised will be saved. (Mark 16:16) Unless you repent you will all likewise perish. (Luke 13:3) He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:54) Notice that in these three verses Jesus associated salvation with baptism, confession, and the Eucharist, respectively. Catholics recognise that these sacraments are administered through the Church. In fact, in the case of the latter two, a validly ordained priest is necessary for their administration, so the sacrament of ordination must also be associated with salvation. A primary role of the Catholic Church in conjunction with salvation is becoming quite clear. This brings us to the second part of the Catechism’s formulation of the doctrine being considered: “. . . through the Church which is his Body.” Since the sacraments are the ordinary means through which Christ offers the grace necessary for salvation, and the Catholic Church that Christ established is the ordinary minister of those sacraments, it is appropriate to state that salvation comes through the Church. This is not unlike the situation that existed prior to the establishment of the Catholic Church. Even before it was fully revealed that he was the Messiah, Jesus himself taught that “salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22). He pointed the woman of Samaria to the body of believers existing at that time, through which salvation would be offered to all mankind: the Jews. In a similar fashion, now that the Messiah has established his Church, Jesus might say, “salvation is from the Catholics”! Recognising this, we can see why the Church, especially during times of mass exodus (such as has happened in times when heresies have run rampant), has been even more forceful in the way it has taught this doctrine. Instead of simply pointing out how God offers salvation from Christ, through the Church, the Church has warned that there is no salvation apart from Christ, outside his Church. Since Jesus established the Catholic Church as necessary for salvation, those who knowingly and willingly reject him or his Church cannot be saved. We see this in Jesus’ teaching: “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters” (Matt 12:30). Also: “If he [a sinning brother] refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matt 18:17). Paul warned similarly: “As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned” (Titus 3:10-11). Having said all this, we must recognise that this doctrine is not as far reaching as some imagine it to be. People will sometimes ask, “Does this means non-Catholics are going to hell?” Not necessarily. The Church recognises that God does not condemn those who are innocently ignorant of the truth about his offer of salvation. Regarding the doctrine in question, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (quoting Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, 16) states: This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847) Vatican II document Gaudium Et Spes teaches similarly on the possibility of salvation: All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. (22) This teaching is consistent with Jesus’ own teaching about those who innocently reject him: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin” (John 15:22). But once a person comes to know the truth, he must embrace it or he will be culpable of rejecting it. We see this in Jesus’ words to the Pharisees: “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” (John 9:41). Paul taught likewise concerning the Gentiles: When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom 2:14-16) Notice Paul’s carefully chosen words: “their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them.” Paul did not say that those who are innocently ignorant of the truth will be saved; he simply keeps open the possibility of it. Similarly, he wrote: “Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith” (Rom 3:29-30). As we have seen, God introduced salvation to the world through his chosen people, the Jews. God’s revelation to the Jews found its fulfillment in Christ, the Messiah, who established the Catholic Church. The grace necessary for salvation continues to come from Christ, through his Church. Those who innocently do not know and embrace this might still attain salvation but those who knowingly and willingly choose to reject it, reject salvation on God’s terms. The Catechism (once again quoting Lumen Gentium) summarises all this as follows: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. (CCC 846)
Sproul and the like always fascinated me with their massive blind spot. Didn't they realize from the protestant reformation that the traditions of men and church "history" are not the barometer of the truth? Sola scriptura. There really should be no debate at all.
@@Papa79079 I don't think he used infant baptism to the point of saying it is all you need for justification. I'm pretty sure he was a man of faith alone in Christ alone for salvation. He may have had a tradition that was kept but he knew no work could save him but the work of Christ as in that's the whole reason he fought against the corrupt system at the time thst taught you could buy your way to heaven or purge people out of purgatory with money. Not fair to accuse him of that tbh
@@stephenblackwell5533 Thanks Stephen. Not accusing, just stating a fact. Luther baptized infants (he was a Catholic monk after all.) Lutherans baptize infants even today as Luther did. Apologies if my comment sounded like criticism or accusation. Wasn't my intent. God bless!
@@Papa79079 yes sir I understand your point but I believe he did come to the point of believing in justification in the right way as he did fight against that type of catholicism which had works for salvation. Guess it is kind of like if you dress a certain way when you go to the house of God. We know it doesn't save us but perhaps your attire is a tradition
Respectfully for those who preach infant baptism, what is very important to the Lord is what he commanded his biblical apostles to put into practice, and that was to baptize adults, that is believers who were already capable of making discernment about repentance. In the gospel of Mark chapter verses 15 and 16 the Lord says to his apostles, go into the world and preach the good news to every creature, possibly here, in the word ´´CREATURE´´ some teachers may interpret that by saying ´´CREATURE´´ he was referring to babies or infants, some might affirm that the Lord was talking about infants, let s focus in the context of the command, ´´preach the good news to.....´´ can we imagine for a moment that the apostles were preaching to babies or infants? well, the rest of the New Testament shows several times when ´´CREATURES´´ who believed in the message of the good news were not infants but adults. As far as baptizing adults there is no doubt that the apostles of our Lord obeyed Him, as far as baptizing babies, which they did perform, we know that they did not disobey because the command was very clear and the practice of baptizing infants has no biblical support. On the other hand, I really like the way these 2 preachers debated, they did it respectfully and also show respect for the audience. May the Lord bless everyone's understanding and the peace of God be with his people amen.
As someone who was Baptized at 13 in a Southern Baptist Church, then later converted to Catholicism, I find this exchange interesting. Catholics are often told that Protestants agree on the core tenants of the Christian faith, but a we see here, there are deep divisions, sometimes even within the same denomination. Jesus' prayer is that we would be one.
Kang Justin : because my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed in the book of John. The synoptic gospel is for remembering to eat each other' flesh, so to speak. It is not a matter of convincing. Zechariah'11:4 flock is for slaughter, because of Acts 8:23 are their deeds mentioned in 1 Peter 4:5 and for this reason the gospel was preached to recall the former days in which 10:32 Hebrews were illuminated.:)
I am "not" at crossroads on the issue of infant baptism. There is no debate on my mind. To use inferences and arguments from silence are poor support to teach a Biblical teaching, no matter what the subject matter is. I do believe that RC is an intellectual. One of the problems with an intellectual is that they rely heavily on his human rationale ability, The human rationale is of the natural world. An intellect is a human virtue. I have heard lots of human intellect explanations from RC. Human intellect ends up using "explanations" to make points. If the claim is that it is a Biblical teaching, show me clear cut book, chapter and a verse (or a passage). Please do not try to convince me with "explanations."
what is written expressly is written expressly. What is implied is gathering all the verses and passages that speak on that particular subject, draw a consistent interpretation from it. I could mention the illumination of the Holy Spirit, but everyone claims that too.
John Bennett : Luke 20.34 Sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are worthy to attain that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God. So are 3.4 names even in Sardis, who have not defiled Their garments. (( I personally do not know how is communion connect to women. Ask the catolics for more info...)) For He is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation, for by Him all things were created that are in the heavens and that are on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things and in Him all things consist.
While I certainly have a deep respect for Dr. Sprole and his deep theological thought, powerful preaching and teaching and his service to the Kingdom, his argument fell flat on this point. Granted, I came in agreeing with John MacArthur, but I left hearing no convincing argument to the contrary.
Just an interesting side note on Baptism being something immersed, not sprinkled (the body) In Acts 8:36, were the eunuch saw water, though being in the "desert" (verse 26), he wanted to be then sprinkled? How could that be, as when anyone traveled in desert area's they always carried water. So, why would he want to find water, if sprinkling would work with some of the water they already had on board the chariot? No, Phillip, no doubt, spoke of immersion, and not sprinkling!
come on tom, quit speaking truth, they dont want to hear it !!!! lets remember why we get baptize, go all the way back to gen 17 and understand the circumcision in old testament and then the new testament in col 2 but they do not want to hear the truth !!!!
I have to say that Sproul talked non-coherently for about half of this speech, until he finally got to a good point, which I agree with. MacArthur was more clear and concise.
Sprouls should have been more concerned about the activities of his son, RC Jr instead of his view on baptism. For those that don't know, Jr's name was found on the Ashley Madison sex swinger site. It seems Jr strayed from the straight and narrow path.
RC Sproul is right about there being something similar between circumcision and infant baptism. How many of us who have wondered seriously about this, have come to the matter of circumcision? It seems to naturally happen, and that because of the word of God and the matter of conscience. I know it happened to me that way, and I do always end at Romans 14, on this and many other things, and I believe this is by the leading of the Spirit of God. Circumcision wasn't a sign of the people under the law, or the old covenant only. Abraham received it, and it was a sign of his faith, and things pertaining to Abraham were very much a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Abraham's covenant was really mostly about the new, though the old also testified of much of the same.
Circumcision does not include women so how can it be linked to baptism? Also God says in the Old Testament to Circumcise/rend your hearts which is the real circumcision needed.
Everybody gets saved the same way: Conviction of lostness without our own remedy, and faith and repentance toward the Lord Jesus Christ, surrendering all that I am for all that He is, and being born again at a single point in time, from where the life of God is now in my heart through the Holy Spirit. From this point, I live and can think of being baptized symbolically by immersion (death, burial, and resurrection with Christ, Rom 6:4-6).
RC’s argument only brings up more questions. If you’re only baptizing an adult after they made a confession of faith, one, is it necessary having already been baptized as a child, two , why is it necessary to be baptized a second time after making a profession of faith? And of course that is because it is scriptural in the New Testament. I do agree that it is a sign of the covenant, but we have a new covenant and there is no direction in the new covenant for baptism other than after one has repented and made a profession of faith.
On this topic, and understanding his reason, I'm definitely with RC Sproul on this one, infant baptism is not scriptural at all, it is only when one comes to faith a requirement to be baptized as an appeal to God for a good conscience and as Christ commanded. And having heard RC's personal testimony I can truly relate without a doubt. I myself was baptized as a baby and yet I lived a godless life and was running towards the lake of fire as fast as my fallen feet could carry me, up until I was 25 years of age and went through a divorce , I don't even think I believed in God at all or the idea I had of God was of a shallow understanding. But until the day I came to faith my life was literally turned upside down, and it was not by my own doing or a decision I made like turning over a new leaf, it was by a miracle of the grace of God through Christ alone and I will always treasure the memory of that night in my heart like a burning lamp. I find it disturbing when people exaggerate experiences especially with the madness going on in so called churches today, especially in prosperity churches, and I will not do the same God is my witness , all I can say is,I know I am not crazy, and as a man who lived in rebellion against the One who I did not know nor believed in, that night the Lord became my God, I knew He is real, it is impossible for me to even conjure up fake experiences or deliberately faking faith when I know what awaits false professers on the day of judgment, it is an inconceivable suffering inflicted by Christ who will tread the wine press of the wrath of God, so I say all these words with fear and trembling. It was only when I came to faith when I desperately wanted to be baptized regardless of being baptized as a child, I honestly do believe the new birth walks hand in hand with the fear of the LORD and wanting to obey His commandments. Many people go through life believing themselves to be believers because they belong to a church or attend regularly, but the fruits of their lives stands in clear distinction that there is a huge contradiction to what they say they believe and what they act out on a daily basis. Justification by faith is essential and foremost , and then follows sanctification, otherwise everything one does comes from vanity. It is only when a man is born again by the Spirit of the Living God that he can even begin to truely see the depths of his own sin and repent and weep and solely depend on God's grace. Scripture says we are justified by faith and faith alone and not works, if we assume we can be justified by works then we all are lost, because then baptism is reduced to just another work when there is an assumption of faith present , that is why I fully stand behind Sproul on this topic.
I recently came to an understanding that the Roman Catholic church and mass is a firm of Mosaic Law and Temple worship for non- Jews. After listening to this I find it most interesting that infant baptism has some form of relationship to ancient Mosaic circumcision
From what scripture tells us neither circumcision nor baptism saves anyone. We are saved by faith. These actions are taken as a result of having faith. Doing either one to a baby is only a sign of the parents faith because a baby can not even reason enough to have faith. It is a no brainer.
+Maurice Harting Are you suggesting that people that aren't chosen by God don't have faith of any kind? Everyone that has mind has faith in someone. If not God or someone else then in themselves. Our faith is not what saves us, it's the object of our faith that does. Saving faith is that which is placed in the one and only source of eternal life, Jesus Christ. If we don't have the ability to put our faith in the Christ then we can't be held responsible when we don't. If God is the one that enables us to believe then yes, he is responsible but the he is also responsible for those that he doesn't enable and they shouldn't be punished because that isn't just. Where does the bible say that regeneration comes before believing? That's not scriptural. That's implied by reformed doctrine in order to make it work. Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. (Rom 10:17). Regeneration is a process that happens after we believe, when we have the Holy Spirit at work in us to help us grow in our knowledge of the Lord. God doesn't zap some into believing.
***** god gives the gift of salvation. Faith comes from the unbelievers who realize Christ Jesus is the only way they can b save. Nowhere in the bible do it say he gives them faith.
There is a connection with the word, circumcision and baptism. Paul in Colossians speaks of the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism. MacArthur stated there was no scripture that tied in circumcision with baptism, but that is the scripture in Colossians spoken of by Paul, the apostle.
I was baptized at age 14, but only got saved this year being 23. I had no clue as to what Christianity was other than going to church and doing good things. I didn't know Christ on a personal level apart from the stories I heard, but had no clue about the spiritual meanings. I thank God for my life. I've benefited much from Mr MacArthur, Mr Sproul, Mr Washer, Mr Voddie and many others of their substance. Much love from Africa
That's awesome. Keep on going keep on believing
I feel sorry for people who become Christians, would like to be baptised and are not permitted to do so by C of E as they are already ‘christened’
They are offered ‘confirmation’ instead which is not in the bible
I was in a similar position, being dunked and soaked early on. As since there was no repentance, since I didn’t even know what that means. At 46 I recognized that I wasn’t baptized and should be, I struggled with this, but after lots of prayer and studying .
Thats amazing! God bless and welcome brotha!
No rebaptisms in scripture
I love both of these men. I look to them both for guidance in my walk with God. My only wish is that I could have met R.C before he left this earth. I hope to meet Dr. MacArthur someday.
Зюжззззюзюззз
i wish the same. the two. best i’ve ever heard they truly changed my life
Same
Yes true
Me too!
This was not a debate. It was a monologue of two people stating their views on a particular subject.
These two make us go deep into the Word of God.
Obey ACTS. 2:38. ACTS. 19:2-7. MARK. 16:15-18. MATTHEW. 28:19. LUKE. 24:45-47.
JESUS. ONLY IS. THE. WAY TO. TRUTH
Iron sharpens Iron⚔️
@@doznoff They agree on all the the heresies of the Reformation at least.
What can take away my sin? Nothing but the blood of Jesus.
bingo
I love that song!
amen
Christ is the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). In the Old testament typology, the blood was painted upon the doorposts of each each Israelite household (Exodus 12:11) And the blood was also placed in water and sprinkled upon the people (Numbers 19, Leviticus 14). And this typified the blood of Christ.
And if you had understood the type you would have known the meaning of the prophecy also :
"In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the
inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness. " Zechariah 13:1
and fulfilled in Acts 22:16
"Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
"This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by
water and blood. And it is the Spirit that bears witness, because the Spirit is truth."
(1 John 5:6)
@momentum 22 he might didn't but the Bible does.
I wish it was more of these debates between follower of Christ. "Friendly debates" on topics that some might struggle with.
They are very educating.
Only in God can you be so sharp and so loving at once
I love and respect both of these men, and they have both contributed greatly to my spiritual growth, my Biblical convictions, love for truth, and my preaching and teaching. That said, MacArthur, in my opinion, clearly gave the best, most cogent, most fluid presentation. Sproul was grasping for ways to tie together that which is strictly, and erroneously, 'implicit' in the Scriptures with regard to infant baptism. Jesus said, "Go, therefore, and make disciples ... baptizing them ...". An infant, or even a toddler cannot understand and embrace the truth of the Gospel to become a true disciple, which is necessary for salvation. No person reading through the Bible would come up with infant baptism on their own. It is a 'forced' practice left over from the RC church which we know has led so many astray through the centuries.
From the lips of children and infants you, Lord, have called forth your praise?” Matthew 21:16
I agree with you, pscassidyoahu. I have been helped by the teaching of both John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul. I have been able to learn more about doctrine from both those men. I don't always agree 100% with everything they may say at times, but that is where we as Christian's have to read our Bible's and seek the Lord to guide us and teach us through the Scriptures by the help of the Holy Spirit. John MacArthur, in my opinion, definitely takes the right stance about infant baptism. I have found nowhere in Scripture to make room for or allow infant baptism. I believe the Word of God lays out the proper sequence, so to speak, Repentance of sin, Faith alone in Christ, and then Baptism upon a profession of faith in Christ.
Babies cannot comprehend baptism or discipleship
@@leviwilliams9601 praise of the LORD is different from understanding baptism and discipleship
@@brockmitchell3989I'm not sure any Xtian could say definitely circumcision didn't include faith because God isn't explicit. John admitted circumcision was the sign of the old covenant. How is faith not part of the old covenant? Therefore, circumcision includes faith
I do admire the respect these two men showed each other.
What a beautiful, brotherly debate. Going to have to go with my brother John MacArthur on this one. Excellent debate.
Same here.
MacArthur is a nonsensical idiot
@@micahmatthew7104 these 2 gentlemen are talking with respect to eachother and you have to react in this way? I don't gree with John either, but there's no need to talk like that because he has a different view than you
Micah Matthew how sad to hear you say that. May God give you love.
@@PB-mp4rt completely disagree MacArthur
John MacArthur's presentation was full of quoting the Scriptures, straightforward and clear.
I love RC Sproul, and though he is with the Lord now, his presentation was strained, confusing, and chaotic because there is zero Scriptural support for infant baptism. Baptism is a symbol of being buried in death with Christ, and raised from the dead with Christ. It is meant to be a testimony of a new believer signifying his or her agreement with this important truth. It is also the first command given by God, thus an opportunity to show the world who we acknowledge as Lord.
@DTuck, Not really. Paul never described baptism as a symbol thereof. It's only commentators who insert that in Romans 6:3-4. The idea of baptism having a symbolic purpose has no Biblical support. Paul said
Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
He did not say I am symbolically crucified with Christ, he said I am crucified with Christ. And he also said baptism is where one is crucified with Christ
Romans 6:4-6 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. [5] For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: [6] Knowing this, THAT OUR OLD MAN IS CRUCIFIED WITH HIM, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
There is also no support that Baptim's purpose is meant to be a testimony of a new believer or to show the world who we acknowledge as Lord.
That is also inserted into the Bible as there is no such Biblical language.
Acts 9:18-21 the world found out who Paul acknowledged as Lord through his preaching, not his baptism.
@@Rejoran
Interesting perspective, and yet it requires a leap of logic to arrive there from what I can see.
There is only a spiritual component to being crucified with Christ as no one, including Paul, was literally crucified in that instance.
Christ literally died and was placed in the tomb. When we are baptized, the same thing does not happen to us.
Sometimes we simply need to work off the wisdom that God imparts us.
@@dtuck3407 I agree with you that he was and we are crucified with Christ spiritually. If one believes the baptism referred to in Romans 6:3-4 is baptism in water, then the rest of what happens in baptism in water in verses 5-7 is unavoidable.
Do you know of a scripturally viable alternative purpose for believer's baptism in Jesus name?
Baptism is a sign of a work of God (regeneration) not a work of man (profession of faith). This being the case, there is no obstacle in principle to its application to infant humans who while passive are nevertheless capable of receiving God's grace and salvation. As for Bible support for it, there are multiple lines of evidence converging on the same conclusion. If you read Charles Spurgeon's commentary on Psalm 84:3 you may be astonished to see how with his expository hat on top of and covering his antipedobaptist one, he actually ends up making a de facto pedobaptist statement of children's church membership which effectively means game over for this whole discussion.
@@Shikuesi
Them's a lot of fancified words to essentially say, "It's not in the Scriptures, but we do whatever contortions are necessary to support this unbiblical practice."
We are capable of receiving God's grace at whatever age He chooses to impart it, it is something only God can give, and by definition is given without a single work being done by us. Are you saying that babies cannot receive God's grace APART from this unbiblical practice?
So, while citing the excellent Spurgeon as being the 'be all to end all' for this discussion, that is merely an arrogant assertion on your part, and one I wonder if Spurgeon would have made himself in like manner.
The difference betweem Sproul and MacArthur is the same in essence as yours and mine- Sproul ran to and fro over the entire countryside to achieve only this- in his ***opinion*** infant baptism can be made to resemble circumcision, whereas MacArthur took the text at face value.
I am not emotionally invested in this argument, so I am not meaning to be on the attack, but I know how often the written word of us fallible humans can be misunderstood.
I would wish grace to you, but I don't want to force you to have to do a work to receive it . . . ; )
This was just excellent and if anything should be proof that both sides of the debate take it seriously and should not divide God’s church. May this lead to more tolerance and respect on both sides.
It is heart warming to hear two very well respected brothers in Christ agree to disagree. It reminded me of scripture when Paul and Bernabas agreed to go their separate ways in peace. God bless these men!
@Bennett McCoy in good faith why is that? Is there any reason in particular?
@Bennett McCoy what teaching does he have outside of scripture?
1. Calvinism
2. Women can't teach
3. Cesationism
Etc.....
@Bennett McCoy Scripture alone and Faith alone, where does he deny it? The five sola teachings come from Protestant Reformation.
Give me a specific doctrine he teaches that is not Sola based.
@Bennett McCoy According to your understanding how does he say that Christ is not under the bread and wine?
@@edgar397 Dear brother, please don't waste your time talking to that idiotic person.
I have to agree with John on this one , I was baptized at 8 yrs old and don't even remember being 8 yrs old. Then came back at 22 yrs old to fix what my parents had tried ❤ Amen 1:21:43
I was baptised as a baby and came back aged 27. But I am Catholic so still have to avoid sinning between now and dying.
“God is only as faithful as I am able to comprehend…”
@@BeefyPreacherSo not very faithful then. Doesn't make any sense at all
This implies that baptism is about YOU. About what YOU do. There is a work going on, but not by YOU. The Lord reaches down with his grace to save YOU in the waters of baptism. It has nothing to do with your ability to think at a certain age. It’s HIS gift, not your work
@@silverray95 thought the exact same thing when reading this comment. @Mr.Bones777, you aren't fixing anything. It's God's work, not your own
Thanks to both of these godly men for taking time to expound this issue. I must say John MacArthur offered consistent biblical text to support his position, while R.C. Sproul attempted to bridge Old and New. Paul's ministry to Gentile believers would necessitate clear teaching on this regarding their children because it would not have been assumed. John, continue to stand firm on Scripture!
Wow blown away by MacArthur's argument! It really solidified my conviction that only believer's baptism is biblical, and certainly the only consistent view if you hold to the regulative principle. Love both these brothers.
i guess I'm kinda off topic but does anyone know a good site to stream new tv shows online?
@Talon Kylan Flixportal
@Mason Dylan thank you, I signed up and it seems to work :) I really appreciate it !
@Talon Kylan happy to help xD
If we're going with that definition of the regulative principle, where does it say that women can take communion?
I thank God for using these men in my generation to help spread the truth and help guide me in my walk. God bless you pastor MacArthur and may God watch over pastor Sproul. Thank you both for your faithfulness.
Macarthur is a false prophet
We've been going over this in our evening service recently. And it just popped up in my TH-cam feed. I'll give it a listen.
I went to a cruise several years ago. It was sponsored by Dr James Kennedy. He was ill and died at the time. He was replaced with Dr. Sproul and debated the issue of infant baptism. He was persuasive but we have to follow Scripture
I started this video being a pro sproul, but MacArthur killed it
MacArthur may have won the debate, but he’s not a man after God’s heart.
@@davidbarnes5280 lol okay
@@J.S.McDuff
LOL? Neither of the men represent Christ or His church, the church of Christ.
@@davidbarnes5280 Annnnd what church would that be? The one that confesses sins and claims Jesus is Lord because of you have faith and do that then hate to break it to you, they are both part of the church of Christ. but if you mean needless modifiers to deny someone's Christianity for whatever reason then that puts you as the judge and that's only reserved for God. No one can ever fully know if someone is saved or not and both of them have done a huge net positive for the Christian world regardless of your opinion. It's not healthy to walk around and be a gatekeeper it's your job to ensure that the people you hate are given the gospel. Calm down, it's not that deep. RC Sproul and John M are fine. Thank God none of us are God but God.
@@J.S.McDuff
I told you, the church of Christ.
Let us continue to contend for the faith that was once delivered to the apostles of old.
Excellent Debate!
What made this two a brothers? They both aiming for truths, they see the best in each other not the part that they won't agree with each other!
My respect for them.
I admire those that control themselves when discussing conflicting opinions. I can disagree and still love the person that I disagree with..... sometimes I have a problem with getting heated. I don’t know if I get frustrated or just never learned how to stay calm when it’s something I am passionate about. Anyway confess your faults to one another right....I’m willing to learn, listen, humble myself to gain those good things from the Lord.
This is an amazing example of how tradition alongside with the degree from philosophy on R.C's part blinds otherwise incredibly insightful and bright man. I have heard many of his sermons but I have never heard him using so much of speculative approach as well as philosophy as in this one. John was like a machine gun with his direct Scriptural quotations and their impact on this matter as well as pre-answering those sinking straws that R.C. would try to get hold off. John won this debate not because he is smarter not at all. He won it because he spoke the biblical truth on the matter. I love both of these men and they have beem amazing blessing in my wall with the Lord. They showed us, how we should lovingly approach one another even when we disagree. We've got lot to learn from those humble servants. We all do...
Praise the Lord
This debate helped me better understand why many who believe Reform doctrines hold to infant baptism. I love R.C. Sproul and really wondered why he would believe in infant baptism...and it was good to understand it from his perspective. The "setting apart" of the child does not guarantee that the child will be saved, and Dr. Sproul admits this saying that just as outward circumcision of Jewish boys did not guarantee their being right with God (i.e. Jesus words to the Pharisees), so this outward expression of a covenant position does not guarantee the inward truth of any individual, that is still left with the Lord. Great discussion, and I agree with both of them regarding what was said about it...because both supported how they approach this matter with what the Bible says and what it doesn't say. Love them both, great men of God.
Infant baptism is not found anywhere in scripture.
I am certainly not, and never will be, in the ranks of theological knowledge these two men are in. But I noticed Dr. Sproul said there was no explicit statement in the NT prohibiting infant baptism. What about when the Ethiopian asked Philip, "Here is water. What doth hinder me to be baptized?"...Philip's response was, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest". Babies don't believe. Sounds like an explicit qualification to me.
Yep
. Researched it and it appears you are correct in 2 of the 4 formal equivalencies. Still, water baptism must be a sign of something that has (past tense) taken place in our life and a way of identifying with Christ.
Exactly. Babies have no way of "believing" ANYTHING! They aren't even potty-trained yet, much less have decided to turn from sin to faith in Christ. To THEM, baptism is merely a bath (and a cold one at that).
I have a very disturbing picture of Sproul actually hailing Satan (the devil's hand sign) during a sermon. I would appreciate an answer from him as to what that hand gesture means to him. I attended a Conservative Baptist church, and at the end of the sermon, that pastor closed his eyes and held out his hand in front of him, making the devil's horn hand sign, as he said, "The sign of the times." I asked him after the sermon why he did that (Jesus said, "If someone offends you, go to him and tell him." This pastor stared at me blankly without answering.
So the next week I brought several pictures of many unsavory characters hailing Satan in that manner, such as Anton la Vey at a Satanic altar, and Charles Darwin, and stars at the 2014 Grammy's, who donned devil's horns as they held up their hands in the Satanic salute. Instead of showing any remorse or contrition, the pastor blew up at me and ordered me not to spread it around. I immediately left, and now, because of the truly ungodly experiences I have had in Baptist churches, will not even give any of these false teachers a greeting, "for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works" (2 John 1:10).
I would still give anything to ask him what the Satanic salute (or devil's horns hand sign) means to him. Some people have tried to tell me it means "I love you" in sign language, and that's true. However the problem is that sign language was invented by Helen Keller, who was a Theosophist and occultist (Satan loves nothing better than hiding in plain sight).
Philip was talking to an adult. That's all.
After the Lord saved me He led me to join an old-fashioned Missionary Baptist Church, which, like just about all Baptist churches, rejected infant baptism. Although I agree with John MacArthur on this issue, I must say that RC Sproul provided the best case for infant baptism I have ever heard or read. Both men did a great job presenting their case.
Old fashioned Baptist Church huh? What does that mean?
@@lewisdavis6357 Hi Lewis. Like most things, “old-fashioned” probably means different things to different people. What churches like ours mean by that expression concerns the nature of salvation. We believe that salvation is an experience in which the Lord Himself, through the Holy Spirit, bears witness with our spirit that He has forgiven our sins and given us eternal life. We encourage all who follow after righteousness, they who seek the Lord, to repent towards God and seek His forgiveness until He Himself answers our prayer personally. Anything short of that is simply conjecture on the part of the sinner that they have thought the right thoughts, or said the right words, or done the right things, etc.. Put another way, they received honor from men rather than seeking that honor which cometh from God only.
The Holy Ghost reproves us of sin, else we would never have desired or sought the Lord. He also reproves us of righteousness once He has imputed Christ’s righteousness to us.
@@harveyambrose1166 isnt that just the Gospel though?
@@lewisdavis6357 The gospel is pretty much defined in 1 Corinthians 15: 1-4: it is what Jesus did in order to reconcile us to God. My reply to you was more about what God requires of us. The latter obviously hangs upon the former, so I can see why one might call it the ‘gospel’.
However, my experience is that when it comes to instructing sinners what they must do to be saved, I typically hear them taught to be baptized in water, or to repeat a ‘sinner’s prayer’, or to ‘trust in the accomplished works of Christ’, or ‘live a good life’, or some similar thing.
I seldom hear it said ‘seek God in penitential prayer until He saves you’ or to ‘break up the fallow ground: for it is time to seek the Lord UNTIL HE COME AND RAIN RIGHTEOUSNESS UPON YOU”.
Just thought of something why should it matter if ‘Baptists’ reject infant baptism? The point is irrelevant because Baptists don’t believe that is the time and place of when one is saved and becomes a Christian. So I don’t get the beef.
Sproul introduced some thoughtful concepts to this debate for which I am grateful. I was intrigued to hear how he would counter MacArthur's cogent presentation. Thanks to both men for whom I have the very greatest respect.
I disagree,,,John's argument makes no sense and is shallow.
@@danielpura9572 true.
Daniel Pura an argument based on scripture is shallow? What is deeper than that
@@danielpura9572 really? U know infant makes no sense right?
@@kdm5706 ,,,makes all the sense in the world. Dig a little deeper!😀
"The Bible doesn't teach against infant baptism." It doesn't have to. It teaches over and over to "believe and be baptized." I think it's needless to say that it's for those who can confess faith. Let's have infants partake in communion as well. Lol. I'm with MacArthur for this one. Voddie Baucham also stands by credobaptism.
Babies are incapable of believing or making a confession of faith like the Ethiopian eunuch Acts 8:33--38. Deacon Phillip baptized him in Jesus name in a spring
@@davidortega357 David, I agree with you 💯. Babies are innocent, and know nothing of right verses wrong, good verses evil. Until you reach the age of accountability, you are innocent of sin. Babies obviously, are pure, and need not be baptized!
Circumcision was also to be done in faith when Abraham did it. They still circumcised babies though, a seal of the covenant that was for Abraham and his children. It’s not crazy to think that baptism within the new covenant is for believers and their children (Acts 2:39)
@@davidortega357 when someone is an adult a confession of faith is needed. In the old covenant if an adult wanted to join the Jewish community they would need to be circumsised only if they believed in the God of Abraham. But within the covenant, Abraham circumcised his children, because the promises of God were for him and his children.
@@alfiegalpinmusic hello brother… please read Colossians 2:11-14 where it speaks of the circumcision of the New Testament and baptism. If you notice in the text it also talks about faith and seems to me to affirm believers baptism.
Dr. MacArthur hits it out of the park again!
I really think that MacArthur has the strongest argument. I would agree with Sproul on many things but on this I'll have to go with John!
Amazing you can have an entire seminar talking so much BS.
+Lionel Beck what do you mean? You listened to the entire thing?
I strongly suspect this is what you believed before you watched the video.
+Ken B and I strongly suspect that you believed the same way before this video also. Sadly that is not an argument to diminish +Kat B position. As RC suggests (@1:00:45) we should all desire to be pleasing to God and faithful to the word of God despite our traditions.
I was making an observation and no intention was made to diminish anyone's position. I would say 99% of people who watch this video already know how they believe and are just looking to prove that they are right in their own mind. I would assume you are one of the 99% just like me. I watched the video to see if I might be wrong but neither speaker gave any more info than that which I already knew. I respect both of these men greatly and I actually like John's preaching more than RC. Actually I don't think I have ever heard RC preach.This is an argument that we will only know the answer when we get to heaven. But I am pretty certain that no will care! Now for you to judge me and say that I am diminishing someone's belief greatly saddens my heart and is a bit offensive. Read my comment and please tell me where I said Kat B was wrong or diminished her tradition of baptism.
I say this with love there is no where in the Scripture that teaches infant baptism I totally agree with Pastor John
There is no where in scripture that teaches a prohibition of infant baptism either. Jesus said let the little children come unto me for such is the kingdom of God. Case closed.
Well said John,You know,we both have Preached this exact same message,discourse from the age of 20,,, 45 years .and to this day,many refuse to come to it.Amazing,,,,
It is MacArthur stands first, He is scriptural. Even I like R C Sproul.
Believers baptism is based on scripture infant baptism is based on assumptions , insertions of the text , tradition , history , dancing all over the Bible
It depends on which wagon you ride, scripture speaks of circumscision, sprinkling, consecration , washing are all old testament precepts of the tabernacle, that find there equivalence and fullfilment in the new. The language of the early believers reflects this.
LOVE THESE GUYS,
LISTENING AGAIN
Amen, and thank you RC Sproul for pinpointing the truth on every level, of the word of God regarding infant baptism being "the visual sign of the spoken promise, unto the children who are made holy by the profession of faith in God by at least one parent.The promise of God to those who put their trust in Him."
Only God knows the answer to this subject and we, as born again Christians have the Bible from which to learn. Not one of us can "prove" a thing, though on the subject of baptizm.
However, I was baptized as an infant and as an adult God drew me to Himself through HIs Son Jesus Christ. The most important point to me is that God Himself knows who are His. God knew me before the foundation of the heavens and the earth, and He knows I am His. God was there when I was baptized, of that I am certain because I read the Bible and believe scripture. The word "holy" is not randomly used in the Bible. I have learned and enormous amout of scriptural theology from both MacArthur and Sproul ove rthe years, and respect them both highly.
1 Corinthians 7"14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
The Bible is very clear. There is no mention of infant babtism.
Jesus died on a cross for our sins. Nothing we do can save us or our children.
I have never seen a baby confess his sin. Nowhere is infant babtism mentioned. However it is mentioned that you should neither add or remove anything from Scripture, because it causes division. Not even Jesus when He quited Scripture added anything. Jesus was circumcised as a Jewish baby. Why do you think He let John babtize Him as a grown man? It was both as an example and in order to receive the Holy Spirit. Read John.
The Bible is NOT written for Theologians or their opinions, but for simple people who beleive that the Bible is true.
"... Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”
Mark 10:15 NKJV
From Scripture:
"In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made WITHOUT HANDS by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, BURIED WITH Him in baptism, in which you also were raised (past continues tense) with Him through FAITH the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead (present tense) in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having WIPED OUT THE handwriting of REQUIREMENTS that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having NAILED IT TO THE CROSS"
Colossians 2:11-14 NKJV
bible.com/bible/114/col.2.11-14.NKJV
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but TEST the spirits, whether they are of God; because MANY false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that CONFESSES (a baby cannot confess) that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not CONFESS that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now ALREADY in the world. You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world."
I John 4:1-4 NKJV
bible.com/bible/114/1jn.4.1-4.NKJV
"Flee also youthful lusts; but pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. But AVOID foolish and IGNORANT DISPUTES, knowing that they generate strife."
II Timothy 2:22-23 NKJV
bible.com/bible/114/2ti.2.22-23.NKJV
Babies are saved through the grace of God who send Hos son to die on a cross for human sin. Nothing we can do can save us.
Our confession of our sins and admitting that we can only be saved through the grace of God, then babtism IN water (not sprinkling). Then living as a new born Christian through the Holy Spirit which God will send, to guide you while you study the Bible.
Habrá este debate traducido o subtitulado al castellano.. seria interesante para el pueblo hispano...
Hay muchos Latinos en la iglesia de John Macarthur. Si tu marcarias ellos yo estoy cierto que alguien alla podria ayudar te en eso asunto.
@@richardbyrd7047 th-cam.com/video/3_oRwN7HIlM/w-d-xo.html
I was baptized at the age of 21 in the name of Jesus Christ my Children when they came of age got baptized as I did my daughter at 12 my son at 11 they bother received the holy ghost and spoke in tongues to that's the way the church continues for the promise is unto you and to your children I raised my kids in the true church of Apostolic Oneness christian church
I'm with John on this one.
De mucha bendición el debate no cabe duda que el Dr. R. C. Sproul. Fue una eminencia en la escrituras
Sorry RC. You were just schooled in Scripture. How anyone could walk away from this debate thinking there is any validation for infant baptism is inconceivable to me. If you want to sprinkle your baby, go ahead, God doesnt forbid it. I just wont sprinkle mine because God never said to do it from Genesis to Revelation
I wish the Catholic Church would add the sacrament of Exorcism if they are the arbiters of Grace. Too many who were christened are so evil towards us!
Great debate with 2 equally valid points. A person can not be truly Biblicist and hold to all of Orthodox Christianity and it's foundational creeds without being in error.
True you can't believe that God is limited to "Scripture Alone" and hold to the authentic faith of the Apostles. It's impossible.
This is one of the best debates I've heard, although it is usual for each to have time to challenge the others presentation and pose and answer questions from the other. Where is the question time that was announced in the intro? There are numerous listed at right bu it doesn't seem that any are the one that follows this debate.
I consider this two men to be inspired by God and I have learned so much from their teachings even though they belong to a different church. We have to think about both points of view for they are really interesting but what I really admire from them is that they both teach us about God's love for humanity and the sacrifice of his beloved son. And the passion they dedicate to this subject is beyond amazing!!
Great debate!!! I think this is helpful for studying baptism differences.
the 2 positions don't have to be considered mutually exclusive. When you ARE baptized as an "adult", you CAN make your profession. When the baby gets old enough, they make their profession(or not), but can go astray, just as the circumscribed could go astray.
It’s not about YOU. It’s not about YOU having to express to the world your faith. It’s not about YOU and your knowledge of religion. It’s HIS gift to you. Baptism now saves you. It’s HIS work, not yours. This tells us according to Paul’s teachings baptism is for all, children included, not just people that feel they have ‘arrived’ at some preconceived knowledge level. American Christianity screws this all up.
Are you telling me you believe a parent can get their baby wet, and that baby will now be saved because of the works performed by another person other than Christ?
Great argumentation by RC. Sadly bad teaching is rampant in the church as is evident by many of the comments.
Sorry. You've got your first word wrong. You wanted to write WRONG. Not great. Otherwise you would belong to those who support wrong teaching in the church. ;)
@@luboshcamber1992 my friend. We should be peace makers and love our brothers and not mock them.
@@luboshcamber1992 get a grip
@@PatrickMoto97
I agree. We should. But we shouldn't support wrong teaching let alone endorse it. I never mocked anyone in my comment btw.
I think that R. C. Sproul has a deeper theology. Many baptist believers including John MacArthur don't realize that we also believe in "believer's baptism." The Reformed Infant Baptism is not telling you to give up the "believer's baptism." It is not less than that, but more. It is about the covenant.
C. J. Fang exactly, RCs argument is more convincing.
Amen
That's incorrect. In the christian reformed church, those who are infant baptized, cannot then be 're-baptised' when they're older
C. J. Fang I just left a reformed church (RCUS) because I discovered after a couple years that the “pastor” was NOT regenerated. Also, baptism means “immersion “!
@@BelieveOnlyJesus My friend, do you think R. C. Sproul and those Presbyterians don't know what you mean about baptism, or there's something you may not know?
Scripture alone. Believer's baptism.
Believers baptism isn’t biblical only man made from denominations! Jesus nor the disciples taught it! And Luther didn’t teach it either only the false denominations!
John literally took all Sprouls arguments and destroyed them before he ever spoke. Love both men and have been blessed by both of there ministries
Baptism where and when for a child is a Parental decision, not a biblical one. The important thing is that you are Baptized period!
So if someone is not baptized, but believes in their heart that God raised Jesus from the dead and confesses with their mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord, are they saved? Paul seems to think so.
“because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
Romans 10:9 ESV
The bible is clear that water baptism is only to be taken by already saved believers not for salvation itself. Acts @-38, Acts @-48, 1 Cor 117-18 KJV
Presbys dont beleive that baptism saves. Sincerely, a Reformed Baptist
@@TwitchyTheologian There's no such thing as a reformed baptist.. Calvinism is not a part of Christianity, it was never baptist and never will be..
This was amazing! RC Sproul was incredible. I remembered Acts 16 which indicated that the parents and their household were baptized which truly set them apart from the Gentile world. Wow. I never saw that Scripture like this before!
Yes he is always amazing. But in this case he is wrong and was lovingly crushed by his giant friend of one of the best preachers ever namely John MacArthur. The Bible is clear, Roman Catholics came up with infant baptism and they give exactly same defence as R.C. did. It is a Catholic nonbiblical wrongness.
@@jakesanders136 That text isn't talking about salvation or baptism. In 1 Cor Paul is answering a letter sent to him by the Corinthian church. One of those questions had to do with the validity of a marriage between a believer and an unbeliever. The concern was, if one of the marriage partners was lost, was that still a pure marriage and were the children legitimate in the eye of God. Paul makes it clear that even though a believer ought not marry an unbeliever it is still a true marriage and the children are legitimate. The idea is not "should they be baptized"? If there were the case then the unbelieving spouse should be baptized as well. As pastor Charles Spurgeon said, 1 Cor 7 is a dry text if ever there were one - for it has nothng to do with baptism.
RC sproul said some thing that were very interesting, things i never saw before, an interesting point at best, but john is so good at all that he teaches, that he destroys ever one in his path, and that is why i have his Bible, so that i can read every thing he has learned over many, many years of study....John MaCarther teaches true Christian faith.
He's not the best teacher and I know John for a long time. Love him as a brother in Christ but RC is a far better and biblically sound teacher,and a host of others. John is a bit shallow and incomplete. I hope you get to see it
@@danielpura9572 I find it interesting of JMac to always weave into his discussions how wrong the Catholic position is wether it's Rome or Eastern Orthodox. It's a sneaky diversion tactic.
I liked RC's opening remarks concerning explicit vs implicit content. Nowhere in Scripture does it state explicitly to baptize infants. And nowhere in Scripture does it explicitly state that Scripture is the sole rule of faith. Yet both JMac and RC adhere to Sola Scriptura.
MacArthur 1 Sproul 0. Case closed.
@@m4641 Actually, Scripture does indicate that it is the sole rule of faith as seen in these verses.
*2 Timothy 3:15-17 (ESV):* "and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
And. . . *Galations 1:7b-8 (ESV):* "but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."
@@marthahicks8569 It's interesting how we both read the two passages that you cited and derive at two diametrically opposed conclusions.
It's also interesting to me that anyone who purports Scripture as the sole rule of Faith disregards Paul's words pertaining to Tradition.
Suffice to say, let's agree to disagree.
Mac does win the debate on length of the presentation, attacking the other side with quotes of ones own resource against them in a twisted way, but also logical reasons why infant baptism is not necessary for salvation nor ought
to be practiced.
Ezekiel 36:25, "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you."
"26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules."
"Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." John 15:3 The above verse you stated cannot refer to New Testament church baptism, for the church is not in view, but rather the nation of Israel. Are you stating that this sprinkling will be some form of baptism upon the nation of Israel's reconciliation with God? The water in Ezekiel 36:25 refers to the cleansing from idolatry of the heathen, not a rite of admission into a church.
@@CanadianGospelMission Look at the context: Ezekiel 36:26-27
@@reformedheart
CONTEXT:
1. The land (now desolate and in the hand of Israel's enemies) will be restored to their possession and abound in fruitfulness v.1-9
The people will be regathered and restored back to their state, "better... than at your beginnings", they will possess the land that God has appointed them, this land being that which God promised to Abraham and his seed, the land between the river of Egypt and the river Euphrates (Genesis 15), and will multiply in it . v.12-15
Idolatry will no more be found in the land as it was and has been through their history. The land will be cleansed of its pollution, and God's name will be sanctified in them. v.16-23
They will be gathered out of all nations whither they have been driven, and will be cleansed from their sin. God will grant them a new heart, and will regenerate them fully and completely. He will put His spirit within them, the stony heart of sinfulness be removed. They will keep His law v.24-27
They shall dwell as a restored people in the land which God share to their fathers, be His people once more, and He will be their God v.28
The land will multiply its increase, for they will receive the blessing of fellowship and communion with their God, no more curse upon the country v.29-35
The heathen around them will recognize the God of Israel as the covenant keeping God who restores that which has been torn down. v.36-38
Where is the church?
The church has no land...no waste cities...no sin from which it must needs be cleansed, that having been accomplished by Christ as Calvary.
Conclusion: the church is no where in view in this precious promise of Israel's restoration as a nation to their God in fulfillment of His promise to Abraham. Baptism is not in view, no matter badly you wish to justify sprinkling as a legitimate mode of baptism, much less infant sprinkling. My friend, baptism is a much clearer doctrine in scripture if you do not seek to superimpose millennia of extrabiblical and unbiblical traditions upon it. Hope this proves helpful to you!
@@reformedheart With respect, God chose us IN CHRIST before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. IN CHRIST, elect, not IN CHRIST, not elect.
Honestly, not sure how that fits squarely within the context of sprinkling, but in any case, God has not fulfilled every promise He made to Israel to the church...impossible. Read Genesis 15.
God has promised us no land, no continuing city, no enduring national identity... Much harm has been done in the name of Christ to the name of Christ because certain religious groups, both Catholic and Protestant, have embraced that idea and carried it to its logical conclusion, a religious nationalistic government...
Besides, you cannot simply write "church" in every instance God spoke to "Israel" without arguing that God has lied to them. While you might chalk that up to God's determinate counsel or secret purpose in lying to them, that would certainly lend no confidence to you if you count your position before God as secure. If God has cast off His people Israel, when He promised that He never would, then for any purpose that suited Him He could cast off you.
I don't know if this would interest you or anyone that would see this message line, but here at the BAPTIST MISSION we are presently conducting a study on spiritual Israel and national Israel. I would love to have you listen in, live streamed Wednesdays at 4pm EST. Here is a link to the playlist of these studies. I do believe that we can in good faith disagree one with another, and I do hope you have found the exchange to be respectful from my end. If you would find this resource to be of any help, I would count it my honor. God bless you!
Wednesday Bible Studies: th-cam.com/play/PLAF8o1-Gf-BmqBmzRDiEn7qB2ASRAzFvc.html
@@CanadianGospelMission God chose His people before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4). What the Old Testament promised, the New Testament fulfills. Ezekiel 36:26-27 promised the "new heart" that God regenerates His people by the Holy Spirit in the NT (Rom. 2:15; 2 Cor. 3:3; John 3:3-8). Sprinkling is not a must but a preference.
BTW, don't write something like a bunch of raw texts, be concise and use paragraphs, and don't put links. Otherwise, no one will read it.
Why no rebuttals? Why no cross-examinations?
John 1:26 John answered them saying I baptize with water but there standeth one among you ,whom ye know not
This was a great debate. But, I must agree with John MacArthur from beginning to end. Dr. Spruol did not present any evidence for his defense.
Sproul provided a number of arguments. Maybe he should have enumerated them for you, as MacArthur did.
The Apostles are the foundation of the church, Eph. 2:20 these men were commissioned to go into all the world and preach the Gospel, those who believe and are baptized will be saved, those who are not will not be saved. Mk.16:15,16
The church began on the Day of Pentecost with more than 3000 Jewish men, women, boys and girls were all baptized in Jesus name. This movement continues to impact believers around the world. Water baptism in Jesus name is important for salvation.
The truth of the baptism of the Holy Spirit (during the period of dispensation of grace till the times of the Gentiles is fulfilled at the time of the Great Tribulation) after the baptism by water in the past.
Rightly divide the word of truth.
2 Timothy 2:15 > Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
(1) The Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven to the Jews and Water Baptism of Repentance.
However, baptism of the Holy Spirit, in the period of dispensation of grace, is through faith in Yahshua and not through the laying of hands of priests or pastors etc; or by water.) Also remember John the Baptist in Mark 1:8 > I (John) indeed have baptized you with water: but He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Mathew 3:11 > I (John the Baptist) indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
(Yahshua baptises with Holy Spirit without water).
John 20: 22 > And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
Repent and be baptised (as in Mark 1:8 and Mathew 3:11 above), versus, I was not sent to baptise (as in below).
1 Corinthians 1:17 > For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
[If you believe that Yahshua died for your sins, was buried, and then resurrected then you are sealed (baptised) by the promise of the Holy Spirit.]
Ephesians 1:13 > In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise,
(The books of Peter is written to the Jews as is evident by the reference to his sheep - the strangers scattered outside in 1 Peter 1: 1, 7, 8)
Acts 2:38 > Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
And that repentence and remission of sin should be preached in his name among all nations ( jew and. Gentile ) beginning at. JERUSALEM. ACTS 2:38 IS FOR ALL MANKIND ON EARTH EVEN AS MANY AS THE LORD THY GOD. SHALL CALL. ACTS 2:38-39-47. ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS NEVER PART OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD OF SATAN YES THE RCC IS THE WORLDS LARGEST. CULT
Sir, I have been in a bible believing church for many years we do hold a ceremony when a child is born, we call it a Christening, however, I have never ever heard anyone say the Christening cemented the child's salvation or that the child was guaranteed salvation because the child was sprinkled with water. The Christening is a public statement of the parents to promise to raise the child as a Christian, teaching the child the Holy Scriptures in agreeance with the scripture, Train up a child in the way he shall go and when he is old he will not depart from it. It by no means offers any guarantee of salvation.
Yes!
@Quigle- Dorf proverbs 21:30?
Babies don't know why they are getting baptized, the meaning of baptism is to repent from being a sinner and to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. This is why John the Baptist only baptized people that were aware of sin.
@Proverbs 21:30 But Christeningdoes not save your child nor does it mean you as a child were saved as taught in the catholic church or Lutheran or Episcopal and you've been taught wrongly both of these pastors are bible believing and teaching please listen again
@Proverbs 21:30 all Israelite first born male babies who lived past 30 days went through this type of ceremony. Including Jesus Christ himself. So it is kind of more tradition more than sacrament .
As someone who believes in infant baptism being more likely what Scripture allows, I found RC unconvincing. Also I disagree with both men as to the importance of the debate. Had the specific question of infant vs adult only baptism been so important, Scripture would be clearer. The fact that Scripture is not clear leaves the conscience free to adopt either view.
The entire issue is reconciled if one realizes that the Bible presents household baptism (see Acts 16:33 "he and all his straightway" - there is no limitation on this - young, old, babe - all are included). See also 1 Corinthians 10:2 - "all were baptised" - again - no limitation - ALL included young, old, babes, etc.
Keith Petersen I would just say with respect, you are assuming that there had to be babies. Young children can believe and be baptized
Hi Jonah - No, I'm not saying there had to be babies; only, that we cannot exclude the distinct possibility that there might have been babies. Pharaoh tried to divide Israel in Exodus 10 - attempting to separate the "little ones" to stay behind by saying "Not so: go now, ye [that are] men, and serve Jehovah." Ultimately, Moses (a type of the Lord in delivering His people) said "Not a hoof shall be left behind" - this section of scripture shows how Satan would seek to divide a household; but that, thankfully, God is showing His thoughts for deliverance "householdly". This links up further with Exodus 12 where deliverance for the Israelite was by household. And, yes, young children can believe and that brings up the reality that Christian households should be held/conducted in fidelity to the Lord and His interests. God then will honor that and household baptism shows the Christian's expectation that their baptised little one shall be brought by God into salvation. The Lord said in Genesis 18, "For I know him that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of Jehovah, to do righteousness and justice, in order that Jehovah may bring upon Abraham what he hath spoken of him." I hope this all is agreeable to you.
Keith Petersen not precluding the possibility does not guarantee you are right. The Bible doesn't preclude baptism for the dead (which at least is mentioned by Paul) but that doesn't mean it should be practiced.
Furthermore, I think credo-baptism much more accurately shows children the radical transforming power of the gospel and that until they repent and believe in Jesus, they cannot truly be a part of the kingdom. Of course little children can't exercise saving faith either which is a requirement for baptism..
By the way thanks for being respectful. I hope you take me the same way, too many brothers and sisters break fellowship over things like this. Baptism is important but it's not a gospel issue.
Hi Jonah - Yes, I see so often that Christians "bite and devour" in their communications/posts (Galatians 5:15) - so wrong.
That section to which you refer in 1 Corinthians 15 ("baptised for the dead") is clearly a reference to those already dead but having been baptised and Paul then linking this reality to baptism for those presently living. The enemy was trying to discredit resurrection and Paul was showing that resurrection is a reality and that, if it weren't, baptism became meaningless. The apostle is not at all suggesting that the dead be baptised.
Part of the confusion regarding baptism is not understanding that it is never done by the baptised person - always by someone for them and the confusion can be exacerbated by the fact that it is shown in Acts that those who became saved under God's hand were then baptised. This is simply since they had never been baptised (see Acts 10:47-48, etc.).
The simple principle in the NT as to household baptism is seen in Acts 16 - "Sirs, what must I do that I may be saved?" This is in the singular, and the following verse continues in the singular "thou shalt be saved, thou" and then the "house" is included - "And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house." Then we see that the word was spoken to "all" in his house - "And they spoke to him the word of the Lord, with all that were in his house". All can only mean "all" although, obviously, a babe would not receive the word. Then, "he and all his" were baptised. It is a household baptism. All would include babes - you cannot say it would not - and whether there were babes or not or unbelievers, as well - it is presented by the Holy Spirit that it is a household baptism.
It is also important to restate that the "all" who were baptised might include those who did not have at that time the necessary faith for salvation. Faith is not a prerequisite for baptism. As said earlier, understanding the principle of household baptism reconciles all difficulties as to baptism. Here is a link that might interest you as to this subject: www.bible-ministry.com/letter-baptism
Some think that, without baptism, a person cannot be saved. However, the thief on the cross became saved at that time - he could never have been baptised to the Lord's death since he would have died on the cross.
I apologize for running to a bit of length. Have a safe year-end.
I have tremendous respect for RC Sproul and appreciate what he teaches. I don’t agree with him here and I wish he was still alive to answer one question, maybe some of you who agree with him can answer it.
So if a child from a believing family is baptized as an infant, when they are old enough to realize they must repent and accept Jesus themselves, are they to be baptized again?
If so, what’s the point of the infant baptism.
If not, why not? That is exactly what the New Testament teaches, repent and be baptized.
While I don't agree with it. The reasoning I have heard is the idea that covenant children (infants with believers as thier parents) are baptized as babies in the belief that they will one day come to know God's saving Grace. That baptism says "you are part of the church and will be cared for" (I'm paraphrasing there, could be missing some important points) A presbyterian pastor used Philippians 1:6 "And I am sure of this, that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion" the rest of the verse says "at the day of Jesus Christ." The idea being a good work has begun in an infant's life at baptism and it will benefit them as they grow towards a personal faith. That they WILL one day come to faith.
I'm not the best to represent this side as I'm not fully convinced nor fully understand the reasoning for infant baptism. I'm somewhat indifferent at the moment. I had a friend baptized in the Catholic church bas an infant. When they became a believer as an adult they wanted to be obedient and be baptized. But the Presbyterian church they attend said the infant baptism in a trinitarian church was valid.
Adding - those that hold to infant baptism believe being baptized a second time would suggest the first Baptism was invalid.
@Jenn Fisher
Good comment. And that is EXACTLY how Roman Catholics would defend this wrong doctrine of infant baptism. R.C. in this case tried to hold to old Roman Catholic made up non biblical doctrine. There is a reason why the highest amount of converts to Roman Catholicism are Presbyterians and Anglicans....
@@luboshcamber1992 please site your data. I think you just made that up out of thin air.
Nope, the baptism comes to fruition and is realized when the covenant child repents and confesses Christ.
I would much prefer a family only practice credobatpism than dilute it’s significance by baptizing twice.
Your first baptism was a true, meaningful, and real sign of the promises of God to His people. :)
A second baptism effectively says, “not really”
Matthew 18:2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them.
The little child didn’t argue or look for a place. The child only obeyed Jesus and accepted their place.
this is not a debate rather it's a separate sermon from the two lecturer.
Get baptized! Be on the safe side! I agree with MacArthur!
I agree with Jesus. And John MacArthur. Repent and be baptized as an adult of course. Not a baby or infant.
Sorry RC it wasn’t a win for your point of view for infant baptism, John MacArthur totally won that debate ,🤩🙏🏻
Hi Suzanne, I actually agree with RC. I think he presented his case much more convincingly than John, and in fewer words. RC's point, I think, was that all of scripture is about our Lord Jesus, and the continuity of covenants is important. While circumsision is not analogous to baptism, the sign of the covenant, whether circumsision or baptism, is relevant. But we can disagree, and still be friends. As RC said, all of us just want to please God.
RC destroyed MacArthur lol
@@twicegod9160 how so? He never said what possible benefit infant baptism had. “Tell them they already received the sign,” being the strongest argument is, in my humble opinion, vastly inferior to allowing the children to choose to participate in the covenant sign upon their confession of faith. I was hoping he would help me understand why anyone supports infant baptism. He failed. While I do not feel infant baptism is sinful, I see no benefit.
RC God consists of 3 persons who ever existed during before creation, as God Son is with man and as God Holy Spirit is in man. We should include/mention the 3 of them in our baptism.
@@jwagoner7 Weird! The infants are free thinkers/atheist ,i.e., God does not care abt them!😂😢😢😢😢😢
R.C has not shown clearly how there is any relevance between New testament baptism and circumcision, let alone between circumcision and infant baptism
There is...“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism” (vv. 11-12).
- Colossians 2:8-15
Why would he when it's not an issue ?
We must be baptized in water and in spirit before we can enter into God's kingdom but circumcision is a tradition of man that has no relevance as to what makes a man worthy or unworthy of inheritance.
@@thomasspringer5738 I'm not sure I follow your logic. Circumcision was never a tradition of man.
Best debate on topic I have heard
I like what dr. McArthur said in his opening statement, that we should not be considered divisive when we bring up arguments to the norm.
in fact, the body of Christ is Thoroughly divided already, so much so that you can hardly call it the body of Christ! It definitely is not "one body", but multiples.
this kind of discussion is exactly what is needed to draw the leaders of Christianity together and become one as Jesus and his father are one. It should include all sectarian leaders, not just sproul & MacArthur. plus all of them including Sproul and MacArthur need to be willing to admit where they are wrong and change their doctrinal beliefs. it's a start.
WickAndTallow love your comment and especially the last words that both men need to admit when they are wrong in their teachings. Which very difficult for both to accept 😊
I love R.C. Sproul, but I will never understand why he affirmed infant baptism in his life. It's just not in the bible as Macarthur said. Again, I love R.C. But this is something about him I will never understand.
In the book of Acts 2: 38-39, St Peter clearly states that the promise of baptism and therefore new life in Jesus Christ, includes children. We also read in the whole book of Acts how many at times a whole household were baptised(Acts 16:33) and a whole household will include children. Also it's good to look back to history and find out if infant baptism has always been part of the Christian faith. And the answer is YES. You can read church fathers after church fathers throughout the centuries from 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th etc. Our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ says that, we should not prevent the little children to come to him. We also knows that baptism does and truly saves (1 Peter 3:21; John 3:3,5-6)
If I'm not mistaken, the Presbyterian Church is foundationally separated from the reformed Baptist Church based on this one doctrine. It seems strange to me that anybody would believe infant baptism, but as far as I know, most Presbyterians believe this doctrine and think it's strange that anybody would not believe it.
@@Stanzi18 Maybe you would think infant circumcision strange too, but it's right there in the Bible. "Seeming" isn't a reliable way to learn truth....
@@Shikuesi after listening to Sproul entirely on this issue, I look at the paedobaptism position with much more empathy and understanding. I definitely see how somebody could read the Bible and assume this position. I still only affirm credobaptism, but Sproul is the only person I've listened to on the issue that has made me question that stance.
You're absolutely right as well. It is a good analogy, but I think that there is a distinction in that the Old Testament gives specified instruction for infant circumcision, but the New Testament doesn't do the same for baptism. I'd be lying if I said that the implication of child circumcision doesn't continue to challenge me on this view.
Let the children come to me. Jesus said this.
Why is this even up for debate. It blows my mind. Why don't we just walk around with some holy water of baptism, and sprinkle people whether they want it or not. It may annoy them, but we have work to do.
Nowhere in the Bible is there any time where any unwilling, unacknowledged or unrepentant human being of any age, was baptized without their consent by repentance. The only reason baptism even means anything at all, is because of grace through faith in Jesus. Without that, it's nothing but water good for cooking food and doing dishes.
+Rick Stewart 2:12 ? I wasn't saying water baptism is necessary for salvation. Quite the opposite.
Rick Stewart Okay so you don't believe water baptism is even a matter of obedience at all for Christians?
Rick Stewart Of course we are complete in Christ, but there are many things we do in obedience to Christ, in remembering what He has done for us... and to do good works in the world. We take communion, but we understand doing so does not save us. Yet, we are complete in Christ, so why do it?
1 Cor 1, verses 14-17
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Paul *did* baptize some in water, though. Why would Paul do this? Yes he goes on to say that it was not his calling to do so, but doesn't the fact he did it show that it was a valid practice in the church? Paul was not sent to baptize, but to preach. There are other people in the church who have the time to baptize in water, to explain its symbolization, but Paul wasn't that guy. Others in the church could take that responsibility, though *he did baptize some*.
+Rick Stewart You are not remembering or are not aware that Paul spent three years learning from Jesus before he went before the church with his revelation. Jesus already had revealed to Him what the Lord would show and teach him beforehand--for three years. So, that explanation that Paul was still learning... so he baptized some by mistake, really doesn't hold up. Also, the context of 1 Cor is that there are others who ARE baptizing. It's not that the baptizing is wrong, but that the cliques people were creating saying they followed such and such because of who baptized them, was wrong.
See Galatians 1:15-24 where Paul recounts this. He certainly wouldn't have started baptizing people after this revelation and three years apart, if it was not a duty of the church (much like communion).
So, the baptisms Paul did do, would have certainly been after these three years. And, to think that the issue of the water baptism John performed would not have come up in all that Paul learned over this time, would just not be reasonable.
---
15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. 20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they glorified God because of me.
+Rick Stewart sorry but I think you're making the assumptions here. I've simply explained Paul's time following the revelation of who Jesus really is, was THREE YEARS. I'm sure he learns much in that time. Apparently, you don't think he learned enough such that he would do baptisms as an oopsy-daisy. I wonder what other oopsy-daisies he did as a powerfully called early church founder.
Paul clearly says he baptized but that it wasn't his mission. His mission was to preach. He was coming against the cliques and man-following. You are assuming that Paul learned at some point baptism wasn't a part of the churches duty to do, when in fact he never says that, ever.
The Bible says "So then, those who had received his word were baptized." Acts 2:41.
RC may feel or think a certain way but Philip answered the man asked what’s keeping me from being baptized and I’m pretty sure Philip answered him.
So where was the public when Philip baptized the Ethiopian? I didn't see any, but they might have been there, even though there is no mention of a public church meeting, except by the two we know were there.
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Ephesians 4:5
Rinda Rossouw the Baptism Paul is speaking about in this verse, is not water Baptism. There were actually several different types of baptism in the Bible, but many people mistakingly only see one, with water.
This is Spirit baptism
What must i do to be saved then Peter said unto them repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin and you shall recieve the gift of the holy ghost ACTS 2:38. ACTS. 19:2-7.
I appreciate my parents having me baptized when I was an infant. My parents did this as an act of faith, so their hearts were in the right place. However I wasn't mature enough to repent at that time in my life Acts 2:38. Even though I believe John MacArthur had a stronger argument on this I also believe R.C. made a good case for supporting infant baptism as an act of faith. Circumcision vs Baptism shouldn't divide us.2 Timothy 2:14
Sorry, I disagree with you. There is one Lord, one faith & one baptism. Baptism is when you receive the forgiveness of your sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. As a former Catholic, I struggled with this but saw through scripture that this is false doctrine. If God asked us to crawl naked through glass for 10 miles and recite the American national anthem backwards in a French accent for the forgiveness of our sins, would you do it? I’ve been a minister of the Gospel since 1995 - if you wish to talk privately on the matter I’d be more than willing to help understand what I scripturally know now.
Infant baptism based on Matt 19:14 (NIV) Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
Your parents did what Jesus said. 👍👍
@John 3:19 baptism is a sign of covenant with God in new testament, same as circumcision in old testament.
Acts 22:16
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’
Acts 2:38
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
1 Peter 3:21
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
John 3:5
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God
In Catholicism, there are 2 forms of baptism:
#1 by water as a sign of covenant with God. Infant baptism follows Jews tradition, circumcision. It's like what Jesus had, circumcised at 8 days old.
#2 by Holy Spirit as known as Sacrament of Confirmation.
Being baptised doesn't mean you will go to heaven. It's rather a step forward for being saved a.k.a. not going to hell.
Someone who has been baptised can lose their salvation if they don't maintain it, just like what Paul says in Galatians 5. The covenant (either circumcision or baptism) will not save you if you let yourself fallen away.
This is why in Catholicism, faith AND works (following Jesus teachings) are needed for our salvation. You can't earn it but you can lose the free gift given from the Father (James 1:17).
@John 3:19 To be remain in Him (John 15:1-11), first of all the Bible tells us we must have faith in order to be saved (Hebrews 11:6).
In the Scriptures, we see faith also involves assent to God's truth (1 Thessalonians 2:13), obedience to Him (Romans 1:5, 16:26), and it must be working in love (Galatians 5:6).
What is working in love? We can find them in Matthew 25:31-46.
Our thoughts (Matthew 15:18-20) and words (James 3:6-12) are accountable as well.
Where does our assistance come from to reach our heavenly destination? Philippians 4:13 says it all, "I can do all things in Him who strengthens me."
@John 3:19 No. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6)
When speaking of salvation, Jesus offered more details than just his words quoted above. For example, consider these three verses:
He who believes and is baptised will be saved. (Mark 16:16)
Unless you repent you will all likewise perish. (Luke 13:3)
He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:54)
Notice that in these three verses Jesus associated salvation with baptism, confession, and the Eucharist, respectively. Catholics recognise that these sacraments are administered through the Church. In fact, in the case of the latter two, a validly ordained priest is necessary for their administration, so the sacrament of ordination must also be associated with salvation. A primary role of the Catholic Church in conjunction with salvation is becoming quite clear.
This brings us to the second part of the Catechism’s formulation of the doctrine being considered: “. . . through the Church which is his Body.”
Since the sacraments are the ordinary means through which Christ offers the grace necessary for salvation, and the Catholic Church that Christ established is the ordinary minister of those sacraments, it is appropriate to state that salvation comes through the Church.
This is not unlike the situation that existed prior to the establishment of the Catholic Church. Even before it was fully revealed that he was the Messiah, Jesus himself taught that “salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22). He pointed the woman of Samaria to the body of believers existing at that time, through which salvation would be offered to all mankind: the Jews.
In a similar fashion, now that the Messiah has established his Church, Jesus might say, “salvation is from the Catholics”!
Recognising this, we can see why the Church, especially during times of mass exodus (such as has happened in times when heresies have run rampant), has been even more forceful in the way it has taught this doctrine. Instead of simply pointing out how God offers salvation from Christ, through the Church, the Church has warned that there is no salvation apart from Christ, outside his Church.
Since Jesus established the Catholic Church as necessary for salvation, those who knowingly and willingly reject him or his Church cannot be saved. We see this in Jesus’ teaching: “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters” (Matt 12:30). Also: “If he [a sinning brother] refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matt 18:17). Paul warned similarly: “As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned” (Titus 3:10-11).
Having said all this, we must recognise that this doctrine is not as far reaching as some imagine it to be. People will sometimes ask, “Does this means non-Catholics are going to hell?” Not necessarily.
The Church recognises that God does not condemn those who are innocently ignorant of the truth about his offer of salvation.
Regarding the doctrine in question, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (quoting Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, 16) states:
This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)
Vatican II document Gaudium Et Spes teaches similarly on the possibility of salvation:
All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. (22)
This teaching is consistent with Jesus’ own teaching about those who innocently reject him: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin” (John 15:22).
But once a person comes to know the truth, he must embrace it or he will be culpable of rejecting it. We see this in Jesus’ words to the Pharisees: “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” (John 9:41). Paul taught likewise concerning the Gentiles:
When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom 2:14-16)
Notice Paul’s carefully chosen words: “their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them.” Paul did not say that those who are innocently ignorant of the truth will be saved; he simply keeps open the possibility of it.
Similarly, he wrote: “Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith” (Rom 3:29-30).
As we have seen, God introduced salvation to the world through his chosen people, the Jews. God’s revelation to the Jews found its fulfillment in Christ, the Messiah, who established the Catholic Church. The grace necessary for salvation continues to come from Christ, through his Church. Those who innocently do not know and embrace this might still attain salvation but those who knowingly and willingly choose to reject it, reject salvation on God’s terms.
The Catechism (once again quoting Lumen Gentium) summarises all this as follows:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. (CCC 846)
Sproul and the like always fascinated me with their massive blind spot. Didn't they realize from the protestant reformation that the traditions of men and church "history" are not the barometer of the truth? Sola scriptura. There really should be no debate at all.
@Robert Bryan so with that said you must have sided with John on this one. I love both of these guys and agree with MacArthur.
One minor point to consider: Martin Luther practiced infant baptism, pointing to the sacred tradition of the church as justification.
@@Papa79079 I don't think he used infant baptism to the point of saying it is all you need for justification. I'm pretty sure he was a man of faith alone in Christ alone for salvation. He may have had a tradition that was kept but he knew no work could save him but the work of Christ as in that's the whole reason he fought against the corrupt system at the time thst taught you could buy your way to heaven or purge people out of purgatory with money. Not fair to accuse him of that tbh
@@stephenblackwell5533 Thanks Stephen. Not accusing, just stating a fact. Luther baptized infants (he was a Catholic monk after all.) Lutherans baptize infants even today as Luther did. Apologies if my comment sounded like criticism or accusation. Wasn't my intent. God bless!
@@Papa79079 yes sir I understand your point but I believe he did come to the point of believing in justification in the right way as he did fight against that type of catholicism which had works for salvation. Guess it is kind of like if you dress a certain way when you go to the house of God. We know it doesn't save us but perhaps your attire is a tradition
Respectfully for those who preach infant baptism, what is very important to the Lord is what he commanded his biblical apostles to put into practice, and that was to baptize adults, that is believers who were already capable of making discernment about repentance.
In the gospel of Mark chapter verses 15 and 16 the Lord says to his apostles, go into the world and preach the good news to every creature, possibly here, in the word ´´CREATURE´´ some teachers may interpret that by saying ´´CREATURE´´ he was referring to babies or infants, some might affirm that the Lord was talking about infants, let s focus in the context of the command, ´´preach the good news to.....´´ can we imagine for a moment that the apostles were preaching to babies or infants? well, the rest of the New Testament shows several times when ´´CREATURES´´ who believed in the message of the good news were not infants but adults.
As far as baptizing adults there is no doubt that the apostles of our Lord obeyed Him, as far as baptizing babies, which they did perform, we know that they did not disobey because the command was very clear and the practice of baptizing infants has no biblical support.
On the other hand, I really like the way these 2 preachers debated, they did it respectfully and also show respect for the audience. May the Lord bless everyone's understanding and the peace of God be with his people amen.
As someone who was Baptized at 13 in a Southern Baptist Church, then later converted to Catholicism, I find this exchange interesting. Catholics are often told that Protestants agree on the core tenants of the Christian faith, but a we see here, there are deep divisions, sometimes even within the same denomination. Jesus' prayer is that we would be one.
JOHN MACARTHUR WAS MORE CONVINCING
Kang Justin : because my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed in the book of John. The synoptic gospel is for remembering to eat each other' flesh, so to speak. It is not a matter of convincing. Zechariah'11:4 flock is for slaughter, because of Acts 8:23 are their deeds mentioned in 1 Peter 4:5 and for this reason the gospel was preached to recall the former days in which 10:32 Hebrews were illuminated.:)
Kang Justin
((PBUH)) R.C. now from the heavens. Amen.
Kang Justin
th-cam.com/video/xMB48kT4GaM/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/dGXjKWgaXqc/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/adMx5Sf7u2I/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/KG9Ehc6pzrA/w-d-xo.html
Apparently Saint Paul wanted to stay out of the debate. "I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius..." LOL
Lol 🤣
I am "not" at crossroads on the issue of infant baptism. There is no debate on my mind. To use inferences and arguments from silence are poor support to teach a Biblical teaching, no matter what the subject matter is. I do believe that RC is an intellectual. One of the problems with an intellectual is that they rely heavily on his human rationale ability, The human rationale is of the natural world. An intellect is a human virtue. I have heard lots of human intellect explanations from RC. Human intellect ends up using "explanations" to make points. If the claim is that it is a Biblical teaching, show me clear cut book, chapter and a verse (or a passage). Please do not try to convince me with "explanations."
And what do you use to explicate God's Word, your big toe?
what is written expressly is written expressly. What is implied is gathering all the verses and passages that speak on that particular subject, draw a consistent interpretation from it. I could mention the illumination of the Holy Spirit, but everyone claims that too.
steve webb to
steve webb : I am not persuaded by men.
John Bennett : Luke 20.34 Sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are worthy to attain that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God. So are 3.4 names even in Sardis, who have not defiled Their garments.
(( I personally do not know how is communion connect to women. Ask the catolics for more info...)) For He is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation, for by Him all things were created that are in the heavens and that are on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things and in Him all things consist.
How proud our Father must be to see His creation having nothing better to do than to disagree whether or not a baby needs to be baptized.
While I certainly have a deep respect for Dr. Sprole and his deep theological thought, powerful preaching and teaching and his service to the Kingdom, his argument fell flat on this point.
Granted, I came in agreeing with John MacArthur, but I left hearing no convincing argument to the contrary.
Just an interesting side note on Baptism being something immersed, not sprinkled (the body) In Acts 8:36, were the eunuch saw water, though being in the "desert" (verse 26), he wanted to be then sprinkled? How could that be, as when anyone traveled in desert area's they always carried water. So, why would he want to find water, if sprinkling would work with some of the water they already had on board the chariot? No, Phillip, no doubt, spoke of immersion, and not sprinkling!
come on tom, quit speaking truth, they dont want to hear it !!!! lets remember why we get baptize, go all the way back to gen 17 and understand the circumcision in old testament and then the new testament in col 2 but they do not want to hear the truth !!!!
How to draw a dimetru don
How to draw a dimetrodon e you
A video of how to draw a dimetrod
I have to say that Sproul talked non-coherently for about half of this speech, until he finally got to a good point, which I agree with. MacArthur was more clear and concise.
McAurthur all the way
YES, FOLLOW HIM ALL THE WAY TO HELL!
th-cam.com/video/iU3tjRq6tX4/w-d-xo.html
Follow Jesus Christ and live to all eternity . Alpha & omega - beginning and end .
Nothing else matters .
Second Corinthians 10:12 .!!
@@johnfountain5770 r u saying MacArthur is a false teacher?
Sad to see RC struggle so much to prove something that isn’t in the Bible. Forget traditions or the reformers, just read the text.
Sprouls should have been more concerned about the activities of his son, RC Jr instead of his view on baptism. For those that don't know, Jr's name was found on the Ashley Madison sex swinger site. It seems Jr strayed from the straight and narrow path.
MacArthur won hands on!
Well clearly John Macarthur had far more time in this debate.
Good joke
Thaks for the references, will look them up.
RC Sproul is right about there being something similar between circumcision and infant baptism. How many of us who have wondered seriously about this, have come to the matter of circumcision? It seems to naturally happen, and that because of the word of God and the matter of conscience. I know it happened to me that way, and I do always end at Romans 14, on this and many other things, and I believe this is by the leading of the Spirit of God. Circumcision wasn't a sign of the people under the law, or the old covenant only. Abraham received it, and it was a sign of his faith, and things pertaining to Abraham were very much a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Abraham's covenant was really mostly about the new, though the old also testified of much of the same.
Circumcision does not include women so how can it be linked to baptism? Also God says in the Old Testament to Circumcise/rend your hearts which is the real circumcision needed.
Everybody gets saved the same way: Conviction of lostness without our own remedy, and faith and repentance toward the Lord Jesus Christ, surrendering all that I am for all that He is, and being born again at a single point in time, from where the life of God is now in my heart through the Holy Spirit. From this point, I live and can think of being baptized symbolically by immersion (death, burial, and resurrection with Christ, Rom 6:4-6).
Shalom Aleichem Roberto.
But how about the Ethiopian eunuch whom was baptized by Philip? Did he went trough a 4 step plan? I know i didn't.
RC’s argument only brings up more questions. If you’re only baptizing an adult after they made a confession of faith, one, is it necessary having already been baptized as a child, two , why is it necessary to be baptized a second time after making a profession of faith? And of course that is because it is scriptural in the New Testament. I do agree that it is a sign of the covenant, but we have a new covenant and there is no direction in the new covenant for baptism other than after one has repented and made a profession of faith.
On this topic, and understanding his reason, I'm definitely with RC Sproul on this one, infant baptism is not scriptural at all, it is only when one comes to faith a requirement to be baptized as an appeal to God for a good conscience and as Christ commanded. And having heard RC's personal testimony I can truly relate without a doubt. I myself was baptized as a baby and yet I lived a godless life and was running towards the lake of fire as fast as my fallen feet could carry me, up until I was 25 years of age and went through a divorce , I don't even think I believed in God at all or the idea I had of God was of a shallow understanding. But until the day I came to faith my life was literally turned upside down, and it was not by my own doing or a decision I made like turning over a new leaf, it was by a miracle of the grace of God through Christ alone and I will always treasure the memory of that night in my heart like a burning lamp. I find it disturbing when people exaggerate experiences especially with the madness going on in so called churches today, especially in prosperity churches, and I will not do the same God is my witness , all I can say is,I know I am not crazy, and as a man who lived in rebellion against the One who I did not know nor believed in, that night the Lord became my God, I knew He is real, it is impossible for me to even conjure up fake experiences or deliberately faking faith when I know what awaits false professers on the day of judgment, it is an inconceivable suffering inflicted by Christ who will tread the wine press of the wrath of God, so I say all these words with fear and trembling. It was only when I came to faith when I desperately wanted to be baptized regardless of being baptized as a child, I honestly do believe the new birth walks hand in hand with the fear of the LORD and wanting to obey His commandments. Many people go through life believing themselves to be believers because they belong to a church or attend regularly, but the fruits of their lives stands in clear distinction that there is a huge contradiction to what they say they believe and what they act out on a daily basis. Justification by faith is essential and foremost , and then follows sanctification, otherwise everything one does comes from vanity. It is only when a man is born again by the Spirit of the Living God that he can even begin to truely see the depths of his own sin and repent and weep and solely depend on God's grace. Scripture says we are justified by faith and faith alone and not works, if we assume we can be justified by works then we all are lost, because then baptism is reduced to just another work when there is an assumption of faith present , that is why I fully stand behind Sproul on this topic.
Ummm.... You mean you agree with Macarthur? RC is arguing FOR infant baptism.
Great testimony 👍
Ya he agrees with Mac Arthur but calls him RC. But I get your point.
I recently came to an understanding that the Roman Catholic church and mass is a firm of Mosaic Law and Temple worship for non- Jews.
After listening to this I find it most interesting that infant baptism has some form of relationship to ancient Mosaic circumcision
From what scripture tells us neither circumcision nor baptism saves anyone. We are saved by faith. These actions are taken as a result of having faith. Doing either one to a baby is only a sign of the parents faith because a baby can not even reason enough to have faith. It is a no brainer.
+Maurice Harting Are you suggesting that people that aren't chosen by God don't have faith of any kind? Everyone that has mind has faith in someone. If not God or someone else then in themselves. Our faith is not what saves us, it's the object of our faith that does. Saving faith is that which is placed in the one and only source of eternal life, Jesus Christ. If we don't have the ability to put our faith in the Christ then we can't be held responsible when we don't. If God is the one that enables us to believe then yes, he is responsible but the he is also responsible for those that he doesn't enable and they shouldn't be punished because that isn't just.
Where does the bible say that regeneration comes before believing? That's not scriptural. That's implied by reformed doctrine in order to make it work. Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. (Rom 10:17). Regeneration is a process that happens after we believe, when we have the Holy Spirit at work in us to help us grow in our knowledge of the Lord. God doesn't zap some into believing.
***** god gives the gift of salvation. Faith comes from the unbelievers who realize Christ Jesus is the only way they can b save. Nowhere in the bible do it say he gives them faith.
***** then explain people who fall from grace and become backsliders the bible constantly warns of believers not backsliding???
***** then explain Saul and Judas Iscariot who fail from grace and my brother read Hebrews 6
***** Hebrews 6, Saul and Judas Iscariot who betrayed Christ Jesus and is n hell. Your beating around the bush with little poems. Explain Hebrews 6
Both right God knows his children
Amen to that
No sorry only one is right regarding baptisms
@@LawofChristMinistries I have to say that the God of heaven may be the better judge of that.
How I long for respectful theological debate to replace political banter in this sick world.
There is a connection with the word, circumcision and baptism. Paul in Colossians speaks of the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism. MacArthur stated there was no scripture that tied in circumcision with baptism, but that is the scripture in Colossians spoken of by Paul, the apostle.