Together for the Gospel? Thoughts on Baptism and Christian Unity

I have listened to the debate that John MacArthur and R. C. Sproul had on baptism and there is no biblical regulation to restrict infants from being baptized. But, there is also no encouragement of it either.
Baptists have always held to the regulative principal for Baptism after salvation. Lutherans and Presbyterians hold the normative principle where no explicit rule against equals a permission for. With Lutherans and Presbyterians holding to Covenant Theology, the purpose for baptism becomes connection to the New Covenant rather than to salvation (yes, I am aware of Lutherans false teaching of baptismal regeneration, but Presbyterians do not hold that view). There are solid arguments for baptism into the New Covenant in a similar vein for circumcision into the Old Covenant. I can see what Bethlehem Baptist is doing in trying to work with persons who come from a different tradition.

 

The closing paragraphs,

 

The condition for baptism is belief. That sort of takes care of the infant issue.

 

As a "Reformed Baptist" I do not feel any push towards a more Presbyterian view of the ordinance. Believe and be baptized. That is the command. Presbyterians baptize infants because they believe unbelieving children are part of the New Covenant family through the sanctification of their parents. Presbyterians do not view the New Covenant as completely new. They view it as a refreshed version of the Abrahamic Covenant. Any Baptists who move towards this view have diluted Baptist distinctives.

 

Indeed from a Regulative Principle perspective you are entirely correct. From a Normative Principle perspective the issue is less clear.
The debate that John MacArthur and his good friend, RC Sproul had on this is invaluable to seeing both perspectives.

*1 Corinthians 7:14*

For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

 

The Regulative and Normative principles deal with worship. The Regulative Principle posits that we are to worship God only in the manner prescribed by scripture. The Normative Principle posits that we are free to worship God in any manner not prohibited by scripture. Baptism is not directly a worship issue. The answer to the baptism issue is found in the nature of the New Covenant.

 

I believe the argument is made that Baptism is in fact a Normative Principle in that there is no specific edict against infant baptism. Of course the argument about entire households being baptized is used as an argument for the Normative Principle surrounding the function of baptism as a Covenantal part of election as it relates from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.
While Baptists do not follow this principle, it is, none-the-less, followed by the broader church.
For this thread it seems the OP is wondering if these differing principles negate togetherness for the gospel.

Speaking for myself only, these issues do not negate fellowship. Moreso, seeing the deep end abiding friendship of RC Sproul and John MacArthur, it seems that issue did not affect their capacity to worship together.

 

Agreed. I regularly have fellowship with Presbyterian brothers. Partnership? Only to the extent it does not compromise local church teaching and polity.

 

Brethren I was raised in the church since I was knee high to a grasshopper and I can attest to not only to my parents but being mentored by the loving saints of the church... After a stint in Vietnam and at the age of 22 I was ready and joined the church and was baptized... I was surprised I didn't see this this quote so here it is... Brother Glen

Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Btw... I've now been serving the LORD for over 54 years!

 

Here are notes I took a few years ago on the Sproul/MacArthur debate:

Baptism Debate

John MacArthur vs. R.C. Sproul

Baptism Debate with R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur by Various Teachers | Ligonier Ministries



Credo Baptism Position

John MacArthur

1. Baptism does not save, both positions can agree upon that important fact.
   
   
2. Baptism seems to no longer be taken seriously in the church at large in America today.
   
   
3. A person who claims to be a Christian but does not get baptized falls into one of the following categories.
   
   1. Ignorant
      
      
   2. Proud
      
      
   3. Indifferent
      
      
   4. Defiant
      
      
   5. Not converted
      
4. Baptism is critical, important, and must be practiced. It is not a minor matter, it is a major matter.
   

Five Reasons to Reject Infant Baptism.

1. Infant Baptism is not in Scripture.
   
   1. Nowhere does it advocate or command infant baptism nor does it forbid it directly. But it must be remembered that you cannot prove a negative. In other words, since it does not discuss it you cannot assume it is biblical or should be allowed even though it does not directly forbid it.
      
      
   2. Therefore it is impossible to support this rite from the Bible.
      
      
   3. It is first recorded in the second and third centuries.
      
      
   4. Reading history and historical tradition back into Scripture is not a proper hermeneutic.
      
      
   5. Scripture sometimes used to support Infant Baptism
      
      1. Matthew 18:3-6 this is not evidence that children are in the Kingdom. This is simply a debate that has reached a fever pitch and Jesus says that you need to be childlike in your belief and move towards the kingdom. No achievement, no accomplishment, receiving a free gift.
         
         
      2. Matthew 19:13-15 This is saying that God cares for children. It has nothing to indicate that the children in this passage are with regenerate or unregenerate parents or even whether or not they were Jewish children or gentiles. There is also no baptism that follows Christ’s speaking of the children.
         
         
      3. Household Baptisms in Acts and Corinthians. There is nothing in these texts to suggest that a baby was present thus giving an example of an Infant Baptism in Scripture.
         
         
      4. Acts 2:38-39 your children means the condition by which you have received the Holy Spirit will be the same condition that your offspring will receive it. It is not saying that when you are saved your children receive the promises.
         
         
      5. 1 Corinthians 7:14 This is not a passage about children, this is an issue about whether I should leave an unconverted spouse. What this is saying, while a converted member of the family is in the house there is some blessing imparted to the rest of the house because God takes care of His child. If this is a mandate for infant baptism it must also be a mandate to baptize the unbelieving partner.
         
2. Infant baptism is not New Testament Baptism
   
   1. While the Bible is silent on infant baptism it is crystal clear and speaks a lot about adult believer baptism.
      
      
   2. Every event of Baptize in the Scripture is immersion.
      
      
   3. It was the only outward sign that depicts the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
      
3. Infant baptism is not a replacement sign for the Abrahamic sign of circumcision
   
   1. Scripture never makes such a connection.
      
      
   2. Supporters of this claim circumstantial evidence without support.
      
      1. They merge the Old Covenant with the New Covenant
         
         
      2. They fail to see that these are two different covenants, not one.
         
   3. Circumcision was not a sign of personal faith in the Old Testament, it was a sign of a need for cleansing.
      
      
   4. Circumcision was not applied to females and therefore was not a sweeping right of faith and normative for everyone. So why do we now think we should baptize female infants if this is a true correlation to circumcision.
      
      
   5. Circumcision was a sign of ethnic membership that they were participating in the physical features of the Abrahamic Covenant.
      
4. Infant baptism is not consistent with the nature of the church.
   
   1. With infant baptism you now have confusion as to the identity of the church.
      
      
   2. It strikes a serious blow to the doctrine of a regenerate church.
      
      
   3. The true church is not like Israel. It is only made up of believers. You are not born into it.
      
5. Infant baptism is not consistent with Reformation Soteriology
   
   1. The child has no faith, no repentance, no understanding of the Gospel.
      
      
   2. Why would you distort the doctrine of grace by faith alone with an act that has no saving power and delivers no redeeming grace?
      
      
   3. The confusion could greatly impact a child who has a false security of their spiritual condition due to their baptism as a child.
      

Two Ways Before Us

1. You can Christianize Pagans
   
   
2. You can have Salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
   

Paedo Baptism Position

R.C. Sproul

• The working assumption when this debate arises is that both sides want to do what is pleasing to God and to be faithful to the Word of God and unfortunately those of us who disagree on this point, though we both desire to be pleasing and faithful, we both simply cannot be right and we both cannot be wrong.
  

• It is true that there is nowhere in the New Testament that explicitly demands or even mentions the baptism of infants. But there is also no explicit prohibition so both sides are forced to go to inferences and we should have patience with one another on this issue.
  

How does circumcision relate to infant baptism?

• There is both continuity and discontinuity between the two practices.
  

1. In the Old Testament it is almost universally agreed by scholars that circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant.
   
   
2. In the New Testament, baptism is the sign of the New Covenant.
   
   
3. Both of these are signs of a covenant that God has made with a certain people.
   
   
4. In a real sense, circumcision in the Old Testament was a sign of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
   
   1. The soul of the Old Covenant was a sign that God would provide a Messiah.
      
      
   2. It would be a vast oversimplification to minimize it to only an ethnic sign.
      
      
   3. This is not to say that circumcision was a sign of faith exclusively, it signified that and more, but no less than that.
      
      
   4. This sign of redemption was commanded by God to be given to the infants of those who are within the Covenant Community.
      
5. If the New Testament is more inclusive (allowing women) than the Old Testament, why would you not allow children as well?
   
   
6. 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 Sanctify is to set apart or to consecrate. To be placed in another or a different setting or environment. This goes back to God’s setting Israel apart.
   
   1. Not everyone in the nation of Israel was sanctified inwardly
      
      
   2. The whole nation of Israel was sanctified outwardly.
      

In Summary



In the Old Testament, circumcision does not convey redemption, it is the sign of redemption. In the New Testament, baptism does not convey redemption, it is the sign of redemption.

 

very good