Tags
Answering Dr. R.C. Sproul
There is no explicit command to baptize infants of believing parents.
There is no prohibition or forbidding command in Scripture against the baptism of infants.
We do have explicit commands in Scripture for the baptism of believing adults, along with the explicit requirement of a profession of faith prior to baptism. This, I believe, will not be found in dispute.
Dr. R.C. Sproul, a proponent of paedobaptism has stated that he believes the implicit evidence for infant baptism is ‘overwhelming’. He speaks of this here. and in an audio here. Dr. Sproul has summed up his position in the following quote:
Since there is no explicit command or prohibition, then the case for either side must be established on the basis of inferences and implications drawn from the text. (online source)
Brethren, this is simply not true, and for this reason: God instituted believer’s only baptism which includes confessions of sin and full immersion.
Now John himself had a garment of camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins. – Matthew 3:4-6 (NASB) [emphasis mine]
Without confession of sins, no baptism!
Dr. Sproul’s argument for paedobaptism falls short here. Since when does a 3 month old infant confess sins, much less understand the concept of repentance and faith?
Brethren, God Himself instituted adult believers baptism, accompanied only by a profession of faith and confessing of sins and repentance. This is the example and testimony of Scripture.
To practice infant baptism is to ignore, if not reject, the only lawful mode of baptism God Himself has established and to establish one’s own mode of baptism. Do we base our soul’s eternal well-being based on inferences and implications? Of course not! Why the exception?
Inferences are fine, as long as we do not ignore the clear, indisputable testimony of Scripture; and the clear, indisputable testimony of Scripture establishes that God Himself instituted adult, believers baptism as the only lawful mode of baptism. All else is invention of man. To practice any other ‘baptism’ than what God has established, is to oppose and reject God’s Word!
My question for you, my Presbyterian brethren, is this:
Why will you continue in a denomination which rejects the clear testimony of Scripture, and practice infant baptism, an act of worship which is clearly not established by God, but by the invention of man’s reasoning based on ‘inference’? Baptism of infants is unscriptural and wrong. Why remain in a church teaching you what you know in your hearts is contrary to God’s revealed teaching in the Bible?
My answer to Dr. Sproul, respectfully, is this:
Since there is an explicit command for adult, believer baptism only, as you sir, have admitted, and since adult, believer baptism along with confessions of sins and repentance is the example of Scripture, then you, Dr. Sproul, are opposing the clear instruction and example of God’s Word.
This matter, Dr. Sproul, is not based on inferences and implications, but on the definitive, inerrant, clearly communicated Word of God. Continue to practice and teach infant baptism, and you oppose God’s Word.
Related articles
- The Doctrine of Broad-mindedness (5ptsalt.com)
- Preventing Eisogesis and Doctrinal Error with the Greek Language (5ptsalt.com)
- Straining Out A Gnat (5ptsalt.com)
- R.C. Sproul: Dispensationalism Brought Us the ‘Carnal Christian’, the ‘Sinners Prayer’ and more Antinomianism (5ptsalt.com)
5 Pt. Salt 
And that’s why I am now a Reformed Baptist.
I pray God gives you patience–from my experience, this sort of posts usually garner a ton of comments against credobaptism. 😀
Amen, brother.
And Jeffrey Johnson plainly states it in such a way as to have made friends with some Presbyterians who helped him understand their views, this book is golden: The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism.
I want to know why paedobaptists don’t baptize on the 8th day.
As much as I respect Reformed theology and theologians , this is one issue that I do not find agrement with them on , guess I’m A Reformed Baptist also.
Few things in the Christian life perplex me as much as my Reformed friends ignoring what seems to me to be a plethora of scriptural evidences for believer’s baptism (immersion). To rather foolishly hold on to a theological construct that defies clear scripture rather than to simply be obedient can only be seen as (and I speak, I trust, with a measure of humility) a certain sort of spiritual blindness passing as profundity.
I agree, but the truly profound thing is those who are held up to such high, lofty positions and admired the most – are the ones who are seemingly blind!
I believe the real issue here is the Covenantist view that baptism replaces circumcision [it doesn’t] , and that covenantists are quite willing to weather the criticism surrounding baptism , so long as the critics don’t peek too closely and reveal the false covenantal hermenuetic at work.My suspicion is that the reformers didn’t quite finish the job and infant baptism was something that had to be dealt with , with some fancy eisegesis , and hence, that is why paedo -baptism is still around.