"A Biblical Response to John MacArthur, Jr.'s - Baptism, A Matter of Obedience" by Bob Vincent

In his “A Scriptural Critique of Infant Baptism,” John MacArthur, Jr. presents five basic objections to infant baptism.

1.“Infant baptism is not in Scripture.”

2.“Infant baptism is not Christian baptism.”

3.“Infant baptism . . . is not a replacement sign for the Abrahamic sign of circumcision.”

4.“Infant baptism is not consistent with the nature of the church.”

5.“Infant baptism is not consistent with the gospel.”

I’ll try my best to respond to each of Mr. MacArthur’s five objections in the following order: 2, 4, 5, 3 and then 1. But before I do, let me say at the outset that I see both the biblical mode of baptism and its proper subjects as matters that are a weight of evidence rather than issues that can be conclusively settled the way, say, that the doctrine of the Trinity can be. The doctrine of the Trinity “may be deduced from Scripture,” “by good and necessary consequence.” (The Westminster Confession of Faith, I, vi.) It is “necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture.” (The London Confession of Baptist Faith, I, vi.) And that means that anybody who rejects the doctrine of the Trinity is theologically outside the pale of Christianity. Even though it may be proven as the logical conclusion of many texts, rather than a clear-cut statement in only one passage, the doctrine of the Trinity is one of those things that is so clearly taught in Scripture and taught as such a vital truth, that belief in it is necessary for admission to the Christian Church.

Now, as I say, the proper mode and subjects of baptism are not that way. These things are not taught so clearly that we may judge somebody who disagrees with us as being a rebel to the Truth. Submitting to the government and discipline of the Church does not mean parking one’s conscience; it is not a vow to render implicit and blind obedience. A fundamental of fundamentals of the Reformed Faith is liberty of conscience: “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.” (The Westminster Confession of Faith, XX, ii.)

We welcome anyone who has a teachable spirit, Calvinist or Arminian, Reformed or Baptist, Charismatic or Cessationist. We get along quite well, even though my prayer and the aim of my teaching is, little by little, to convince my congregation of the truths of Scripture, applied to their hearts and lives. Diverse groups get along very well in our congregation, because they know that we hold the Bible as “the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy” God. (The Shorter Catechism, 2.) They know that they will be treated with respect and never forced to do something that they have not become convinced about from Scripture itself. However, as I said above, there is a line in the sand, more or less drawn with the Five Questions of Membership. People who rejected such things as the Trinity, denying that our Lord Jesus Christ is “the Son of God and Savior of sinners,” would not be allowed to take communion or be received into membership. That being said, let me start with Mr. MacArthur’s second assertion first.

John MacArthur, Jr.’s Assertion Number 2. “The second reason is really the other side of the issue. I don’t believe in infant baptism because infant baptism is not Christian baptism.”

Mr. MacArthur asserts that immersion is baptism and other modes of baptism are not baptism at all; he would not accept the baptism of someone who had not been immersed. This would mean that most true Christians would have to violate their own consciences in terms of their understanding of Scripture and have to be baptized again in order to become members of Mr. MacArthur’s congregation.

The issue of the mode of baptism takes us back to the nature of the Bible itself as well as some basic differences in the Old and New Testaments. The Bible didn’t come to us the way that Mohammed claims he received the Quran, out of the blue, without human involvement. As the Lord Jesus is both fully God and fully human in his one person, so the Bible is both fully God’s word and yet also a fully human document, too. This does not take away from the Bible’s being infallible, because just as Jesus is without sin, so the Bible is without error. Therefore, the Bible is a divine instruction book, but it is more than that: it is the Holy Spirit’s, infallibly guided, human interpretation of God’s mighty acts. As such, it unfolds in a specific historical context, and its revelation is progressive: we gain more and more insight into the nature of God and his dealings with us as the history of redemption unfolds.

Under the Law, everything that is to be done in worship is given in the most minute detail, and no variation was tolerated. Blood was to be sprinkled seven times, not six or eight, on the lid of the Ark of the Covenant on the Day of Atonement. The first time it must be blood from a bull, then blood from a goat. Even the kind of underwear that is to be worn in worship is explicitly commanded. (Leviticus 16:4.) The whole structure of Tabernacle, and later Temple worship is to impress people with the enormous barrier between them and God.

When the Lord Jesus died on the cross, the veil of the Temple was torn from top to bottom, thereby removing the barrier between sinful humanity and a holy God. (Matthew 27:51; Hebrews 6:19, 20.) The ancient and fearful rites, which if performed incorrectly brought death (Leviticus 10:1 ff.; 2 Samuel 6:6 ff.), now pass into a new form, one marked by life and freedom. So it is, when we come to descriptions of New Testament worship, we find the covenant community experiencing freedom and spontaneity under the leadership of the Holy Spirit within the structure of biblical revelation. The Bible gives the structure and is normative, but the details are not so delineated. Very different from the Old Testament’s rigid structure of worship is the picture one gets about New Testament worship from reading passages such as Acts 20:7 ff. or 1 Corinthians 14:26 ff. This is why the God’s standard for worship works out very differently in the two Testaments.

In the Holy Spirit guided evolution of doctrinal emphases, the prophets stress the importance of the heart, not external ceremonies: “rend your heart, and not your garments.” (Joel 2:13.) That emphasis is given full voice in the preaching of the Lord Jesus: “the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeks such to worship him.” (John 4:23.) It is echoed by his apostles: “We are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit and rejoice in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh.” (Philippians 3:3.)

The important thing always is God’s act, not man’s. It is what God seals to us in baptism, not my superstitious conformity to a religious group’s view of ceremonial purity. It isn’t HOW I am baptized but THAT I am baptized that is important. And always it is a matter of the intention of the heart.

Since people sometimes dropped dead from a misuse of the Lord’s Supper, (1 Corinthians 11:30.) and we never read about such a thing happening in baptism, surely God is not less concerned with the words and methods we use in the one ordinance than he is in the other. So, just as people didn’t use exactly the same language when they observed the Lord’s Supper, neither did they use exactly the same language when they baptized people.