Bill DeJong reminded me of the infamous R.C. Sproul vs. John MacArthur debate on infant baptism many years ago. I remember listening to that debate sometime in 2001 and finding R.C.’s arguments fairly weak. Fortunately, I went far beyond that debate and today I am a happy paedo-baptist.
Among MacArthur’s many observations, this one inference became a crucial argument for credo-baptism:
“Scripture nowhere advocates, commands, records any instance of infant baptism.”
As DeJong observes, the simplicity of the argument is attractive initially. However, it’s as attractive and persuasive as:
(a) the Jehovah Witness argument that there is no Triune God because the Scriptures repeatedly say: “The Lord our God is one.”
(b) the Arian argument that Jesus isn’t God because the Scriptures repeatedly talk about Jesus being “seated at the right hand of God.”
(c) the Open Theist argument that God doesn’t know the future and keeps changing his mind because the Scriptures say repeatedly, “God relented of what he had done.”
(d) the Roman Catholic argument that Christ is bodily present in the elements of the Lord’s Supper because Jesus, holding the bread in his hand, says, “This is my body.”
Inferences are a dangerous thing indeed.
2 Replies to “Infant Baptism and Inferences”