- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostThe Good News We Almost Forgot
- Next Post »Reading Classics Together: The Bruised Reed (VI)
A La Carte (5/20)
- 05/20/10
- 6
GM2:8 - Living Waters (think Ray Comfort) has released an iPod/iPhone app called GM2:8. It allows you to use a Way of the Master kind of gospel presentation in a whole series of different languages. You can find it free at the app store.
MacArthur and Sproul on Baptism - “Infant baptism or believer’s only baptism? For the past two days on Renewing Your Mind, Drs. R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur have discussed their views on the Biblical meaning and mode of Christian baptism. Dr. MacArthur presents the credo-baptist position and Dr. Sproul presents the historic paedo (infant)-baptist position. Listen in as these two friends discuss a historic doctrinal divide.”
The Glory of Plodding - Also on Ligonier is a good article from Kevin DeYoung on “The Glory of Plodding.” “What we need are fewer revolutionaries and a few more plodding visionaries. That’s my dream for the church — a multitude of faithful, risktaking plodders. The best churches are full of gospel-saturated people holding tenaciously to a vision of godly obedience and God’s glory, and pursuing that godliness and glory with relentless, often unnoticed, plodding consistency.”
Men’s Retreat - In June I’ll be speaking at a weekend-long men’s retreat at Bonnechere Baptist Camp (West of Ottawa, near Algonquin). My topic will be “Living Virtuously in a Digital World.” If that sounds like your thing, registration is open.
Because I’ve Been Forgiven is part one of a powerful video from Peacemaker Ministries.
Because I’ve Been Forgiven: Craig - Part 1 from Peacemaker Ministries on Vimeo.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (6)
I ask because I can’t even guess: why modify Sproul’s position as “historic”?
To distinguish it from John MacArthur’s credo-baptist position, implying that it is un-historical?
To distinguish it from other non-historical pedo views?
To distinguish it as being (merely) “historic,” while MacArthur’s is Biblical?
“To distinguish it from other non-historical pedo views?”
This is my guess, but it doesn’t make sense, because the Covenant Theology view of paedobaptism as a symbolic entry into the covenant community is no more historic than the Catholic/Eastern/Lutheran/Methodist view that paedobaptism has regenerative effect on an infant.
The only other conclusion I can draw is that some sloppy editor at Ligonier is letting their bias show by implying that credobaptism is somehow “new” and therefore not credible. Disappointing, if so, as Ligonier is a fantastic ministry.
To be honest, both audio clips are a bit weak.
Sproul argues that paedobaptism isn’t forbidden and that it would have nice symbolic similarities to circumcision. Fair enough, but the burden of proof is still on him, I think, especially since he concedes that adult baptism should follow credobaptist principles. Furthermore, the one verse in the NT that juxtaposes circumcision and baptism is Col 2:11-12, which refers to circumcision as something inward performed by Christ (not an external ritual, cf Rom 2:29) and refers to baptism using credobaptist terminology (“buried with Christ in baptism/raised with him in faith”).
At the same time, MacArthur gave a decent enough argument against paedobaptism (i.e. there’s no Scripture that requires it or even hints at it), but didn’t really seem to give a thorough defense of credobaptism, what it symbolizes, and why we do it. Maybe that’s in the full debate audio?
You should listen to it Dan.
Sproul says that if you could show him one instance of a second generation Christian being baptized then he’d throw the baby out with the bathwater(so to speak).
He thinks the onus is on the baptists back to prove babies weren’t baptized. Huh?
Worth a listen so you can be a more confident baptist.
I’ve heard the Sproul/MacArthur debate.
But I’ll admit I missed the quotation-marks. I thought the phrasing was Tim’s, and thought a clarification would be in order.
If it’s Ligonier, then I’m speculatin’ spin. As in “Oooh, it’s the HISTORICAL position! Well then!”
(c:
Other than the baptism issue, I must admit that I am more a fan (if I may use that word) of RC Sproul than John MacArthur.I believe in CT, but I believe the logical conclusion leads to Credo-Baptism. Which if I remember correctly AW Pink does a masterful job in conveying.
Folks, folks, the “historic” phrase is in fact from Ligonier. Tim was just quoting it (indeed, he has quotes around the entire paragraph in his entry above, which perhaps was easily missed.).More than that, one can click the link he offers as the subtitle to see the words.
Also, you can (on the Ligonier page he links to) watch both videos yourself.
If I may wade into the waters, I myself feel that it isn’t quite appropriate to label it a debate, as Ligonier does. It’s just two presentations, and while RC does follow John and does at least refer to some of his statements, he doesn’t really debate them in a true sense, as he leaves many points unchallenged. I can’t tell if he may have had advanced access to John’s script, but I sense instead each wrote their own proposition.
I would love to have seen rebuttals. But then, too, it’s a public forum, both men do love and respect each other, and this is a thorny debate. It’s easy for folks on both sides to put up straw men to poke at. I’m not aware of there being any follow-up to this, even now about 12 years later.
I will say this: I was glad RC did clarify that paedobaptists do believe absolutely in credo baptism. That point seems often to be missed. They don’t deny at all that new adult believers should be baptized. Being a PB doesn’t really mean not being a CB, so many of the contentions made by CBs are therefore arguing a false dilemma (a false choice, black and white thinking, pick your fallacy) in some assertions against PBs.
The key distinction of course is that PBs baptize infants as a sign of their being children of the covenant (a continuation of what circumcision was) Does silence on the matter really deny its validity? Does God not often leave some points for us to ponder, as iron sharpening iron? And lest it remain still a surprise to some, PBs do not regard the baptizing of infants as salvific.
Further, and again I think this is an important point missed often in these debates, paedo baptists (at least those I’ve observed) don’t let those children partake in the Lord’s Supper without making a credible profession of faith.
Indeed, I had the blessing of witnessing in two consecutive weeks first a baptism of children in a baptist church and then acceptance to the Lord’s table of children in a presbyterian church. The similarities in the professions attested to were striking, and I think the differences are also less substantial than many make them out to be.
I was reluctant to share these comments, as it’s such a hot-button topic, and perhaps Tim doesn’t want it breaking out on his blog. But here’s hoping his wonderfully irenic style invites people of a similar persuasion to “come, let’s reason together”.