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.
- 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)