Baptism Debate: A Paedobaptist Position with R.C. Sproul 

To think we're down here still learning, listening to such a great man, who is very much alive, but just in a different place that is far more exquisite than our minds could even fathom. I wonder if he is building a house right now, or singing, or bowing, etc, at this very moment, and how he felt when he saw Christ. Can you imagine?

I have to admit that R C.Spruol makes a compelling argument for Infant baptism. This gives me much food for thought. Thank you, RC.

I am a catholic convert, and I love RC. I wish he was on our team.

Beautiful! I also believe in childbaptism

I have been a Reformed Baptist for very long now and here I am looking into Paedobaptism, and reconsidering so much about what I believe.

I love Mr. R.C. but I'm with Mr. John on this one... that was a good debate. Good insights from both. At the end of the day, we are saved from God, by God, for God alone. By His wounds we are healed! Thank you Jesus!

I love how he describes John in the beginning. JMac really is a blessing.

I was raised in the Baptist tradition. My children all professed faith at an early age and were baptized soon afterwards, as I was. Doug Wilson is the first person I heard on this subject (recent debate between Wilson and James White - Canon Press) and so my awareness is piqued. R.C. Sproul is so compelling and winsome - how can one not be pulled over by his arguments?! What we are receiving right now from the Reformed perspective is incredibly challenging and edifying!

You cannot tell me that my baptism didn’t count. I was 8 days old. If you ask me when I converted, I wouldn’t be able to answer that. I have always believed because I was raised since infancy in the church. Children of believers are not the same as the children of the world, the sign of the covenant belongs to them just as much as it belongs to people with deficiencies

the paedo argument seems more biblical, but if we only understand the covenant as merely regarding salvation, and not including our families, as the sign of the covenant clearly points to, then the credobaptist argument makes sense. but clearly the fact that God commanded Abraham to circumcise all his household, shows that the sign of the covenant (if not the covenant explicitly) absolutely belongs to the entire household. the sign of the covenant is not the covenant itself. who are we to say who God should include in the sign of the covenant? the apostles told the new converts to baptize their household. it doesn't get much clearer than that

It's a sign of faith for the parents but not for the child. It was not Ishmael's or Isaac's faith but Abraham's as to why they were circumcised. Isaac's faith was shown in the circumcising of Jacob and Esau. It was their looking forward to the Child of Promise born from the seed of Eve who would crush the head of the serpent. We no longer look for Christ to come from our children but from heaven.

If infant baptism is a sign of the new covenant, how come NO ONE in the NT practised it, preached it or referred it to old testament covenant of circumcision. The new testament covenant is in the blood of Jesus and the circumcision of the heart.

I was baptized as a baby and I had my son baptized as a baby... I am still indecisive on the subject but this makes me feel better thank you

These two men are giants of the "word" and possibly 2 of the best pastors there have ever been. They have taught me a lot and brought me closer to Jesus Christ without a doubt. The Holy Spirit truly has spoken through these men. The combination of great faith and intellectual debate is precious.

It is important for anyone listening to this debate to remember that the ENTIRE church taught infant baptism as long as we have history regarding it. I appreciate RC Sprouls willingness to forego the historical arguments for John’s sake, but it’s worth considering that the universal church practice was infant baptism up until POST reformation. Even Luther, Zwingli and John calvin aggressively defended the practice. So while in debate format, BOTH positions appear to have strength, when you read Christian writings as a whole on the topic the Baptist position is not merely non-existed in Christianity for the first 1500 years but is still held post reformation by a majority of Protestantism

Scripture clearly shows whole households being baptised as soon as only the father/husband begin to be believe

I come from a baptist tradition. I always thought baptism was an outward showing what God has done inside, but there is no verse that I know of that explicitly states that. I have become more understanding of the paedobaptist position. The believers baptism position is more individually focused and the paedo position is more corporate and covenantal (households).

I listened to both debates and it's a blessing to know that circumcision of the heart saves and Baptism is a sign of redemption and a sign of God's Holy people and a sign of Gods blessings so God's sign of his promises are reiterated to believers and their Children.

I have listened to both sides of this discussion. I am settling into the Paedobaptist beliefs. I think it is very important to always view both sides of the discussion, to spend quiet time with God, study His word, and pray for clarity in the scriptures. Everyone should do this, and research all they can before making a decision. I’ve seen so many reasons why Credobaptism makes sense, and I understand why people believe it. But I have come to the conclusion that the scriptures do no back that up, and that Credobaptists tend to put God in a box in saying that baptism is nothing more than a symbol. I believe The Holy Spirit is present in the water in baptism and it is not said in any scripture to be a symbol. Knowing the difference between John’s baptisms and Jesus’ baptisms is important. When I hear people say that no infants were baptized in the New Testament, I would say that there are no accounts of someone professing their faith and using a baptism to show others that, using it as an outward and symbolic profession. I think both sides have reason to believe what they do. And I think it’s important to remember to act how Christ would act and have love and compassion for others who might not believe the same as you. At the end of the day, we choose to believe in God and will all have faults in our interpretation of scripture. Our sinful, human minds will never be able to fully understand or interpret it. Thanks for reading, God bless! :)

RC winning me over on second listen.

Truthfully, the Bible only really speaks of conversion baptism and not believer baptism. Churches that practice infant baptism also practice baptisms of new believers in Christ. Historically, during the times of the Bible, if the father received a sacrament, such as baptism, the entire family would as well. Naturally, this would include children AND infants.

R.C is in a different level than John... there was no one in History who denied infant baptism until the reformation.. even Lutherans kept infant baptism.

I had to write a paper for school about this and this was very helpful :)

Sproul makes some great arguments here.

These men of God set a very good example for us Christian, in that relationships are more important than our theological beliefs. These men are very good friends even though their different theological beliefs caused Reformed churches to form two denominations centuries ago. I love RC but I’m with John on this. There is overwhelming scriptural evidence of believers baptism.

R.C Sproul nailed it , he saw continuity in the Bible , not only does Baptism point to God's adoption,promises and covenants (Rom 9:4) for his Holy people and included 8 day old Babies. R.C Sproul also understand circumcision of the heart(Rom2:29).

Against baptism justification: You can have the sign without the faith but can not have the contents of the sign without faith. There are abudant records of baptism (12 NT references) and circumcision being given to adults upon confession/ joining the covenant people. This is what we agree with. But should the child of the NT receive the covenant just like the OT. Yet there are differences. > OT sign focuses on men, but NT focuses on both >NT labours that the new covenant is better because it includes a radical expansion > We can't find references to baptism until 3rd century, with not one single complaint. There is no divide or arguments as one would find in theology. Not one single word of practice. Argument from silence, but it is a screaming argument. Sanctify means to also be set apart, to "be holy as I am holy, and God sanctified a nation for himself", yet not everyone in this sanctification and consecration is saved. The husband sanctifys the wife, meaning the wife is set apart from the ordinary or different situation. The children benefit from this sanctifying, "else the children would be unclean, but now they are holy." The primary reference for unclean is to outside the covenant. This is covenant language, used consistently throughout the Bible. In the OT, circumcision doesn't convey redemption, it is the sign of redemption. Baptism doesn't zonvwy redemption, it is a sign of cleansing, regeneration, sanctification, of baptised in holy spirit, buried with Christ and raised with Christ. It is a sign of the content of salvation. The sitn does not automatically communicate the reality by the outward sign. But it commubciate the promise of God, that they would recieve the fullness of redemption in the gsopel. The sacrament of baptism is a radical sign of the spoken promise.

Beautifully done! I miss RC . So thankful his ministry continues. Soli Deo Gloria!!!

If the New Testament is a better covenant and more inclusive, and thus infants should not be excluded from Baptism, why are they excluded from participating in the Lord's supper? I've always wondered this and am truly seeking an answer.

Wouldn’t it be inconsistent to adhere to the regulative principle and promote infant baptism? Thank you.

When the children of Israel ate the Passover meal and crossed through the waters of baptism, what did they do with the children?

I believe RC is right in this. I got my babies baptized and that pushed me to teach them the scriptures believing God to bring them to Himself. He has been faithful

We all must surely miss our gifted and cherished RC. I say the same of our beloved Jmac too. What great gifts these two among a large number of gifted men teaching us the scriptures and greatly helping us on our way to join the presence of our Lord. I hold dear these two men, we should often listen to them and be thankful to God for them and all those who faithfully share their hard work to enlighten and encourage. I’m a Scot living in Glasgow U.K. but feel so much at home with the great reformers of our past and present but especially these two teachers. Thank you our dear Lord God for these, your rich blessings & for the great gift of salvation.

So true show one person who came from parent of new Testament who were beleivers then i would become a cridobaptist. Early church were all examples of new converts coming to faith. As R.c said he practices believers baptism too as ALL DO! SPOT ON SERMON!

How I wish we can listen to John and RC to debate and sharpen each other and us all believers together here (Proverbs 27:17). I believe that RC is now with the Lord, for the Lord has used him greatly for His Kingdom during his lifetime. @32:52. I want to know what is RC's stance on the doctrine of sanctification. Can one be set apart prior to being (without being) justified? Books of Isaiah and Romans both mentioned that we (humans) are of the world (not set apart) prior to be justified. I am not a native English speaker, so perhaps some of his vocab usage caused me to understand it this way. If anyone can jump on this to clarify, that would be great. Thank you in advance.

There are enough ad stops in this video to drown a man

The absence of express forebadence against infant baptism is not the same as the so-called absence of requiring infant baptism. In Other words, all of scripture clearly displays baptism after a credible profession of faith. That is a clearly false parallel of absences. The typology, as well as the clear expression of baptism is after believe in Christ Also, Acts 8:37 KJV clearly requires faith.

The Didache never mentions paedobaptism, despite its lengthy portion on baptism. Additionally, the requirements for those being baptized include tasks impossible for infants to perform (prayer, fasting).

It's hard to be a paedobaptist if you don't prescribe to covenant theology. It's really the presupposition. Once you're there, it's much easier. If you're a dispensationalist, I can see it being much harder. IMO the conversation starts there and is an implication of those views.

This is 100% correct. So much to be said. But all points are valid.

He made some pretty good points, especially about the "screaming silence" of history. But here's my problem: John said rightly that infant baptism CAN be misleading. R.C. could only say that it MIGHT be fine. So why not err on the side of caution and wait until they're old enough to make a profession? Their salvation doesn't depend on this unless John is right and it actually hinders them.

Would it be offensive to God if one had both done to himself.....just to make sure he did the way God wants?

"The sign was given to Abraham after he had faith, to Isaac before he had faith." 😮

Jesus said in Luke 22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. end quote Baptism is never called a covenant

Honestly i think John won but what a beautiful friendship!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Infant baptism makes no sense and produces nothing but confusion.

Very good reflection on baptism. After all, we ought to do our best to obey our Lord Jesus Chrit, by doing what He commands us to.

circumcision is the sign of the OC & spiritual circumcision is the sign of the NC

I thank God for these gentlemen who adhere to the infallible word of truth, and we know it is for this reason we are to search the scriptures diligently in prayer. God has provided a great teacher the Holy Spirit of whom these men are lead. Tradition is a real thing as we find throughout the gospels especially among the teachers of that time. Tradition blinded them, we know this because the great teacher walked among them, and they received him not. God bless his word to us all through such men.

Do a dub into Spanish please, it would be a great blessing!! Hagan un doblaje al español por favor, sería de mucha bendición!!

Is RC saying that baptism is what saves? Or is it a step in believing Gods promise of salvation through His Son?

Sola scriptura is a very serious handicap in getting this matter clear. Discounting the apostolic tradition whilst appealing to reformed theology is a strange way to go about it. If you're going to discount the early church tradition, then, logically, you shouldn't enter the reformers into the mix either - this is simply another tradition, just a much more recent one.

Is it hard for you to find a bible to read? Wouldn't it be useful to find out "for yourself" what Jesus and his apostles said about baptism, mentioned over 50 times? Have you, personally, ever wanted to understand for yourself why Jesus wanted to be baptized? If you discovered something about baptism different from what you were taught, would you act on it?

I am a Reformed Baptist. I believe in believer's baptism as it is written in the Bible, and I may disagree with Sproul on this, HOWEVER, listen to me, HOWEVER...I must, MUST, MUST say that this man was nothing short of a living LEGEND. And knowing that I will see him in Heaven after the day of Judgement, I am extremely proud and excited.

I’m new at this but I’m with John on this one.

I'm with john macarthur on this

15:00 but only after Faith!!!

So many great sermons, from many blessed godly man who brought us the enlightenment of scriptures as they're written. From R.C. Sproul, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Charles Spurgeon, John MacArthur to enjoy.

With all due respect RC, Col 2:11 is not referencing OT circumcision. It’s referencing the NT version of circumcision which has to do with regeneration or conversion

What Was the Purpose of Water Baptism? Foe the Jews and their “gospel of the kingdom,” water baptism was a required expression of believing faith. We see in Luke 7:28-30 those that were baptized with the baptism of John, justified God, and those that chose not to be baptized, rejected the counsel of God. Luke 7:28-30 28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. 29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. John’s baptism was a symbolic baptism. God tells us in Hebrews 9:22 that there is no “remission of sins” without the shedding of blood. At this time, Christ’s blood had not yet been shed. Jesus spoke in Matthew 26:28 about His blood being the blood of the New Testament which is shed for “many” for the “remission of sins.” Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. We see in Acts 2:38 that on Pentecost, Peter preaches repentance and baptism for the “remission of sins.” Christ’s blood had been shed, so “remission of sins” was available for those who by faith obeyed and were baptized. Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. We see in Mark 16:16 where Jesus speaks of believing faith accompanied by obedience. Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. In I Samuel 15:22 we are told “behold to obey is better than sacrifice.” Christ is the Lamb of God. He willingly sacrificed Himself upon the cross. Those under the “gospel of the kingdom” who believed in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, possessed obedient faith and were baptized.

Our reformed fathers had an easy answer to all this ado about household baptisms: Zacharias Ursinus, the principal author of the Heidelberg Catechism said this.'......while we do not concede the natural meaning of the word (household), the command is to baptize all nations.' John Calvin referred to Col 2:11-12 as the 'death knell passage to all arguments against infant baptism'. To answer John Macarthur's declaration that though he is a spiritual child of Abraham he is not a Jew, the Scripture says 'Therefore, brethren, we are after the manner of Isaac, children of the promise'. (Gal 4:28)

Babies are born with Original Sin. Jesus saves us from Original Sin once we are baptized with the Holy Spirit. We baptize a life asap in case of death and to fill that life with The Holy Spirit. It’s the sin of presumption that you will have time to get baptized or receive other Sacraments before you die. Why would we risk this? Why would we deprive a baby of receiving The Holy Spirit for years? When they are old enough to understand their faith, they can confirm it with the Sacrament of Confirmation. John 3:5 Jesus responded: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless one has been reborn by water and the Holy Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God. ***Acts of the Apostles 22:16 And now, why do you delay? Rise up, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, by invoking his name.’ ***Matthew 3:11 Indeed, I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who will come after me is more powerful than me. I am not worthy to carry his shoes. He will baptize you with the fire of the Holy Spirit. ***Matthew 28:19 Therefore, go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

How can one argue that there was no controversy regarding the sign given to infants in the New Testament when there was a very big argument about Gentile believers being circumcised? That does not make sense to me. It is not an argument from silence. Full disclosure: I grew up on John's side, but now attend an OPC church. I am now 99% convinced of infant baptism. But, I have often shaken my head in wonder at some of the arguments used to justify infant bsptism. This is one of those arguments that make me shake my head and say, "How do you prove that?"

Nauseating

So he won't baptize an adult without signs of repentance and a profession of faith. Yet he will baptize a baby?

Although Abraham circumcised Ishmael, he and his descendents did not become part of the Covenant (Gen 17^20-21;26). ⏺... what doth hinder me to be baptized? ... If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. Ac 8^36-37

Sproul makes good points but doesn't prove it biblically. Love Mr RC Sproul's book Holiness of God.

And I love you on both sides.

Old gone forever......new covenant our Lord already did this for us ,yes he was circumcised already did it for us the proclaimed the new,not including circumcision. Our Complete in completion has done for us all. The father being the head blessing of his family, not the church. The head of a family carried the blessing for the whole family, the baby......

So it doesn’t say not to do it or to do it but neither is right or wrong

This came across randomly but I’m more concerned with children and communion. Referencing Passover in the OT

John the Baptist baptism was refered to as the baptism of repentance because the baptism was after repentance.

OIKOS OIKIA οικία οικογένεια . Oikogenia means family in Greek and explicitly includes children

Baptism is the repentant ritual introduced by John the Baptist!

I am one who was Credo only but have come to accept covenant baptism as the correct position.

Haven't finished listening to this, but with regards to circumcising infants analogy, we baptized "infant" believers (born again new believers). Circumcision was for the physical children/adults of God's old covenant, and baptism is for the spiritual children/adults of God's new covenant (spiritually born again), *those are my personal thoughts on this.* Willing to change sides (to infant baptism side of the debate) as long as it's proven Scripturally to be so. And not here for senseless arguments either, so if that's what you're looking for go somewhere else. God bless

R.C. said that because there is an absence of explicit teaching in Scripture, both sides of the debate are therefore obliged to go the second mile and work from what is inferred. He also said that for the purposes of the debate, they were obligated to work with Scripture alone. If we take to heart his first statement, we must surely realize that there are many inferred passages where new believers are commanded to be baptized, and those making disciples are commanded to baptize those new believers. What it must come down to, therefore, is the inferred meaning of 'baptizing new believers.' The phrase 'believe and be baptized' infers credobaptism. One must first believe, in order to express outwardly what has just happened inwardly. The entire idea of baptism is that it is an outward declaration of the new believer. Jesus' command to make disciples, baptize them, and teach them, infers that first, they hear the message of the gospel and are discipled into Jesus, in that they hear enough to believe. Second, they are baptized, showing that they have believed, have died to their old self, and are reborn to a new life in Christ. Third, after they have believed and have been baptized, the life-long journey of teaching them begins. There is no logical reason to re-arrange the order of Jesus' command. From the apostles and writers of the New Testament, who planted churches and made disciples, there is no other inferred message. One must believe, be baptized, and then be taught. How can an infant believe and make those kinds of decisions? They simply cannot. Thus, we must learn to entrust our children to the goodness of God, and teach them as they grow in ability to understand our words and observe our modeling what a follower of Christ lives like. The overwhelming inferences in the New Testament, are on the side of credobaptism. However, it also behooves Reformed theologians to look back into their history, and see where pedobaptism first came into the church culture. That was clearly during the time of papal dominance. Therefore, history is also not without inference on this point. The overwhelming evidence shows that this teaching of pedobaptism is a leftover from Roman Catholicism. The Reformers did well. But there were some things left undone. This was one of those things.

I believe and am filled with the Holy Spirit. My husband also is. My children and our grandchildren. Water baptism. My parents were strong believers. My grandparents. Are you telling me John, that they are not in heaven? Will I not be?

I know this is off topic but does anyone know much about the mennonites? Are they good people with bad theology on secondary issues or are they heretical?

If you're curious about infant/covenant/household baptism, please start with covenant theology. Do not start with isolated NT texts. Learn how to read Scripture and preserve its unity.

Jesus said to the man on the cross next to him "today you will be with me in paradise". (Luke Chapter 23 Verse 43). Had this man been water baptized??? Water baptism happens because someone has been saved. Water baptism doesn't save. The recent coronation did not make Charles the King. Charles became the King when his mother - Queen Elizabeth the Second - died. The coronation happened because Charles is now the King. A coronation for William or George would be nonsense as neither of them are King.

R.C makes one big mistake: the nation of Israel were a physical nation, to show Gods plan and purpose, that was what the circumsision was for, to appoint them that special people in the physical. The new testament church is a physical people who are born again, and by that becoming a spiritual nation. In Christ we don't judge by the flesh but by the spirit. Baptism is not a covenant sign in the sense of a promise, it is a sign of the person who becomes a spiritual child in the household of God and shows that its old life is buried. We don't need baptism for infants to give them the promises of God. Also, if a stranger wanted to become a Jew, he not only was cicumsized but ALSO needed to be baptized, or else the conversion didn't count. R.C puts too much emphasis on circumcision being a sign of being saved, or the promise of redemption, this is simply not true. Many Reformt theologie is very good, but on baptism, Israel and endtimes they think too flat. They spiritualize what should be taken literaly, and take literaly what should be taken spiritual. John McArthur's lecture on this is far better argumented and profiund where R.C Sproul's is far fetched and also immature. Sorry to say, because I do love much of R.C's teaching, as I do John's.

They basically believe the same thing.

Sproul seems to believe infant baptism is simply different than adult baptism and that adult baptism requires faith and repentance. He seems to believe there is a layer of meaning to baptism that it is a sign of covenant and that adult believers then have parental authority to bring their children into the covenant. Sounds like infant baptism is merely a dedication.

RC RIP 🙏🏻

regeneration (not baptism) = circumcision. after the water dries there is no sign. also, the NC is NOT like the OC,

A bit of an unfortunate name for the concept

MacArthur's position on so many issues is unscriptural from Dispensationalism, to Lordship Salvation to credobaptism.

The justification of faith alone was taught by a man in the 1500s. And he changed the scriptures to fit his few which then opened Pandora’s box and we now have each man interpreting the scriptures according to how they see fit and now over 40,999 denominations when JC last words were to be United - one church he founded. I was a protestor for 60 years until I read researched and humbled myself to be open and willing to see the truth no matter where it led me. I cannot thank GOD enough for raising me up from the deadness in protestism

The same dogma's that never will be resolved. Baptism was for the high priest Only. John chapter 3 is the main chapter regards being born anew with water and Spirit, again this refers to the high priests. Jesus is our true high priest of our confession.

RC lowkey murdered JM in this debate

I would have thought that Macarthur’s position on the future of Israel in the millennium as distinct from this church age, would have tended to maintain the idea that circumcision being the sign of the old covenant might be replaced by infant baptism as of the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31). Wheras Sproul is not a premillennialist (I think) but maintains infant Baptism. (I was infant Baptised in the Evangelical C of E but glad to be believer’s baptised at the age of 19 when I found faith, in a Baptist church). if one believes so strongly, as dispensationalists do, that many sections of scripture are addressed exclusively to future ethnic and national Israel then it seems inconsistent to abandon a sign of the covenant for infants.

RC uses the same type of "Theology By Inference" that is used by John McArthur to contrive a "Pre-Tribulation" rapture. Neither doctrine is Sola Scriptura.

T.U.L.I.P. is the pat-answer and pat-reasoning for ALL these doctrines. Unfortunately, for the debater, Jesus spent about three years with "grown" men, demonstrating the purposes of God, and unfolding the Father's heart to them. As He was empowered by the Spirit at His baptism (what age?) He expected them ALL to pick up His ministry when He ascended. The RCC and the Reformers missed this point. Each of them have their own little "pocket-guides" to help them along. Jesus, instead, promised Another Comforter to dwell with them forever. The Reformed begin to get nervous when you mention the Book of Acts - especially 2.38-39. They shouldn't! He's there for our constant reminder and help. Today, we need people of faith to overcome the works of the devil in our world - for he's quite busy. We receive a "dynamic" connection at baptism - not just "being saved." We overcome by the Word of God and OUR testimony. Did you hear that? WE OVERCOME!

The 1 Corinthians verses (that I keep misattributing to Peter) is the crux of why I find paedobaptism more compelling than No infant baptism.

Great video

Rev. 22:18

If it was a covenant of redemption why was only for the Jews? They were the only ones told to do it. I do not believe it was a covenant but a sign for a set apart as a nation

"I agree with Calvin that the preferred method of baptism is immersion" at 38:26

I was baptized as a baby. Thankful for MacArthur for assuring me that I am 100% certain in my belief Credo baptism is biblical baptism.