Chapter 28: Of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper
1. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world.
( Matthew 28:19, 20; 1 Corinthians 11:26 )

2. These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.
( Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 4:1 )

Chapter 29: Of Baptism
1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
( Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 2;12; Galatians 3:27; Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:4 )

2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.
( Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36, 37; Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12; Acts 18:8 )

3. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
( Matthew 28:19, 20; Acts 8:38 )

4. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance. ( Matthew 3:16; John 3:23 )

-josiah

I can’t help but notice the logical fallacy known as Red Herring being employed here throughout this essay. It may be true that Roman Catholics, we Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Anglicans hold to a particular FORM of paedobaptism, it does not mean that we all affirm as do the Anti-Christian, Roman Catholics that:

Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water and in the word.”(Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, pg 1213, section two chapter one.)

Or even that:

“Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.” (Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, pg 1250 section four chapter one)

Perhaps MacArthur has decided that Presbyterians believe the same thing about baptism, and infant baptism? Let us consult the Westminster Larger Catechism to see what it has to say about what a Presbyterian believes concerning baptism

“Q. 165. What is baptism?
A. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s.”(WLC Q. 165, pg 317)

The Papists say that baptism is: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water and in the word.” They are ultimately teaching Baptismal regeneration of the believer. Presbyterians say that baptism is: a SIGN AND A SEAL of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life.” This stands in stark contrast to what the papists believe concerning baptism. We believe it to be a sign and a seal, they believe that the sacrament itself washes away sin and infuses righteousness into the believer! How MacArthur misses this is beyond me.
I might add also what Presbyterian Ministers say when administering the sacrament:

“Although our young children do not yet understand these things, they are nevertheless to be baptized. For the promise of the covenant is made to believers and to their seed, as God declared unto Abraham: “And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee.” In the new dispensation no less than in the old, the seed of the faithful, born within the church, have, by virtue of their birth, interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it and to the outward privileges of the church. For the covenant of grace is the same in substance under both dispensations, and the grace of God for the consolation of believers is even more fully manifested in the new dispensation. Moreover, our Saviour admitted little children into his presence, embracing and blessing them, and saying, “Of such is the kingdom of God.” So the children of the covenant are by baptism distinguished from the world and solemnly received into the visible church.” (BCO, pg 144)

We may also do well in showing the vows in which parents must take upon their child being baptized into the covenant community:

“Before the baptism of an infant, the minister shall require that the parents acknowledge the duty of believers to present their children for holy baptism and that they assume publicly their responsibility for the Christian nurture of their children: Do you acknowledge that, although our children are conceived and born in sin and therefore are subject to condemnation, they are holy in Christ, and as members of his church ought to be baptized? Do you promise to instruct your child in the principles of our holy religion as revealed in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and as summarized in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of this Church; and do you promise to pray with and for your child, to set an example of piety and godliness before him, and to endeavor by all the means of God’s appointment to bring him up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?” (BCO, pg 145)

I think that this entire work is very sloppy in that he makes more than a few straw man fallacies concerning those who hold to various forms of paedobaptism. I was frankly disappointed that he did not define, compare, and contrast the views of all of the groups he mentions. He also seemed to insist that the RCC (a non Christian religion) must be included in a discussion only relevant to the true and invisible body of Christ. I also noticed that he did not reach very far into the exegesis of the scripture, and often misrepresented arguments that are made for paedobaptism. My purpose for writing this is not to vindicate paedobaptism, but to point out the unscholarly character of MacArthur’s essay. Please listen to this debate http://www.opcli.org/display.php?id=15 I believe that this debate is a wonderful example of Iron Sharpening iron. You will find no cheap shots in this

Your friend in Christ
Josiah

As of now I’m credo-baptist. I dont have anyting against paedo-baptism. It make’s logical sense why our refroemd presbyterian brothers/sisters baptize their babies.

Since I’ve settled on it being allowable or ok. But have not officially settled on it myself. It’s something I would have to look into more.

The only thing I still can’t figure out and I believe we discussed this before. Is that Paedo and baby dedication seem too similar though I know they are different.

Josiah would be good to add to this since he is paedo-baptist.

In Christ,
Nathan

“Infant baptism is not in Scripture, and against that statement, there is no evidence—there is no refuting of that statement. Scripture nowhere advocates infant baptism. It nowhere mentions infant baptism. It doesn’t exist in the Bible; there is no example of it, there is no comment on it, it’s not there. It is therefore impossible to prove that infant baptism is valid, from the New Testament. It’s impossible to support it from the New Testament or for that matter, from the Old Testament.”