# John MacArthur is Stirring Up the (Baptismal) Waters Again



## bookslover

In September, he preached two sermons: (1) Is Infant Baptism Biblical? and (2) Believer's Baptism. In both, he uses selected Scriptures, not concentrating on any passage in particular for his exposition.

Go to Grace to You and click on "John's Sermons." You can choose "by date" and they'll be at the end of the year "2011" list.

As for infant baptism, he is, of course, agin' it.


----------



## steadfast7

Read the sermon. I must say he seems very agitated about the whole thing. The sermon is not very systematic nor exegetical. What say the paedos about his assertion that infant baptism was perpetuated in the church its for ability to secure political power?


----------



## bug

I would imagine every baptist and baptistic preacher has preached on those subjects at some point in their ministry, some better then others. It is also true that most covenantal peadobaptists have preached sermons from their perspective. Personally I would be surprised and shocked in J Mac didn't preach on this subject from time to time - I would also be surprised if he preached in anything else but a provoking fashion.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

If something like this coming from Macarthur shocks you, then you haven't been paying attention for the last 40 years.

---------- Post added at 07:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:52 AM ----------

If you are interested in a more academic and biblical presentation of this issue, check out this Founders Ministries | A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism


----------



## CharlieJ

steadfast7 said:


> Read the sermon. I must say he seems very agitated about the whole thing. The sermon is not very systematic nor exegetical. What say the paedos about his assertion that infant baptism was perpetuated in the church its for ability to secure political power?



Dennis, I often hear Baptists point out the (alleged) connection between paedobaptism and state churches. Certainly, at times in history, there seems to have been a connection. However, the origins of infant baptism have nothing to do with politics. The articulations of infant baptism in the patristic era have nothing to do with politics. The arguments for infant baptism among the Lutheran and Reformed have nothing to do with politics. So, I think it's a red herring. Baptists have traditionally been against two things, paedobaptism and state churches. It seems some have decided to link them into one issue for convenience.

One text that these Baptists refer to is _The Reformers and Their Stepchildren_ by Leonard Verduin. The basic premise of the book is that the Reformers were just another kind of Catholic, and that the Anabaptists were the true reformers of the church, because they severed the church-state connection.


----------



## JP Wallace

I skimmed the sermon on Infant Baptism and found it rather superficial and did not really reflect much effort in trying to understand the covenantal arguments for paedobaptism (which is probably not surprising given the fact that Dr. Macarthur is Dispinsationalist). For example he says,

'Circumcision didn’t apply to girls. Circumcision was really a gift from God to protect Jewish women from forms of infection, to protect and preserve the nation. Say at all about their spiritual condition. If Baptism was a substitute for that, why didn’t Paul make his life so much easier by saying to all the Judaizers who were running all over everywhere demanding people to be circumcised, “Wait a minute. You guys don’t get it. Baptism replaces that.” That would have ended the argument. Then the Judaizers would have been satisfied. It never says that.

What about 

Colossians 2:11-12 11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 

It could at least be argued that Paul is indeed saying here that Baptism is a replacement of circumcision, could it not, or at least has some sort of equivalency?


----------



## steadfast7

JP Wallace said:


> Colossians 2:11-12 11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
> 
> It could at least be argued that Paul is indeed saying here that Baptism is a replacement of circumcision, could it not, or at least has some sort of equivalency?


the circumcision spoken of could not have been the physical act of displacing foreskin from male genitalia, but that which comes from repentance and faith in the promises of God. Baptism certainly fits well with that picture!

---------- Post added at 08:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 PM ----------




CharlieJ said:


> However, the origins of infant baptism have nothing to do with politics. The articulations of infant baptism in the patristic era have nothing to do with politics. The arguments for infant baptism among the Lutheran and Reformed have nothing to do with politics. So, I think it's a red herring.


It was a new factoid for me that MacArthur alluded to the Emperial edicts that condemned on pain of death those who were rebaptized. You gotta admit, that does explain why the practice became so enduring.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

> Oooooo . . . I feel so very threatened. (meant to be interpreted playfully)



Well, Macarthur is a little scary. Just picture him wearing a jumpsuit and standing behind glass like Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs. " A Paedobaptist once tried to baptize my child, I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice glass of grape juice."


----------



## JM

MacArthur vs. Sproul, that discussion was great listening.


----------



## Andres

Bill The Baptist said:


> " A Paedobaptist once tried to baptize my child, I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice glass of grape juice."


----------



## JP Wallace

steadfast7 said:


> the circumcision spoken of could not have been the physical act of displacing foreskin from male genitalia, but that which comes from repentance and faith in the promises of God. Baptism certainly fits well with that picture!



Dennis you're missing the point surely? - why does Paul use the circumcision language in the first place? It is obvious he is not actually referring to physical circumcision, indeed that is his point - but he is drawing some kind of connection (in the Colossian context) between a legalistic Judaistic adoption of circumcision of the flesh that is being suggested to the Colossians (and Laodiceans) and he's saying 'don't do it - not needed' you have that which that physical circumcision signified - why re-adopt the OC symbol?


----------



## yoyoceramic

JM said:


> MacArthur vs. Sproul, that discussion was great listening.



Drs. MacArthur (opening, Part 1) and Sproul (rejoinder, Part 2) debate the issue of infant baptism. Each segment is around 40 mins.


----------



## JM

I thought that debate was for sale only, not for free distribution? I know it was at one time.


----------



## R Harris

JP Wallace said:


> I skimmed the sermon on Infant Baptism and found it rather superficial and did not really reflect much effort in trying to understand the covenantal arguments for paedobaptism (which is probably not surprising given the fact that Dr. Macarthur is Dispinsationalist). For example he says,
> 
> 'Circumcision didn’t apply to girls. Circumcision was really a gift from God to protect Jewish women from forms of infection, to protect and preserve the nation. Say at all about their spiritual condition. If Baptism was a substitute for that, why didn’t Paul make his life so much easier by saying to all the Judaizers who were running all over everywhere demanding people to be circumcised, “Wait a minute. You guys don’t get it. Baptism replaces that.” That would have ended the argument. Then the Judaizers would have been satisfied. It never says that.



You have got to be kidding me.

Has the man never read Romans 2:28-29? Romans 4:10-11?

How anyone can come to that statement about circumcision after having read the two passages above simply defies my comprehension. It is almost blatant ignorance to the nth degree.

I have had issues with MacArthur over the decades for numerous things (primarily eschatology), but this reaches to a whole new level. I really, seriously wonder about the man and his motives.


----------



## J. Dean

Bill The Baptist said:


> " A Paedobaptist once tried to baptize my child, I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice glass of grape juice."


Post of the week right there, folks! 

On a more serious note, let's remember that this is an in-house debate. Salvation does not hinge on the mode of baptism.


----------



## JP Wallace

J. Dean said:


> " A Paedobaptist once tried to baptize my child, I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice glass of grape juice."
> Post of the week right there, folks!



Sorry for going off topic but:

In a missionary situation is it Ok to use fava beans instead of bread?


----------



## bookslover

I disagree with MacArthur's third point especially - that baptism does not replace circumcision. I believe Colossians 2.11-12 makes precisely that point. AND (wonder of wonders), when MacArthur makes this point, he is disagreeing with his own note on this passage in his own study Bible. See page 1,788 in the English Standard Version edition of his study Bible.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Grant the man his primary assumptions, and I don't know why his teaching would be controversial.

Is it because he has such a big stage, or such wide reach? Alright, that's his providential setting. If he's wrong, he has that much more to give account of. Better to preach with an eye to the glory of God and a clear conscience--and make mistakes--than to hold back in order to maintain "market-share."

_________________

I have no idea whether this could be true:
Maybe the man has a loved one, and that person--in no small part due to the preaching of JohnnyMac--loves the Bible, AND has been investigating the formulations and arguments of systematically Reformed men, because clearly they loved the Bible too. And that loved one is being "tempted" to abandon things that JMA has believed and taught all his ministry. Things like dispensational reading of the Bible (contradicted by covenantal reading). Or other implications of traditional CT... like infant baptism.

I might be spurred on, in a case like that, to offer a double-barreled rebuttal to what I thought was error, the best I could give. I certainly would if the shoe were on the other foot.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

yoyoceramic said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> MacArthur vs. Sproul, that discussion was great listening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drs. MacArthur (opening, Part 1) and Sproul (rejoinder, Part 2) debate the issue of infant baptism. Each segment is around 40 mins.
Click to expand...

I see it still for sale, and extracted here:

Case for Infant Baptism: The Historic Paedo-Baptist Position

AMR


----------



## steadfast7

JP Wallace said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the circumcision spoken of could not have been the physical act of displacing foreskin from male genitalia, but that which comes from repentance and faith in the promises of God. Baptism certainly fits well with that picture!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis you're missing the point surely? - why does Paul use the circumcision language in the first place? It is obvious he is not actually referring to physical circumcision, indeed that is his point - but he is drawing some kind of connection (in the Colossian context) between a legalistic Judaistic adoption of circumcision of the flesh that is being suggested to the Colossians (and Laodiceans) and he's saying 'don't do it - not needed' you have that which that physical circumcision signified - why re-adopt the OC symbol?
Click to expand...

Agreed. I knew it was just a semantic thing between us.


bookslover said:


> I disagree with MacArthur's third point especially - that baptism does not replace circumcision. I believe Colossians 2.11-12 makes precisely that point.


 It's one thing for Paul to say that baptism and circumcision figure the same spiritual reality, but it's quite another to say that baptism _replaces_ circumcision as THE covenant sign. This Paul never does. The knockdown argument never appears.


----------



## Pilgrim

I love MacArthur. He was a formative influence in my life, an influence that continues to this day through his ministry and those of others he has admired. I don't think it's any accident that Iain Murray has admired Mac for years, despite their disagreements. No doubt he sees something of The Doctor's (Lloyd-Jones) evangelical separatism (yet non-fundamentalist) in MacArthur that is often lacking in other prominent evangelical leaders.

MacArthur has sometimes failed to be thorough when representing the views of others, and sometimes does so inaccurately or incompletely. Sometimes he comes across as intemperate to those on the other side in the process. I think this came across even with the recent series on "Young Reformers" that I basically agreed with. Many of his detractors engaged in _ad hominem_ but some of the generalizations he made were bound to generate a little more heat than light. in my opinion that was particularly the case with some of his younger defenders. My guess is that series was a much bigger hit with people in the pews and older pastors than it was with the people he was trying to reach.

Although I'm not a Dispensational, I think a lot of what he said about premil and Calvinism is right WRT unfulfilled OT prophecy and Israel's "election." I think it is fair to state that many of the 19th Century British Reformed Historic Premils would agree with much of it as well and would have similar objections to amillennialism, all the while disagreeing with dispensationalism as well. (Some of them would probably even fit within certain contemporary definitions of "Christian Zionism." But that's basically a topic for another thread.) My point here is that the way MacArthur represented and then dismissed amillennialism at the beginning of the message was bound to turn any amil off, as well as some others. (I can't remember if I'm remembering the conference message or the first of the 3 messages he gave at Grace Church on the same subject around the same time. Either way, it would have basically made me shut down had I heard it as when I was an amil.)

As for the Mac-Sproul debate, I've heard paedobaptists state that Sproul wouldn't be their top pick to present their side either. If I've ever heard it, I don't recall much of it now. I think there was a Sproul-Alistair Begg debate at some point as well. 

All that being said, there are plenty of non-dispensational Baptists who would argue that water baptism is not strictly analogous to physical circumcision in the way that Reformed paedobaptists view it. Speaking in general terms (and not necessarily this particular message) whether one agrees with that view or not, that's pretty much standard Baptist argumentation, and it long predates dispensationalism. 

While I haven't looked at _The Reformers and Their Stepchildren _in several years, it appears to me that Verduin was certainly not without his flaws. If I recall correctly even he admitted he might have tilted too much toward the anabaptist side in reaction to the opposite tendency. But I don't believe that the book is wholly without merit. I think Reformed paedobaptists who subscribe to the American revision of the Westminster Standards would also be hard-pressed to argue that they would have come to a separation of church and state apart from Baptist influence and the results of the American Revolution (or some other related nefarious influence, depending on your perspective.) And of course some members of the board reject those revisions.


----------



## Gord

Funny how it is that John always is deemed to stirring the pot. I have followed him over for over 30 years, read and listened to most of his sermons daily, and read many of his books, ... stir the pot? yes, 
is he right? I'm not qualified to answer that

In is defence I would note that he's still doing what he started over 43 years ago, "ONE VERSE AT A TIME" and in that endeavour his faithfulness out weighs some perceived incorrect theology according to those who do not even have less qualifications than John MacArthur. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## JM

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> yoyoceramic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> MacArthur vs. Sproul, that discussion was great listening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drs. MacArthur (opening, Part 1) and Sproul (rejoinder, Part 2) debate the issue of infant baptism. Each segment is around 40 mins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see it still for sale, and extracted here:
> 
> Case for Infant Baptism: The Historic Paedo-Baptist Position
> 
> AMR
Click to expand...


I thought it was still for sale on Dr. Sproul's site as well.


----------



## bookslover

bookslover said:


> I disagree with MacArthur's third point especially - that baptism does not replace circumcision. I believe Colossians 2.11-12 makes precisely that point.


 It's one thing for Paul to say that baptism and circumcision figure the same spiritual reality, but it's quite another to say that baptism _replaces_ circumcision as THE covenant sign. This Paul never does. The knockdown argument never appears.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but hasn't that been the end result? Christians do not practice circumcision for any but medical reasons, while baptism is regarded as the visible entrance rite for the people of God.

Baptism has _de facto_ replaced circumcision.


----------



## Notthemama1984

The recent episode of Sinners and Saints spoke about this sermon....

Sinners and Saints Radio 2.0 Episode 3 | Sinners And Saints Radio


----------



## Notthemama1984

I laughed hard at the beginning of the altar call.


----------



## Gord

Sinners and Saints Radio 2.0 Episode 3 | Sinners And Saints Radio

The first of a multi-episode response to John MacArthur’s recent sermon opposing infant baptism. Pastors John Sawtelle and Adam Kaloostian dissect some of MacArthur’s introductory remarks and correct some of his misrepresentations of church history. Debuting the “Altar Call” segment, the hosts call their Reformed colleagues to recommit themselves to their ordination vows, including not only the sound preaching of the Word, but also the refutation of those that oppose Scriptural doctrine and practice as summarized in the creeds and confessions.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

There is some merit in the argument that Infant Baptism was supported by the government. This is because the major record keeping of a birth was the Baptism record in the Church. Governments needed these records in order to tabulate military duties, taxes, and population statistics. To condemn Infant Baptism because it was supported by the government is a logical fallacy. The governments at the time also supported the Trinity - like in the execution of Servetus - are we to reject the Trinity simply because the government supported it?

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Notthemama1984

Gord said:


> Sinners and Saints Radio 2.0 Episode 3 | Sinners And Saints Radio
> 
> The first of a multi-episode response to John MacArthur’s recent sermon opposing infant baptism. Pastors John Sawtelle and Adam Kaloostian dissect some of MacArthur’s introductory remarks and correct some of his misrepresentations of church history. Debuting the “Altar Call” segment, the hosts call their Reformed colleagues to recommit themselves to their ordination vows, including not only the sound preaching of the Word, but also the refutation of those that oppose Scriptural doctrine and practice as summarized in the creeds and confessions.



Out of curiosity, did you listen to the episode?


----------



## J. Dean

The main body of the broadcast was interesting and put some very good points forward. But the "altar call" part at the end was a little over the top.


----------



## Rook

His sermon on infant baptism was a repeat sermon from the mid 90's. He preached a 5 point sermon on infant baptism which I have read numerous times. He basically preached that exact sermon again, and to be honest I was not impressed. If he holds the position he holds based on conviction that is fine, but I wasn't impressed with his understanding of circumcision and its spiritual (not only physical) significance. I attended the night service where he preached on believer's baptism, and I found a few things quite interesting. They had a baby dedication before he preached, and MacArthur goes right out and says that children of one believing parent have a special role in the kingdom of God. After the dedication, some other announcements were made and the guy (not J-Mac) says something along the lines, it is wonderful how the Lord builds His church (in reference to the children). 

This has been a joy for me though, considering I am a student at The Master's College. There have been some really good discussions, especially since everyone knows I believe the Bible teaches infant baptism. 

I love Dr. MacArthur, and I'm thankful for him for many reasons. I think he is dead wrong about Psalm-singing being insufficient for worship, and I think he is dead wrong about his position on baptism, and of course his eschatology. I respect him because he really believes he is helping people stay away from a serious error, and for that I cannot fault him.


----------



## Weston Stoler

Rook said:


> I love Dr. MacArthur, and I'm thankful for him for many reasons. I think he is dead wrong about Psalm-singing being insufficient for worship, and I think he is dead wrong about his position on baptism, and of course his eschatology. I respect him because he really believes he is helping people stay away from a serious error, and for that I cannot fault him.



agreed. He is the one who told me of the doctrines of Grace.


----------



## NB3K

I cannot understand why folks in the reformed camp continue to divide on this point and make it a stumbling block for other believers.


----------



## JonathanHunt

NB3K said:


> I cannot understand why folks in the reformed camp continue to divide on this point and make it a stumbling block for other believers.



And I cannot understand why this thread exists. Baptists preach in favour of Believers-Only Baptism and against Infant Baptism. Get over it.


----------



## Rook

JonathanHunt said:


> NB3K said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot understand why folks in the reformed camp continue to divide on this point and make it a stumbling block for other believers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I cannot understand why this thread exists. Baptists preach in favour of Believers-Only Baptism and against Infant Baptism. Get over it.
Click to expand...


1) I don't understand how this is a stumbling block? 

2) I agree that nobody should be shocked that MacArthur preached what he did. Shouldn't it be expected? Yes. The only shocker for me, and why I think this thread exists, was some of the content which I thought would have been better researched and understood by Dr. MacArthur. I couldn't care less that he "stirred up the (Baptismal) waters," he has every right to considering his convictions which are within the bounds of orthodoxy.


----------



## DawnTreader

The thing that bothers me more than his poor arguments is his general attitude, which has been going downhill for a while now. He is showing less and less simple Christian charity these days and it breaks my heart. Broad generalizations and straw men do nothing to further the argument. For sure, JMAC (Or Baptists in general, for that matter) don't have the market cornered on broad generalizations and straw men. They are things we should all look to banish from these discussions


----------



## Weston Stoler

DawnTreader said:


> The thing that bother's me more than his poor arguments is his general attitude, which has been going downhill for a while now. He is showing less and less simple Christian charity these days and it breaks my heart. Broad generalizations and straw men do nothing to further the argument. For sure, JMAC (Or Baptists in general, for that matter) don't have the market cornered on broad generalizations and straw men. They are things we should all look to banish from these discussions



Bumper! Huzzah!


----------



## Herald

NB3K said:


> I cannot understand why folks in the reformed camp continue to divide on this point and make it a stumbling block for other believers.



Jason, there are a limited number of places where the baptism debate exists. You'll see it on seminary campuses and online discussion boards. There may be a family or individual who is struggling with the issue within a local church context but it seldom turns into a church-wide debate. Seminaries and online discussion boards are incubators of sorts. There are diverse opinions but a shared interest in all things theological, baptism being one of them. The baptism issue is more than just a doctrine, it's a _defining _doctrine for Baptists and Presbyterians. More friction and sparks are created by baptism discussions than any one single topic - at least that's true on the Puritan Board. So, the stumbling block you allude to really isn't seen outside of these two incubators. 

I offer one piece of advice (free - no charge). Study the issue until you are _completely _persuaded as to what is the correct view. If you come to that point be at peace with where you are. I'm not suggesting you bury your head in the sand and refuse to consider new information that may challenge your previously held convictions. Sometimes folks are completely persuaded of an erroneous view. It is to their benefit that they are challenged to consider new information that will, hopefully, lead them to a change of position. But if your view on baptism is within the bounds of orthodoxy, and in the absence of a previously unconsidered argument, be at peace. No Presbyterian is going to hell because they believe in baptizing babies and no Baptist is going to hell because they don't.


----------



## Scholten

CharlieJ said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the sermon. I must say he seems very agitated about the whole thing. The sermon is not very systematic nor exegetical. What say the paedos about his assertion that infant baptism was perpetuated in the church its for ability to secure political power?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis, I often hear Baptists point out the (alleged) connection between paedobaptism and state churches. Certainly, at times in history, there seems to have been a connection. However, the origins of infant baptism have nothing to do with politics. The articulations of infant baptism in the patristic era have nothing to do with politics. The arguments for infant baptism among the Lutheran and Reformed have nothing to do with politics. So, I think it's a red herring. Baptists have traditionally been against two things, paedobaptism and state churches. It seems some have decided to link them into one issue for convenience.
> 
> One text that these Baptists refer to is _The Reformers and Their Stepchildren_ by Leonard Verduin. The basic premise of the book is that the Reformers were just another kind of Catholic, and that the Anabaptists were the true reformers of the church, because they severed the church-state connection.
Click to expand...


With respect to Rev. Verduin's works on this topic it is important to note that he made a serious mistake in quoting Zwingli. He quoted Zwingli as saying he was against infant baptism, but feared for his income. See the following for more information:

Verduin misquoted Zwingli - potentially significantly impacts infant baptism.


----------



## NB3K

I would ask MacArthur, for what purpose do you wish to preach a message on the subject of baptisim? I mean if we as "Reformed" brothers are united in the Spirit of Grace, why would one want to create a division on baptism? Where is the fruit of peace making if you are going to constantly stir the pot on a subject that is not edifying to the unity of the Church? I once watch a sermon on predestination by Mark Driscoll, and Driscoll ascerted that in his church Calvinism & Arminianism would not be a point in which their church would divide, but I wonder how Driscoll would feel if people wanted to practice infant baptism? The point that I am trying to get at is, so many of us would be willing to yield to compromising the doctrine of grace for the sake of peace, but would go to the grave proclaiming one view of baptism is heresy compared to the other. I know folks that are like the KJV onlyism crowd in their view of baptism. But how many are there that would fight tooth and nail for the Gospel of Grace of Jesus Christ?

The way I see baptism is this:

It is the Election of Grace that brings us into union with Christ. God the Father choosing us and engrafting us into Christ's birth, life, death , and resurrection, is what I believe to be the Baptism that we try to put on display for all to see in either or the other. Without God the Father choosing us in Christ, what benefit would one receive from either being immersed in water or having it poured on? NOTHING! We are not regenerated by water, but by the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is only going to bring to life those whom Christ died for, because it is the Father's will. The rest will be damned to hell no matter how many times they get baptised. This doctrine right here is what we as Christians everywhere ought to be united on. If we simply believed this one doctrine we all would be united in the Spirit of Christ! We would be stronger and would be less likely to treat the flock of God like the world treats its own, but we would treat it like Christ has with unconditional love, mercy and grace! We would be unified as the Father is with His Son as ONE!


----------



## Don Kistler

I think it's a pretty safe bet that John preached on this subject because he or his elders were getting questions about it from folks in the congregation. His church's bookstore has a wealth of Reformed books, both presbyterian and baptistic, and if folks are reading those books or are listening to men who subscribe to the doctrines of grace, they are inevitably hearing people refer to infant baptism. 

So he's probably gotten questions such as, "Jonathan Edwards was sound, and HE believed in infant baptism. So why don't we?" Rather than answer that question 100 times, he probably felt it best to address it from the pulpit.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Regardless how well he sounds or how well he tries to present a "biblical argument" he's wrong. His presuppositions from dispensationalism makes him unqualified to even speak on the issue, let alone critique paedo baptism.


----------

