Episode 4 - Response to John MacArthur's Attack on Infant Baptism

In this episode the hosts deal with and refute Dr. John MacArthur's historical argument against infant baptism. To listen to or download the full mp3 visit: http://bit.ly/r2ERXp

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• Infant Baptism
• John MacArthur
• Reformed Theology

[MaharlikaAWA]

which is why you are spending so much time on history rather than the bible. Your whining arguments (funny how you tell baptists not to whine) are flawed.

[MaharlikaAWA]

he never said "the famous top authority of paedobaptists" like you are trying to suggest. He simply used him as an example. And the majority or the full host of the german english paedobaptizers are affirming that the actual instruction or biblical mention of infant baptism is not in the bible. These are people whp support infant baptism admitting this. yet you guys seem to not get it...

[MaharlikaAWA]

... The host of German and front-rank theologians and scholars of the Church of England have united to affirm not only the absence of infant baptism from the New Testament, but the absence from apostolic and post-apostolic writers. This is the Anglican Church, the Church of England that does infant baptism. This is the Lutheran Church that affirms and does infant baptism saying it’s not in the Bible."

[MaharlikaAWA]

You guys missed the point of why John Mac mentioned the german theologian. He said, "For example, Friedrich Schleiermacher, the German theologian wrote, “All traces of infant baptism which are asserted to be found in the New Testament must first be inserted there.” And he would come from a Lutheran tradition, but affirm…you would have to put it into the Bible because it isn’t there...

[MaharlikaAWA]

Wow these radio hosts are really bitter. i love the opening how it says "in a world of man centered religion!" yet infant baptism is totally a man made doctrine and not biblical. These guys have no scriptural support, they are just using an emotional fallacy. John MacArthur was just swinging wildly?? Uhh yeah if that means effectively examining scripture to show why infant baptism is not biblical then yeah he swang wildly *rolls eyes*

[ShownMercy]

I can't seem to locate where you guys actually examined the scriptures. I listened to all your uploads, yet no scripture anywhere.. Maybe I have missed it? If you guys don't actually go to the scriptures in dealing with Johnny Mac's assertions, you should honestly remove this ridiculous diatribe and stick with subjects you actually have some knowledge of. Sounds to me as if you got your feelings hurt and you merely wanted to cry a bit..

Would you like some cheese with your whine?

[IronWillFFF]

That's not a prayer at the opening, that's a sermon pretending to be a prayer. Wow. Get real, loser.

[dLichti]

So, you stop thinking by yourself because you think, that so many people before you cannote be all wrong? If everyone would do so, in 1000 years, people would say: Well people were thinking like this for even 3000 years, they can't all be wrong...

Christians shouldn't be afraid of being radical, as Jesus' teaching was quite radical. He did not do like all the other did before him.

[metanoeo1]

You said, "We have to respond." Then how about you respond with the Bible? It's nice to hear someone base their beliefs on Scripture rather than centuries of tradition that are not based on the Bible. Who cares what Joe Blow says about infant baptism, what does Scripture say? It says nothing because it's not in the Bible, therefore, it's not biblical. If it's not biblical, we shouldn't do it!!!

[rbmath]

FROM "Sinners and Saints Radio 2.0. Episode 7. Household Baptism" from 9:45- 10:02... "and IF children are in the house"... MY RESPONSE... Once again we see the mighty word in regards to infant baptism "IF". basing a teaching of Divine Scripture on an "IF".. Second... Its ALWAYS REPENTANCE FIRST then baptism. its not Baptism first than hopefully repentance as an adult....