Has the Reformation Went Far Enough?

 

In a past debate between R. C. Sproul and John Macarthur, the latter argued that infant baptism should be rejected on the grounds that it is an abuse of Rome*1. To Macarthur, infant baptism has no Biblical origins but is a practice that Presbyterians continue out of influence from Roman Catholicism. 

To John MacArthur, the Reformation is not over. In his debate with R. C. Sproul, a prominent Reformed Presbyterian, Macarthur argued that the Reformation had not gone far enough----but needed to go even further. This time, Macarthur insists infant baptism should be cast out as he sees the practice as a liturgical abuse of the Roman Church. 

However, Macarthur's reasoning is problematic. First of all, what makes him the standard of Reformation thought? Why is he the perfect balance of what is Biblical? Does he know more than Luther and Calvin, Augustine and Aquinas, and essentially every theologian of the first 1500 years---of whom nearly all supported infant baptism? Secondly, if the Protestant Reformation did not go far enough, who is to say that any of it is Biblical? Macarthur? Is he the pope beholding the Keys of the Kingdom? 

Thirdly, those who say that infant baptism is an abuse of Catholic thought may also say that the Trinity is an abuse of Catholic thought. In other words, some modern ''Christians'' now say that we should also cast the Trinity out of Christian doctrine, as it is a teaching from the Catholic Church. By Macarthur's reasoning, the Trinity may also be cast out, as, like infant baptism, it was taught in the ancient Catholic Church. And while Macarthur's supporters would affirm the Trinity as Biblical and not infant baptism, their view would be disputed by the majority of Christendom: Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Reformed, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Methodists. 

Fourthly, if Macarthur truly believes that infant baptism is unbiblical and the Reformation has not gone far enough, who is to say that reforming from the Catholic Church ends with him? In other words, maybe Pentecostals feel that he is too close to Catholicism in that he rejects speaking in tongues (of which Catholics have various different thoughts). Perhaps Quakers (who reject having church officers) feel that he is too Catholic since he believes in elders. And while Macarthur embraces women deacons, though not elders, perhaps some mainline churches would argue that he needs to reform from Catholicism by embracing women as pastors. 

Fifthly, infant baptism was practiced by Eastern Orthodox, who existed long before the Reformation and did not embrace the practice simply because the Roman Church did. So if Infant baptism is an abuse of Roman interpretations of Scripture, which Lutherans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians have supposedly held onto, why did Eastern and Oriental Orthodox ever practice it to begin with? And it is not like the practice of infant baptisms started in 1400. The second-century church father, Origen of Alexandria, testified to infant baptism being a practice that could be traced to the time of the Apostles. 

In short, Macarthur's reasoning is weak. One either believes in Catholic theology or doesn't. Claiming Presbyterians are wrong because they embrace aspects of Catholic thought is as weak as a Mormon saying that a Baptist should renounce the Trinity on the grounds that it is Catholic thought. What Christians should ask themselves instead is if their theology is Biblical? Is it historical? Is it a new thought? If the latter questions are asked with an open mind, I am confident that Macarthur's entire theology would collapse as easily as the house built on the asking sand. 

I would like to end with a passage from Jimmy Akin's book, The Fathers Know Best: 

''The great majority of Christians recognize infant baptism, though some groups do not. These groups argue that baptism should only be bestowed on people who have attained a certain age and are capable of asking for it. Nowhere in the New Testament, they point out, do we read of infants being baptized. 

That is true. But it is also true that nowhere do we read of children being raised in Christian families to a certain age and then being baptized. The accounts of baptism in the New Testament deal with converts from Judaism or paganism, not the children of those who are already believers. Concerning them, there is no explicit mention of baptism, whether in infancy or later. 

As with the mode of baptism (see chapter 2), Scripture simply never tells us whether the proper recipients of baptism include infants or not, but there are passages that are consistent with and even suggestive of infant baptism. 

Luke 18: 15-16 tells us that ''they were bringing even infants'' to Jesus; and he himself related this to the Kingdom of God: ''Let the children come to me...for to such belongs the Kingdom of God.''  This passage does not deal with baptism, but it does establish a principle that is relevant. If ''even infants'' are fit for ''the Kingdom of God,'' why should they be denied baptism and membership in Christ's mystical body? 

There is a passage in Acts in which baptism is under discussion. Peter declares, ''Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to and your children'' (Acts 2: 38-39). Even more noteworthy are the passages that describe whole households being baptized (Acts 16: 33, 1 Corinthians 1: 16). These may well have included infants and small children. 

Baptism is the Christian rite of initiation, the equivalent of circumcision for the Jews. In fact, St. Paul calls it ''the circumcision of Christ,'' telling us: ''In him, you were also circumcised with...the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead (Col 2: 11-12).'' 

Circumcision could be applied not only to converts in Judaism who already possessed faith in God, but also to the sons in Jewish families who would be raised in the faith. Baptism as the Christian equivalent, can also be applied to converts who already have faith and children who will be raised in the faith (Akin,281).''

I would also add to Akin's argument that the baptisms of entire households in Acts point to infant baptism. Lest some say that Acts never explicitly mentions infants in those passages, it should be remembered, as I have explained in my previous series on infant baptism, that ''household'' always refers to young children, even infants, in Jewish literature. Those who reject infant baptism by their insistence that we cannot know whether or not those households included infants have already demonstrated their ignorance of first-century Jewish culture. By reading first-century Christianity through the lens of modern Evangelicalism, Macarthur's cult supporters remain willfully ignorant of ancient Judaism and early Christianity. 

It is dangerous to read the Bible with no understanding of the Jewish world in which the Bible was born. It is also arrogant to think that two thousand years after Christ, you can suddenly read Scripture and understand it better than did everyone in the centuries following Christ. And literally no one in the ancient, not even Tertullian of Carthage, who preferred believers' baptism, claimed that infant baptism was an invalid practice. And even Tertullian's preference for believers' baptism was actually because he hoped baptism would be delayed near death...as he saw it as regenerative---a very different understanding than today's Baptists. Indeed, literally, no one in the ancient church had the Baptist's view of baptism (though in supporting baptismal regeneration, the fathers wouldn't agree with most Presbyterians today either). The concept that infants must be rebaptized as adults has no origins in Scripture but was born from the liberal Anabaptist in the sixteenth century. In light of both Scripture and church history, infant baptism remains a Biblical practice for Christians to follow. 

Works Cited:

Akin, Jimmy. The Fathers Know Best: Your Essential Guide to the Teachings of the Early Church. (2010). Catholic Answers Press. 

Notes:

*1-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyzC0T78w20