Oh how we loathe those Baptists eventhough they practice True Biblical Baptism by Immersion as βαπτίζω literally means immerse not sprinkle—they are still heretics for not being Reformed enough. We Know because of Calvin’s clear teachings on infant baptism and as you know Calvin’s views should be placed above scripture. In other words, the Bible should always be read through the lens of Calvin only. We also Know that sprinkling is unbiblical and comes from the Roman Catholic tradition—we’ll deny this though: “ There are sound biblical reasons for the historic Reformed view of infant baptism by sprinkling. We don’t do it because we adopted it from Roman Catholics, either.”
However, John MacArthur in a rare unReformed moment stated:
There are five reasons why I reject infant baptism. I’m telling you folks, I can’t get all that I want to say out this morning so you’re only going to get, I hope, the best of what’s here. But, these are very important points. 1. Point number one, and this ought to end the argument: infant baptism is not in Scripture. 2. The second reason is really the other side of the issue. I don’t believe in infant baptism because infant baptism is not Christian baptism. 3. Third point, why I reject infant baptism: it is not a replacement sign for the Abrahamic sign of circumcision. 4. Well, let me give you a fourth reason. I reject infant baptism because infant baptism is not consistent with the nature of the church. 5. One last point and I’ll let you go. Infant baptism is not consistent with the gospel.
However, we can forgive Dr. MacArthur and extend Grace to him for his unReformed errors of rejecting Calvin’s clear teachings and Pure Baptism Doctrines though we cannot forgive and extend Grace to those evil Arminian, Lutheran, Baptist/Anabaptist and Emerging/Emergent heretics. Now we must warn you about just how evil, impure, unsafe and unhealthy Biblical Baptism by Immersion really is:
First of all, Sharin’ Whiplash has stated:
“ Helwysfan, I’m guessing you’re a Baptist. I do get really tired of the superior attitude many credobaptists have towards paedobaptists today. (We don’t have superior attitudes about being Calvinists and Presbyterians you know!) If you know the truth you can discern what’s false…many of today’s Baptists view themselves as having “super Christian” status because of their views on water baptism, and will unabashedly state things like “ours is the biblical view of baptism”… and will say or imply unhesitantly that there’s no biblical basis whatsoever for the paedo view. I’m fed up with that. This morning a credobaptist posted something about a paedobaptist changing positions… and there was the presumption that the paedo had finally seen the light. Let me say this… there are more Baptists who become Presbyterians than the other way around. I guarantee it. Baptists may be Calvinists, but they are not, strictly speaking, Reformed. Only Presbyterians are Truly Reformed. Anabaptists, Reformed/Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Anglicans are 4 separate branches with separate traditions. All four branches are Reformed from Roman Catholicism in the broad sense of the term, but Baptists come from the Anabaptist branch, since they define themselves by their views on water baptism. A small percentage of Anabaptists followed Calvin’s theology on everything except baptism, though most of them followed Arminius. In any event, the vast majority of Christians, when taken as a whole, are paedobaptists, and that has been the case historically.
Secondly, We Know that there’s a lot of confusion and mythology about Baptists as they are confused people or as Sharin’ Whiplash states as well:
What is so bizarre is that eternal security is like article I of Baptist faith, but Anabaptists are classic Arminians –no security for them!…confused and confusing, even to themselves. Baptists want to be free-willers to choose salvation if and when they’re ready, but once they’ve made their ‘decision’ and are saved through Believer’s Baptism, they want to pass the buck to God to keep them that way. Baptists, with their muddled theology, think they should have the best of both worlds, so to speak. I find that very annoying. Certainly Credobaptism is evil since it promotes confusion this is why I Thank You, Lord, for Your servant, Jean Cauvin, without whom we would be still struggling in the darkness of Credobaptism, that man-exalting heresy! Besides Immersion sounds too much like the heresy of Emergent/Emerging or Emergence Christianity.
Lastly, We Know that baptism by sprinkling is safer, Purer, cleaner and healthier than baptism by Immersion as there is less of a chance of getting these Baptist related diseases: Baptici hereticus part of the Bapticus bacterium family or it’s close relatives in the Semi-Pelagite bacterium family Semi-Pelagiseses, Semi-Pelagoids and Semi-Pelagianism also known as Arm and Hand Disease or Arminianism. We Know that the less water used the cleaner one gets. We also Know that full Immersion in water eventhough it may look clean it is still dirty and full of these diseases—and to fully immerse in Baptismal waters causes full contact with them. This is why we must sprinkle so that we don’t become Baptist heretics. And so just remember—We Know!