Send a text

In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, I explain how I became convinced that Scripture teaches infant baptism.

Both Roman Catholic apologists and Baptist critics often claim that infant baptism cannot be defended from Scripture alone. John MacArthur made that case clearly and forcefully for decades. But what if the real issue isn’t a lack of biblical evidence — but a misunderstanding of what baptism actually is?

In this video, I interact with several of MacArthur’s arguments and explain why I ultimately found them unconvincing. The turning point for me came down to a single question: what does Scripture say baptism is?

We’ll look at:

• Why both sides in this debate appeal to Scripture
• How definitions of baptism shape the entire discussion
• Colossians 2 and the relationship between baptism and circumcision
• Covenant theology and the inclusion of believers’ children
• Why the absence of one specific verse changed my mind

My goal is not to attack fellow Christians, but to carefully examine whether our beliefs can truly be supported from Scripture.

If you find thoughtful, charitable theological discussion helpful, consider subscribing and joining the conversation.

Question for viewers:
What definition of baptism were you taught — and where do you see that definition in Scripture?

00:00 Introduction
 01:10 Why this debate matters
 03:00 Why interact with John MacArthur
 05:50 MacArthur: Infant baptism is tradition, not Scripture
 08:30 The key question: What is baptism?
 10:45 MacArthur’s definition of baptism
 13:30 The “missing verse” that changed my mind
 15:40 Colossians 2 and covenant continuity
 18:30 Baptism and circumcision compared
 21:00 Why definitions determine conclusions
 23:00 Responding to the “not in Scripture” claim
 24:30 Final thoughts and viewer question

Support the show

Do you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!!

Click here to find us everywhere!!