Apologetics for the Masses #444 - An Argument Against Infant Baptism

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter

Topic

Pastor Enoch F. Phiri, Senior Pastor of Restoration House church, in Soweto, South Africa, argues that one should not baptize babies. I respond to his arguments.

General Comments

Hey folks,

I hope you've had a fruitful Lenten Season so far and that this coming Holy Week is a good one for you and your loved ones. And, in case I don't get a newsletter out this coming week, then let me wish you a happy and a holy Easter here and now.

Introduction

     Pastor Enoch F. Phiri, is apparently a pastor/preacher of some note in the southern region of Africa. His YouTube bio states the following: "Enoch Frank Phiri is a speaker, writer and TV personality, mentor, and a market place Apostle [not sure what that is]. Pastor Phiri touches millions of people through his Taking Dominion TV programs across South Africa and the entire African continent. Pastor Enoch Phiri is a leader in ministry and society and one of the most influential voices in South Africa...Pastor Enoch F. Phiri serves as the founding and Senior Pastor of Restoration House, a Church based in Protea Glen - Soweto, South Africa."
     Someone sent me something from Pastor Phiri that had been posted on Facebook and asked how I would respond to his comments. In that post, Pastor Phiri had been asked about baptism as it related to John the Baptist being filled with the Holy Spirit in his mother's womb (Luke 1:15, 41). Below is his response, in its entirety, and then I repeat his response, with my comments intertwined amongst his.
     I hope you find it instructional and/or edifying.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Pastor Phiri
How Did John Receive the Spirit From the Womb Before Jesus Was Glorified?

Question: “Did John [the Baptist] receive the Holy Spirit? If yes I think the scripture has been broken because Jesus was the one who unveiled the indwelling of the Spirit.”

How Did John Receive the Spirit From the Womb Before Jesus Was Glorified?

Question: “Did John receive the Holy Spirit? If yes I think the scripture has been broken because Jesus was the one who unveiled the indwelling of the Spirit.”

Reply: Look at these two statements:

The sky is grey.
The cat is grey.

Do these sentences mean the sky is the cat? Does the same description of “grey” make the two objects the same in terms of what they are? Of course not, but many commit this fallacy when they equate one word or phrase in the Bible to another one appearing elsewhere in Scripture. With this approach, many find themselves in a forest of confusion by failing to reconcile some verses. For example in one place they read “God is light and in Him is no darkness at all” (1 Joh.1:5) and He is “dwelling in the light which no man can approach” (1 Tim.6:16), but in another place they find this: “The Lord said that He would dwell in the thick darkness” (1 Kin.8:12). If the disciples of the Lord had the same misperception of words they would certainly have had prematurely claimed to receive the Baptism of the Holy Ghost when the Lord breathed on them and said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost” (John 20:20, compare with John 7:39).

My Comments
First of all, his analogy is terribly flawed. It's actually pretty pathetic. I will expand on that point below. All I want to say here is that you need to keep in mind that in his analogy, Pastor Phiri is making the Holy Spirit analogous to the color gray. And please further note, that the color gray is the same in both instances - whether referring to the cat or to the sky. Also, if you look at the scriptural "example" he gives, it is not even close to being an example of "the sky is gray; the cat is gray". This guy is veering way off course right at the beginning of his argument. And he never gets close to getting back on course.

Pastor Phiri
If one is trapped in the ‘Sky and Cat’ analogy error given above, he will read the words “filled with the Holy Ghost” in Acts 2:4 and equate them with the same words found elsewhere in Scripture. For example in Luke 1:41 “Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost” and in Acts 4:31, the disciples, Peter and John and other believers, after a prayer of asking God for boldness “were all filled with the Holy Ghost”. What are we to make of these words? Well, first we should beware that spiritual things are spiritually discerned – “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor.2:14).

My Comments
Again, his argument fails from the beginning because of his flawed analogy. Let me type it out so you can see what I'm talking about:

The sky is gray.
The cat is gray.

Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.
Peter and John...were filled with the Holy Ghost.

In the first part of his analogy, the sky and cat are different. Both of them being gray doesn't make them the same. But, the color gray is indeed the same. In the 2nd part of his analogy, Elizabeth and Peter/John are different. Both of them being "filled with the Holy Ghost" doesn't make them the same. But, being "filled with the Holy Ghost" IS the same. He admits the color "gray" is the same in both statements about the sky and the cat. Therefore, for his analogy to hold, being "filled with the Holy Ghost" means the same thing for both Elizabeth and for Peter and John. His analogy actually contradicts the claim he is making.

He’s trying to compare “sky” and “cat” on one side of his analogy to “filled with the Holy Spirit” and “filled with the Holy Spirit” on the other side of his analogy. It makes no sense. Sky and cat are analogous to Elizabeth and to Peter and John. Gray is analogous to "filled with the Holy Spirit". Sky and cat are different; gray is the same. Elizabeth and Peter/John are different; filled with the Holy Spirit is the same.

His problem is that the words are not different, they are the exact same. In each instance a person is “filled”. What are they filled with? The Holy Spirit. Is it a different Holy Spirit that fills Elizabeth in Luke 1 than the one that fills the disciples in Acts 2? No! Does “filled” mean “filled” in one verse but it means “not filled” in the other verse? No! It’s the same Holy Spirit! There is no “Sky and Cat analogy error” here! His attempted analogy is an absolute disaster.

So, how does he try to get around that fact? By essentially saying he, Pastor Andrew C. Phiri, is discerning things “spiritually”. Which means anyone who disagrees with him is, of course, simply a “natural man” who “receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God”. Which means, of course, Pastor Phiri does receive the things of the Spirit of God, at least, according to Pastor Phiri. So, this is a good place to ask, what authority does Pastor Phiri have to proclaim himself a spiritual man and those who disagree with his fallible interpretation of Scripture are nothing more than natural men? What authority does he have? Who ordained him? What authority did that person have? And who ordained that person? And so on. Also, I have to ask, would a person who can “spiritually discern” things make such a critical error in simple logic when it comes to this failed “Sky and Cat” analogy he is making up? Does having spiritual discernment mean one sucks at analogies?

Pastor Phiri
It should not be difficult to see that the infilling of the Holy Ghost that Elisabeth experienced was not the same as the one which occurred on the Day of Pentecost in Acts Chapter 2. It is very clear in John 7:39, and other places in Scripture, that the Baptism of the Holy Ghost could only come after the Lord was glorified. Likewise, Peter and John had already received the Baptism when they got “filled with the Holy Ghost” in Acts 2:4. Later, when their lives were in danger they prayed and the place where they were shook and they “were all filled with the Holy Ghost” (Act. 4:31). Certainly, that doesn’t mean they received the Baptism twice, and because the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is what constitutes the New Birth it also doesn’t mean they were ‘Born Again’ again!

My Comments
Yes, actually, it is difficult to see that the infilling of the Holy Spirit that Elizabeth experienced was not the same as the one which occurred on the Day of Pentecost. The words the Bible uses in both places are exactly the same! Same “Holy Spirit”. Same being “filled with the Holy Spirit”. So, why does he say they are different? Does the Bible say that they were different? Does the Bible say that being “filled with the Holy Spirit” means one thing in this verse but another thing in that verse? No! Pastor Phiri says they are different because if they are the same, then it doesn’t fit his pre-determined theology.

He claims John 7:39 precludes anyone from receiving the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” until after Jesus was resurrected. But, John 7:39 doesn’t say anything about the “Baptism” of the Holy Spirit, it just says, “...for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” Is it not possible, though, that God can make exceptions? Could it possibly be that the Word of God was speaking in general terms regarding the Spirit not yet being given as opposed to absolute terms? That He was speaking generally of the New Covenant vs. the Old Covenant? John the Baptist - filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15). Mary, overshadowed by the Holy Spirit to the point that the Son of God was conceived in her womb (Luke 1:35). Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:41). Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:67). Simeon had the Holy Spirit upon him (Luke 2:25).

And, here’s the big one - Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit after being baptized with water (Luke 3:22; 4:1). So, is Pastor Phiri suggesting that Jesus wasn’t baptized with the Holy Spirit? I mean He was literally baptized and had the Holy Spirit descend upon Him. Is Pastor Phiri suggesting that there was something lacking in Jesus’ being “full of the Holy Spirit” after His Baptism? Apparently so.

Pastor Phiri
Let us give close attention to the record of John: “He that believeth on me , as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this He spake of the Spirit , which they that believe on Him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given because that Jesus was not yet glorified)” (John 7:38-39). This means that whatever one may read regarding a person being filled with the Holy Spirit prior to the glorification of the Lord Jesus, does not refer to the New Birth experience, which occurs by the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

My Comments
Notice how Pastor Phiri attempts no explanation as to what exactly being filled with the Holy Spirit means? Or exactly how it differs from the Baptism of the Holy Spirit? He has no explanation for it because there is nothing in the Bible that tells you there is a difference. In the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, does the Holy Spirit not “fill” a person? He’s basically making things up as he goes along, again, to fit his preconceived theology that infants should not be baptized.

Pastor Phiri
John 7:38-39 refers to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, an experience which could only occur after the glorification of the Lord Jesus. The experience is for the conversion of the heart and it is what had been prophesied by Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Jer. 31:33, Eze. 36:26-27, compare with Luke 22:31-32). The experience of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost IS MORE THAN an infilling to give someone boldness to proclaim the Word (Micah 2:8), and it is MORE THAN an infilling to sanctify or cause a fetus to kick in the womb of Elisabeth to give her a testimony of the working of God (Luke 1:41). We are speaking of spiritual things and they are spiritually discerned!

My Comments
I am so glad that he mentioned Jeremiah 31:33 in connection with baptism. Jer 31:33 speaks of a new covenant that God will make with His people. So, Pastor Phiri understands that in the New Covenant era, one comes into covenant with God through baptism. Well, how did one come into covenant with God in the Old Testament? Genesis 17 tells us, verses 7-14. One came into covenant with God through circumcision. How old did a person have to be to come into covenant with God in the Old Testament? Eight days old (Gen 17:12). So, the question has to be asked, if babies could come into covenant with God in the Old Testament, why could they not come into covenant with God in the New Testament? After all, Scripture itself tells us that baptism is the New Covenant equivalent of circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12). Acts 2:39 tells us that the promise of Baptism is not just to those adults being baptized on the Day of Pentecost, but also to their children. Furthermore, Scripture speaks of entire families and households being baptized (Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Cor 1:16). A household included not just the person and their entire family - children and infants included - but also any servants and their families and any slaves and their families.

And notice how he says that the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” “IS MORE THAN” boldness to proclaim the Word and “IS MORE THAN” sanctification or causing a baby to kick in the womb. Does he think that Elizabeth being “filled with the Holy Spirit” was all about getting the baby, John, to “kick” in her womb? Really?! Did he not read Luke 1:16-17? John the Baptist being filled with the Holy Spirit, “even from his mother’s womb,” gave him the strength, grace, and power to “turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God,” and to cause him to go before the Lord their God “in the spirit and power of Elijah,”and to “turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just.” That’s not just a kick of a “fetus” in its mother’s womb. Do you see how he’s downplaying this Scripture passage about John the Baptist and what all the indwelling of the Holy Spirit did for John in order to advance his own narrative about infant baptism? If John the Baptist wasn’t baptized in the Holy Spirt, then who is?! Besides, where does the Bible say what Pastor Phiri is saying? It doesn’t. He doesn’t cite a single verse that says anything close to what he is saying. But, of course, he is speaking of things that have to be “spiritually discerned”. They have to be “spiritually discerned” because they can’t be found in the Bible!

One other thing to note about this: Notice how he cites Ezek 36:26-27 about an Old Testament prophecy which refers to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Guess what? Notice how he didn’t mention verse 25? Why not do you think? Because in verse 25, it makes it very clear that this Baptism of the Holy Spirit that Pastor Phiri is referring to is accomplished through the sprinkling of water - it is through water Baptism that one receives a new heart and a new Spirit! He didn’t leave out verse 25 by accident, because it demolishes a large part of his argument.

Pastor Phiri
Another very important thing to be aware of is that the experience of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit can never bypass a person’s free-will. The baptism of the Holy Spirit causes the New Birth. With that comes the conversion of a heart, to cause a man to walk in the ways of God – “Repent, and be baptized…and ye shall receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit” (Act.2:38). In the beginning mankind fell into sin when he used his free-will to live by his way. God let him taste of the fruit of his own way (Pro.1:29-31). The Holy Spirit Baptism involves man realizing that his own way leads to death and hence surrendering his will to God’s will. When that man gets Born Again he begins to get led by the Spirit. He goes where the Spirit leads even when he doesn’t understand it – “the wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof , but canst not tell whence it cometh, and wither it goeth, so is everyone that is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8). So, the Holy Ghost baptism can never bypass the free-will of a man; a person has to decide to give up their own will and surrender it to God in order to be led by the Spirit. The act of repenting to surrender one’s own will to God is simply impractical for a fetus. Even the Lord Jesus had to grow in “stature and wisdom” before the Spirit took a hold of Him (Luke 2:52).

My Comments
Yes, indeed, we all have free will. Just as Adam and Eve had free will. Thing is, they were created in covenant with God without God having consulted them about their free will. When 8-day old infants were brought into covenant with God in the Old Testament, through circumcision, God did it without the consent of their free will. Just so infants, when baptized, are born again into covenant with God even without the consent of their free will. But, when they are old enough to exercise their free will, they still have a choice to make. They can choose for God, or against God. Luke 9:23 says anyone who would follow Jesus has to deny themselves and pick up their cross DAILY. You have to daily choose to follow God. Not just one time when you get baptized.

John 3:3-5 equates being born again with being born of “water and the Spirit”. Which is exactly what happened at Jesus’ baptism - he was baptized with water and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him. The important thing to note here, is that Jesus says that unless one is born of water and the Spirit - Baptism - he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. When we are born, we are born into the flesh. The flesh availeth nothing. When we are born, we are born outside of covenant with God. When we are baptized...born again...the gates of the Kingdom are open for us.

So, the Bible tells us that through Baptism we receive the Holy Spirit (Ezek 36:25-29; Acts 2:38), we have the Kingdom of God opened to us (John 3:3-5), we become members of the Body of Christ...Christians (1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:27), and we are saved (1 Peter 3:20-21). And notice, in 1 Peter 3:20-21 it tells us that Baptism corresponds to being “saved through water”. So, who would want to deny their child all of these great gifts of God? Who would not want their baby to receive the Holy Spirit and to become a member of the Body of Christ and have the Kingdom of God opened up to them? Who?!

Summary
I pity the poor folks who follow this pastor. He selectively chooses his Scripture passages, in some cases leaving out crucial parts of the passage, in order to try to justify his pre-determined theology. He is bending the Bible to fit his will, instead of bending his will to fit the Bible. So, scripturally, he's a mess. But, as that Sky/Cat analogy showed, logically he is a mess as well. I mean, that analogy actually proved the point he was trying to disprove.

Do me a favor, and if any of you come across any email contact information for him, please forward him this newsletter and tell him I would love to hear his response.

Closing Comments

Again, I hope all of you have a truly wonderful Holy Week and a happy and holy Easter!

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at:

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations

or send a check to:

Bible Christian Society

PO Box 424

Pleasant Grove, AL 35127.

Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletterhttp://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter