Examining Prophecy, Women Pastors, and Infant Baptism in Light of Scripture

From a Facebook reel:

My Christian response:

Doctrinal Claims Deserve More Than Slogans

As Christians, we are not free to treat doctrine carelessly. The truth of God is not ours to manipulate, simplify, weaponize, or reduce to whatever fits neatly into a slogan. Scripture is the very Word of God, breathed out by Him, profitable for teaching, correction, reproof, and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be complete and equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16–17). That means theological claims—especially disputed ones—must be handled with reverence, seriousness, humility, and a willingness to submit our assumptions to the authority of God’s Word. This is especially true when discussing issues such as charismatic gifts, women in ministry, and infant baptism. These are not trivial matters, but neither are they matters that can be settled by mere assertion or by pretending that all faithful Christians who disagree are simply ignoring the Bible.

A Christian approach to theology must begin with the recognition that God has spoken, and because He has spoken, our task is not to win arguments for their own sake, but to hear Him rightly. The Christian is called to “rightly handle the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15), not to handle it recklessly. We are also warned that teachers will be judged with greater strictness (James 3:1), which means bold doctrinal pronouncements should never be made lightly. Strong convictions are not a problem; indeed, Christians ought to have convictions. But conviction must be joined to humility, because we are dealing with holy things. It is possible to be zealous for truth and yet careless with Scripture. It is possible to defend orthodoxy in a manner that is itself unchristian. And it is possible to speak with such pride and dismissiveness that, even when one says something partly true, one dishonors the Lord whose truth he claims to defend.

Consider first the claim that charismatic doctrine is false and that there is no prophecy today. A Christian must begin by making careful distinctions. If by “prophecy” one means new revelation equal in authority to Scripture, revelation that adds to the apostolic deposit of faith, establishes new doctrine, or competes with the written Word of God, then Christians must reject it outright. The faith has been “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), and God has spoken definitively in His Son (Hebrews 1:1–2). Scripture is not awaiting supplementation from modern prophets, and the church is not in need of fresh canonical revelation. Any supposed prophecy that seeks to bind the conscience apart from Scripture, alter Christian doctrine, or function as a rival authority to the Bible is false and must be rejected.

But Christians must also be honest with the whole witness of the New Testament. The Bible does not speak of spiritual gifts as though they are unimportant, nor does it simply tell the church to ignore prophecy altogether. In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul teaches that the Holy Spirit distributes gifts throughout the body according to His will. In 1 Corinthians 14, he gives detailed instructions on the use of prophecy and tongues in the church, not to abolish them, but to regulate them so that the church may be edified and Christ honored. In 1 Thessalonians 5:20–21, Paul writes, “Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good.” That command does not encourage gullibility, but neither does it encourage blanket dismissal. It commands discernment. Likewise, in Acts 21:8–11, prophetic activity appears in the life of the post-resurrection church. So the Christian question is not whether believers may invent revelation beyond Scripture—they may not—but whether the Spirit may still, in some subordinate and non-canonical sense, impress warnings, exhortations, or applications upon believers in ways that must always be tested by Scripture and never placed alongside it.

Faithful Christians have disagreed on that point. Cessationists argue that the miraculous revelatory gifts belonged uniquely to the apostolic era and ceased with the close of that foundational period, often appealing to texts such as Ephesians 2:20, where the church is described as being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Continuationists argue that while the apostolic office and canonical revelation have ceased, certain gifts may continue in a subordinate form under the authority of Scripture. A Christian may take either side, but he must do so with biblical care, not with sweeping pronouncements that ignore the complexity of the biblical evidence. If we are to say charismatic theology is wrong, then we must prove it from Scripture, not merely declare it.

The same Christian obligation to handle Scripture carefully applies to the question of women in ministry. If one says that women pastors are unscriptural, then that claim must be grounded in a careful reading of the Bible and not in rhetoric. There are certainly passages that have led many faithful Christians to conclude that the governing office of elder or pastor in the church is reserved for qualified men. 1 Timothy 2:12 states, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man,” and 1 Timothy 3:1–7 gives qualifications for overseers that complementarians understand to indicate male eldership. Titus 1 also contributes to this discussion, and Paul’s appeal to creation order in 1 Timothy 2 leads many Christians to conclude that his instruction is not merely local or temporary.

These texts deserve to be taken seriously. A Christian committed to the authority of Scripture cannot simply explain them away because they are difficult or unpopular. If God has assigned different roles within the life of the church, then Christians are obligated to receive that ordering with obedience, even when it cuts against the spirit of the age. Yet a Christian must also resist the temptation to flatten the whole biblical witness into one narrow line of argument. Scripture also bears witness to the profound and indispensable ministry of women in the people of God. Deborah served as a judge in Israel and spoke the word of the Lord (Judges 4–5). Priscilla, alongside Aquila, helped instruct Apollos more accurately in the faith (Acts 18:24–26). Phoebe is commended in Romans 16:1–2 as a servant of the church, and Junia in Romans 16:7 is honored in a way that has generated longstanding discussion among Christians. Women were the first witnesses to the resurrection of Christ, and throughout the New Testament they are shown praying, prophesying, laboring in gospel work, serving the saints, and partnering in ministry.

So the Christian question is not whether women may serve the church, teach in appropriate settings, disciple, evangelize, labor in ministry, or use the spiritual gifts God has given them. Scripture plainly shows that they can and should. The narrower question is whether the office of elder or pastor, understood as the governing teaching office of the local church, is restricted by God to qualified men. Faithful Christians disagree over that question. Complementarians believe the answer is yes, based on the pastoral epistles and the broader biblical pattern of male eldership. Egalitarians believe those passages should be interpreted differently in light of the wider New Testament witness and the ministry of women in the early church. A Christian may argue strongly for one side, but he should do so with honesty about the biblical evidence and with charity toward those who also seek to honor Christ and His Word.

The same is true of infant baptism. If a Christian wishes to say that infant baptism is wrong, he should make that argument carefully from Scripture rather than assuming that the issue is self-evident. Credobaptists argue that baptism in the New Testament is consistently tied to personal repentance and faith. Acts 2:38 connects baptism to repentance. In Acts 8, the Ethiopian eunuch hears the gospel, believes, and is baptized. In Romans 6:3–4, baptism is closely associated with union with Christ in His death and resurrection, which many Christians understand as fitting baptism upon a personal profession of faith. From this perspective, baptism is the new covenant sign given to those who have consciously trusted in Christ.

Yet paedobaptist Christians do not arrive at their position by ignoring the Bible. They root their view in covenant theology and in what they see as the continuity between the old and new covenant people of God. In Genesis 17, God gave circumcision to Abraham and his children as the covenant sign. Paedobaptists argue that baptism is the new covenant counterpart to circumcision, often appealing to Colossians 2:11–12, where Paul closely links circumcision and baptism in the context of union with Christ. They also point to Acts 2:39, where Peter says, “The promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” They note the household baptisms in Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, and 1 Corinthians 1:16, not as explicit proof that infants were baptized, but as evidence that the covenantal inclusion of households remains a meaningful biblical category.

Credobaptists respond by emphasizing the newness of the new covenant. Jeremiah 31:31–34 describes the new covenant as one in which all its members know the Lord, leading credobaptists to argue that baptism should be reserved for those who give a credible profession of faith. Paedobaptists reply that the visible church still contains both believers and unbelievers, just as it always has, and that covenant signs do not automatically guarantee inward regeneration. That is the actual Christian debate. It is not a matter of one side believing the Bible and the other side rejecting it. It is a matter of how Christians understand the continuity and discontinuity between the covenants, the nature of the visible church, and the meaning of baptism itself.

What all of this should teach Christians is that doctrine must be handled with both conviction and humility. Christianity is not indifferent to truth. On the contrary, Christians confess that truth matters because God Himself is true, because Christ is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), and because the church is called to be “a pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). But precisely because truth matters, Christians must refuse to handle doctrine in a shallow or contemptuous way. It is not enough to say, “This is wrong,” if we are unwilling to show from Scripture why it is wrong. It is not enough to appeal to tradition if we cannot demonstrate that our tradition is faithful to the Word of God. And it is certainly not enough to dismiss other believers as though centuries of Christian reflection can be waved away with a few bold declarations.

A Christian perspective requires something better. It requires a posture of submission to Scripture, a willingness to be corrected by the Word, and a recognition that all of us are finite readers who need the Spirit of God, the wisdom of the church, and deep humility as we study. It also requires Christian charity. Scripture commands believers to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). Paul tells Timothy that “the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness” (2 Timothy 2:24–25). That does not mean we avoid hard doctrinal conversations. It means we conduct them in a way that reflects the character of Christ.

So if a Christian believes charismatic theology is mistaken, then let him make that case carefully from 1 Corinthians 12–14, Ephesians 2:20, Hebrews 1:1–2, and the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. If a Christian believes the office of pastor is reserved to men, then let him make that case carefully from 1 Timothy 2–3, Titus 1, and the broader biblical pattern of church leadership, while still honoring the immense and indispensable ministry of women throughout Scripture and church history. If a Christian believes baptism belongs only to professing believers, then let him make that case carefully from Acts, Romans 6, and the nature of the new covenant, while honestly engaging the covenantal arguments of paedobaptists. In every case, the goal should not be to score points, embarrass opponents, or posture as though our preferred tribe alone takes the Bible seriously. The goal should be to submit ourselves to the Word of God, to think as Christians under the lordship of Christ, and to pursue truth in a manner worthy of the gospel.

For Christians, theology is never merely an intellectual contest. It is an act of discipleship. To study doctrine is to sit under the authority of God’s revelation and to seek to believe, worship, and obey Him rightly. That means our words about doctrine should reflect both the seriousness of truth and the humility of those who know they stand before the God who has spoken. Christian conviction is good. Christian boldness is good. But Christian doctrine must always be marked by Christian reverence, Christian honesty, and Christian love.