tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-437964542052755799.post6659540957356256947..comments2024-02-13T08:49:07.287-04:00Comments on 'Thought & Humor!': Examining Matilda!Professor Howdyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12189934292678757335noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-437964542052755799.post-41044866547324619712008-05-20T15:27:00.000-03:002008-05-20T15:27:00.000-03:00A Scriptural Critique of Infant BaptismbyJohn MacA...A Scriptural Critique of Infant Baptism<BR/><BR/>by<BR/>John MacArthur<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>A couple of weeks ago I gave a message on the issue of baptism and when<BR/>I introduced that I was going to do that, I said that I wanted to give a<BR/>follow-up message on the issue of infant baptism and I’m going to do that<BR/>this morning. Now, I confess that this may seem a little more like a<BR/>theological class lecture; you may feel like you’ve just enrolled at the<BR/>Master's Seminary—that’s O.K. I warn you in the back rows there, who may<BR/>tend to wander anyway, because you’re so far away—hang in there. This is<BR/>really, I think, a provocative, and important, and far-reaching issue to<BR/>deal with.<BR/><BR/>Let me explain for some of you who might not understand. There is a<BR/>widespread belief in the Church that babies are to be baptized. And so,<BR/>soon after their birth, they are taken to the church whether it’s a Roman<BR/>Catholic church, or whether it’s a Presbyterian church, or whether it’s a<BR/>Reformed church, or a Lutheran church, an Anglican church, an Episcopalian<BR/>church…They are taken to the church and they are sprinkled with water<BR/>on the head—a little bit of water is dripped on their head and that <BR/>constitutes<BR/>their "Christian" baptism. This is very widespread. This is all over the<BR/>world, in fact. This is the influence of the post-reformation European<BR/>church and it has spread wherever that influence has gone.<BR/><BR/>Now, the result of this is that you have baptized non-Christians all over<BR/>the world. They were baptized as infants with what they believe was a<BR/>Christian baptism and an initiation into the church—and an initiation into<BR/>salvation. Yet, they are not Christians; they have never come to personal<BR/>confession of faith in Christ and so they were baptized but they’re<BR/>non-Christians. On the other hand, you have the same group of people who are<BR/>actually not baptized at all because that baptism is not New Testament<BR/>baptism. So, they are baptized non-Christians who have never really been<BR/>baptized at all, in the true sense.<BR/><BR/>It is also true that many people are—particularly in that movement—many<BR/>people do come to true faith in Christ. They may start by being baptized as<BR/>an infant in a Presbyterian, or Lutheran, or Reformed church, or Anglican,<BR/>or Episcopalian church, or whatever church it is that does infant<BR/>baptism…they are baptized as a child, they do come to true faith in Jesus<BR/>Christ, but are never baptized by immersion because the church teaches that<BR/>that is not appropriate. In fact, after the Reformation, if somebody was<BR/>rebaptized, who was baptized as an infant, they were labeled an "Anabaptist"<BR/>and persecuted.<BR/><BR/>It was not uncommon for that persecution to reach a fever pitch so that<BR/>after the Reformation, you had Protestant people who believed in infant<BR/>baptism persecuting people who believed in believers’ baptism. It became a<BR/>serious issue, even to the point where some people who believed in adult<BR/>immersion after confession of faith in Christ and were rebaptized, were<BR/>killed. So, this was a heated issue. We can be glad it isn’t quite that<BR/>furious today, but it is still an issue of immense importance in the church,<BR/>because as I said, you have baptized non-Christians and unbaptized<BR/>Christians. In both cases you have a problem, a serious problem.<BR/><BR/>We have, certainly, the present largest unbaptized population of professing<BR/>Christians ever. That unbaptized population would be made up of people who<BR/>were baptized as infants and don’t feel they need to be baptized; therefore,<BR/>they are really unbaptized in the true way. All those other people who are<BR/>hearing the gospel today through television and radio and in the sort of<BR/>"seeker-friendly" churches where baptism is not practiced. So, you have this<BR/>massive population of unbaptized professing Christians everywhere.<BR/><BR/>Now, few things in the New Testament are more unmistakable than the issue of<BR/>baptism. It’s just plain and simple. Jesus said, "Go and preach the gospel<BR/>and baptize." Peter said, "Repent and be baptized." It couldn’t be much more<BR/>clearly expressed than that. Even so, we have wide-spread noncompliance to<BR/>this issue.<BR/><BR/>Now, this is of great importance to me, because I feel that as a Christian<BR/>preacher, as a Christian pastor, as a shepherd of God’s flock, as somebody<BR/>who’s responsible to the Lord for ministry, I need to preserve what is<BR/>precious to the Lord, right?…in the church.<BR/><BR/>Now, there are only two ordinances the Lord gave us—just two. He gave us<BR/>baptism and the Lord’s Table. And He said, "Just do these two things. They<BR/>are symbols." Baptism, as we know, is a symbol depicting the death of an<BR/>individual in Christ, the burial, and resurrection in the newness of life.<BR/>The Lord’s Table is a symbol of the cross—both the body of Jesus Christ,<BR/>symbolized in the bread, and the blood of Christ, symbolized in the cup and<BR/>we are enjoined to carry those out in the church.<BR/><BR/>This is important to me because it’s part of the stewardship of<BR/>responsibility that I have to discharge before the Lord. It grieves me that<BR/>there are some churches, like the Quakers’ church and the Friends’ church,<BR/>that will not practice communion. It also grieves me that there are many,<BR/>many churches—many of them—thousands upon thousands of them—tens of<BR/>thousands of them all over the world, that will not properly practice<BR/>Christian baptism in spite of what the New Testament says. This is a matter<BR/>of obedience—this is a matter of honor to the Lord and it’s of great<BR/>importance to me.<BR/><BR/>Some years ago I was invited to be the president of a great educational<BR/>institution here in our country and as I was contemplating whether I wanted<BR/>to leave the pastorate, here at Grace Church, some years ago and go do this,<BR/>the thing that stuck in my mind most was if I was there, I wouldn’t be able<BR/>to discharge my calling from the Lord to lead the church. It struck me, and<BR/>I said this to the people at the time, "I can’t do this because I need to<BR/>lead the people of God in the ordinances that the Lord has commanded us,<BR/>because I believe he’s given me to the church. How am I going to baptize<BR/>people and how am I going to lead them to the Lord’s Table in that<BR/>environment?" This is always been very important to me because the Lord didn’t<BR/>give us that much that we would get confused about it and He wants us to<BR/>carry the responsibility out.<BR/><BR/>Baptism is critically important and I went into that two weeks ago. Baptism<BR/>is critically important. It is to be understood and it is to be practiced.<BR/>Standing in the way of that understanding is a huge barrier and that huge<BR/>barrier is infant baptism. As I said, most of the mass evangelized TV/Radio<BR/>stadium converts are left to themselves and maybe never even hear about<BR/>baptism. They don’t have any accountability for baptism; not under any<BR/>church authority…but, in addition to them, you have this huge crowd of<BR/>millions of people who believe in infant baptism. That too, confuses the<BR/>issue greatly and acts as a barrier to a true understanding of baptism and<BR/>to obedience to that understanding.<BR/><BR/>It’s not a minor matter—it has never been a minor matter. As I said, during<BR/>the time of the Reformation, people were called heretics if they were<BR/>baptized in a New Testament way, by those who were infant baptizers. They<BR/>were persecuted and, as I said, in some cases, executed.<BR/><BR/>Now, as years have gone on, we’ve gotten kind of comfortable and just sort<BR/>of said, "Well, they believe in infant baptism and we don’t, and they’re our<BR/>brothers and sisters," and that’s true, and it’s certainly not a reason to<BR/>call them non-Christians, and it’s certainly not right to call them<BR/>heretics, and it’s certainly not appropriate to not have fellowship with<BR/>them, but it is right to truly understand what Scripture says, so that they<BR/>can come into obedience and compliance with the Word of God. Time has come,<BR/>after all these years since the Reformation, to strip off these remnants of<BR/>Catholicism that never got dealt with during the Reformation and have been<BR/>perpetuated, and return to the simple New Testament design—and I want to<BR/>address that with you this morning.<BR/><BR/>Now, there are five reasons why I reject infant baptism. I’m telling you<BR/>folks, I can’t get all that I want to say out this morning so you’re only<BR/>going to get, I hope, the best of what’s here. But, these are very important<BR/>points.<BR/><BR/>1. Point number one, and this ought to end the argument:<BR/>infant baptism is not in Scripture.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Infant baptism is not in Scripture, and against that statement, there is no<BR/>evidence—there is no refuting of that statement. Scripture nowhere advocates<BR/>infant baptism. It nowhere mentions infant baptism. It doesn’t exist in the<BR/>Bible; there is no example of it, there is no comment on it, it’s not there.<BR/>It is therefore impossible to prove that infant baptism is valid, from the<BR/>New Testament. It’s impossible to support it from the New Testament or for<BR/>that matter, from the Old Testament.<BR/><BR/>A German theologian, Schleiermacher, wrote, "All traces of infant baptism<BR/>which have been asserted to be found in the New Testament, must first be<BR/>inserted there." He’s right. The host of German and front rank "Theologs"<BR/>and scholars of the Church of England—the Church of England, the Anglican<BR/>Church, which believes in infant baptism—a host of their scholars have<BR/>united to affirm not only the absence of infant baptism from the New<BR/>Testament, but from apostolic and post-apostolic times. It isn’t in the New<BR/>Testament and it didn’t exist in the earliest church. They believe it arose<BR/>around the 2nd or 3rd century.<BR/><BR/>A Lutheran professor, Kurt Aland, after intensive study of infant baptism,<BR/>says, "There is no definite proof of the practice until after the 3rd<BR/>century," and he says, "This cannot be contested." A Catholic professor of<BR/>theology, Hegerbocker (sp.), writes, "This controversy has shown that it is<BR/>not possible to bring in absolute proof of infant baptism by basing one’s<BR/>argument on the Bible." Good. B.B. Warfield, who is no mean theologian, was<BR/>an astute and really a great, great theologian who, again, influenced my<BR/>life in my seminary days…B.B. Warfield affirmed—he was, by the way, an<BR/>advocate of infant baptism—but, he affirmed the absence of infant baptism<BR/>from the Bible.<BR/><BR/>Among the Calvinists—among the Reformed people—there is a very important<BR/>principle which many of them like to use. It’s called the "regulative<BR/>principle" and it says this, "If Scripture doesn’t command it, it is<BR/>forbidden." Now, if they would just stick with that, they would be all<BR/>right. If Scripture doesn’t command it, it cannot be introduced into the<BR/>church as normative. The theme of the Reformation, of course, "sola fide,"<BR/>"sola gratia," "sola Christus"—that is faith alone, grace alone, Christ<BR/>alone—also, "sola scriptura," Scripture alone. The theme, the great byword<BR/>of the Reformation was "Scripture only, Scripture only, Scripture,<BR/>Scripture, Scripture." And yet, if you go to Scripture, you cannot find one<BR/>single solitary word about infant baptism—it’s not in the Bible.<BR/><BR/>It still is defended, however, amazingly, and still practiced as if it was<BR/>Biblical. It’s really amazing. I can understand how people within the<BR/>Protestant church can disagree about an interpretation of Scripture…I really<BR/>find it very hard for myself to understand how they can argue about<BR/>something that isn’t in the Bible, as over-against what is. It’s one thing<BR/>to say, "Well, I understand that passage this way and you understand it that<BR/>way…I understand that doctrine this way and you understand it that way,"—it’s<BR/>another thing to say, "I believe what’s in the Bible," and, "I don’t. I<BR/>believe what’s outside the Bible." That’s a completely different issue, but<BR/>that, in fact, is what we have.<BR/><BR/>Now, I would expect Roman Catholicism to engage in that practice because<BR/>Roman Catholicism has two sources of authority. On the one hand, they have<BR/>the Bible; on the other hand—and it’s as empty as my right hand—they have<BR/>tradition. You see where the weight is. But, in the Catholic system, there<BR/>is what is called "tradition." It is known as "tradition" or the<BR/>"magisterium." It is the accumulation of materials outside the Bible that<BR/>bear equal authority with the Scripture. Now, we’re not surprised then, that<BR/>the Roman Catholic system—because they believe that the Catholic Church is<BR/>the unique recipient of post-Biblical revelation—that is to say, God has<BR/>given His Word to the church beyond the Bible and, therefore, it carries<BR/>equal weight with Scripture. We’re not surprised that a system that believes<BR/>there is extra-Biblical material that has equal weight with Scripture, would<BR/>come up with infant baptism and make it an absolute in their system…not<BR/>surprising.<BR/><BR/>In fact, the Roman Catholic Church asserts, that it is, the only recipient<BR/>of revelation beyond the Bible…not only is it the only recipient of<BR/>revelation, but it is the only and infallible interpreter of all revelation,<BR/>both traditional and Biblical. So, when we know that Roman Catholics baptize<BR/>babies, that fits into their magisterium, but when you come to Reformation<BR/>people who say, "Scripture, only Scripture, only…" and they had a<BR/>Reformation and they basically dumped tradition and they dumped the<BR/>magisterium and they said, "It’s the Bible! It’s the Bible! It’s the Bible!"<BR/>how come they hung onto infant baptism? It’s not there. It’s a relic of<BR/>Popery.<BR/><BR/>Now, we would understand the church history would be Rome’s<BR/>hermeneutic—"hermeneutic" is word that has to do with an interpretation—we<BR/>would understand that history can interpret the Bible for Rome, but history<BR/>can’t interpret the Bible for us. It doesn’t matter to a Bible interpreter<BR/>what history has done, what some counsel said, what some Pope said; it doesn’t<BR/>matter what some visionary said—the way you interpret Scripture is not by<BR/>something outside of it, but by what is in it, right? The Bible is it’s own<BR/>interpreter. Use normal historical, grammatical interpretation—you take the<BR/>words as they are, you interpret the Scripture with the Scripture…you don’t<BR/>need tradition…you don’t need the magisterium of some religious system.<BR/><BR/>Church history can be Rome’s hermeneutic. In other words, they interpret the<BR/>Bible from their tradition. But, it has never been the hermeneutic of the<BR/>Reformed. It has never been our hermeneutic to say, "Well, I don’t know what<BR/>that means so let me consult some Pope." The Jews did that in the Old<BR/>Testament. They say, "Well, we’re not sure what this means so let’s ask<BR/>Rabbi so-and-so." If you don’t know what the Bible means, you don’t go to<BR/>somebody who has infallible revelation as to it’s meaning; you dig into the<BR/>text to discern it. God does not interpret Scripture through history. God<BR/>does not interpret Scripture through tradition, through rights or ceremonies<BR/>or doctrines that are true simply because some religious system says they’re<BR/>true. Only an honest interpretation of Scripture in which you exegete the<BR/>text itself can yield the meaning of that Scripture. Reading traditional<BR/>history back into the Bible is not a legitimate way to interpret it. History<BR/>is no hermeneutic.<BR/><BR/>Now, it is also true that Scripture—they will bring this up—they’ll say<BR/>this, "Yes, it’s not in the Bible, but it’s also true that Scripture no<BR/>where forbids infant baptism. Now, if I can get into debate and we’re going<BR/>to debate that point, I think I can win. You’re telling me that it’s O.K.<BR/>because it’s not there? It should be an ordinance of the church because it’s<BR/>not there? Do you realize how much is not there? You could make an ordinance<BR/>out of everything that’s not there! I mean, just use your imagination and<BR/>figure out where that could go.<BR/><BR/>That’s nothing—that’s nothing but an argument from silence which is no<BR/>argument at all. It provides no basis for acceptance, certainly no basis for<BR/>a mandate for infant baptism as some kind of ubiquitous, divinely-ordained<BR/>ordinance that all children of believers or all children of church members<BR/>ought to engage in. The fact that it is not there proves absolutely<BR/>nothing—expect it proves that it’s not valid. It certainly doesn’t prove<BR/>anything on it’s behalf. To justify that sprinkling of babies should be done<BR/>because it’s not forbidden in Scripture is to standardize what’s not in the<BR/>Bible as if it were standard, for the church. It’s to imprint with divine<BR/>authority something that men invent—to open the way to any ritual, any<BR/>ceremony, any teaching, any anything that isn’t forbidden specifically in<BR/>Scripture.<BR/><BR/>In fact, at the time of the Reformation. . .we all associate Martin Luther,<BR/>you know, the monk who saw the truth of the gospel by faith and grace and<BR/>confronted the Roman Catholic Church—went up one day and you know, nailed<BR/>his thesis to on the door of Wittenberg there. . .the 1500’s and this was a<BR/>big moment. He was calling the church to take a good, hard look at, of<BR/>course, selling indulgences—they were telling people that you could get<BR/>forgiveness of your sins if you paid enough money to the church. You could<BR/>buy an indulgence and, in other words, you could buy forgiveness. He didn’t<BR/>like that and we don’t blame him for that. Then, he went from there to<BR/>understanding justification by faith.<BR/><BR/>Martin Luther said the only way you’re redeemed is through faith and grace,<BR/>and we all understand that and that’s what gave birth to the Reformation.<BR/>And Luther went so far as to say that it has to come out of the Bible.<BR/>Luther really fought the Catholic system. Let me quote what he said. "The<BR/>church needs to rid itself of all false glories that torture Scripture by<BR/>inserting personal ideas into the Scripture which lend to it their own<BR/>sense. No!" he said. "Scripture! Scripture! Scripture! For me, constrain,<BR/>press, compel me with God’s Word!" That’s Martin Luther.<BR/><BR/>Martin Luther—he wasn’t just some stumbling, bumbling, local monk—he was a<BR/>brilliant doctor of theology. Martin Luther was one of the brightest<BR/>theologians in the entire Catholic Church at the time. He was saying, "It’s<BR/>Scripture, Scripture, Scripture!" for him. Well, there is nothing in the<BR/>Scripture about infant baptism. In a minute, I’ll tell you what happened to<BR/>Luther in the transition from what he just said to, eventually, capitulating<BR/>to do infant baptisms.<BR/><BR/>Another thing the baby-baptizers use for support is they try to go to<BR/>Matthew 18, where Jesus said in verse 3, "Except you become as a little<BR/>child, you can’t enter the kingdom." Well, that’s not talking about babies;<BR/>that’s talking about believers. You have to become like a little child to<BR/>get into the kingdom. What does that mean? Well, if you’re going to come<BR/>into God’s kingdom, you don’t come with the record of all your great<BR/>achievements. You haven’t got any—a little child has no achievements, right?<BR/>A little child has accomplished nothing, done nothing. They are not<BR/>productive; have you noticed? They don’t do anything. They just have to have<BR/>things done to them all the time. They don’t achieve anything, accomplish<BR/>anything…they don’t make any contribution at all except just the sheer joy<BR/>of their presence.<BR/><BR/>That’s what the Lord is saying: you come into the kingdom without any<BR/>achievements, without any accomplishments, without any curriculum vita,<BR/>without having achieved anything or accomplished anything…you come in naked<BR/>and bare and stripped and needy. That’s how you come.<BR/><BR/>He’s talking to the religious leaders and he’s talking to the disciples and<BR/>saying, "Don’t expect that somehow all the stuff you’ve achieved is going to<BR/>get you into the kingdom. Remember the apostle Paul, Philippians 3, "You<BR/>know I was of the circumcision, circumcised the eighth day, of the tribe of<BR/>Benjamin, of the people of Israel," you know, "zealous as to the law"…went<BR/>through the whole deal and he said at the end: it’s manure. Right? It’s<BR/>manure; I can’t bring that list of achievements. That’s all Jesus is saying.<BR/><BR/>In Matthew 19 and Mark 10, you remember Jesus said to disciples, "Let the<BR/>little children come to me"…remember the little children came to him? That’s<BR/>another Scripture they like to use and it says, "Let the little children<BR/>come to me. Don’t forbid them for such is the kingdom of heaven." Jesus<BR/>gathered up the little children, there in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 (both<BR/>record it), and He blessed them. Well, in the first place, how could that<BR/>advocate infant baptism—He didn’t baptize them. That’s no evidence of<BR/>anything about baptism…He just picked up some little children and said, "God<BR/>has a special care for these little ones who are too young to either reject<BR/>the truth or accept the truth…God has a special care for them," and He<BR/>pulled them into His arms and He demonstrated that special care by blessing<BR/>them.<BR/><BR/>They weren’t, necessarily, the children of believing parents—we don’t even<BR/>know who their parents were! For all we know, some of them could have been<BR/>Gentile kids and they might have been uncircumcised pagans. The idea that<BR/>you baptize all these infants of believing parents or of church member<BR/>parents, based upon that Scripture, is just beyond connection. Jesus didn’t<BR/>baptize them. Jesus didn’t cause them to be baptized. He didn’t suggest that<BR/>they be baptized. He didn’t say anything about their parents, whether they<BR/>were believing or non-believing parents. All He said was, by what He did,<BR/>"Children are precious to God; He takes care of them; He blesses them." That’s<BR/>all.<BR/><BR/>Then, the people who believe in infant baptisms, try to advocate it, from<BR/>two books: Acts and I Corinthians. In Acts and I Corinthians, you have five<BR/>mentions of a household—and they say, "Well, in a household you must have<BR/>babies and it says that households were baptized; therefore, babies were<BR/>baptized." Well, certainly that’s an inference. It doesn’t say that. There’s<BR/>never an incident of a baby being baptized in any of those households—it<BR/>never identifies them. "Households" simply mean—could mean "family, could<BR/>mean "servants" who were a part of that household.<BR/><BR/>They suggest that some babies were baptized in those households as an act of<BR/>solidarity. The father, they say, served as a surrogate for the faith of the<BR/>children. Surrogate faith? What is that? You mean I can believe, and my<BR/>child is saved by my faith? That’s not what the New Testament teaches. That’s<BR/>a severe challenge to individual salvation as well as an insertion into the<BR/>text because no babies are ever mentioned and no babies are ever mentioned<BR/>being baptized. Look at these five, I’ll just run them by quickly:<BR/><BR/>1. Cornelius’ house—Acts 10. The gospel was preached by Peter, Cornelius<BR/>heard it…it says, "They all heard the Word…they believed it…the Spirit<BR/>fell…they were all baptized." All heard, all believed, the Spirit came on<BR/>all, they were all baptized.<BR/><BR/>2. In the jailer’s house—Acts 16 is the next one…Philippian jailer. Paul,<BR/>you remember, gave him the gospel, it says, "All heard the gospel…all were<BR/>baptized."<BR/><BR/>3. Chapter 18, it was in the house of Crispus, "All believed…all were<BR/>baptized."<BR/><BR/>The other two occur in I Corinthians. The other two are the account of Lydia<BR/>and Stephanas—Lydia is in the book of Acts.<BR/><BR/>4. But, in the case of Lydia, it’s the same thing. We must understand the<BR/>same thing must have occurred—they heard, they believed, they were baptized.<BR/><BR/>5. Stephanas: They heard, they believed, they were baptized.<BR/><BR/>I mean, it’s all basically the same pattern. They all hear the gospel, they<BR/>all believe, they all receive the Spirit, they all are baptized. That<BR/>excludes infants because infants can’t hear and believe. The "household"<BR/>then is defined—it is defined as "those capable of hearing, understanding,<BR/>believing." That’s the definition of the "household."<BR/><BR/>In Stephanas’ household, which is in I Corinthians, chapter 1, "All who were<BR/>baptized," it says, "All who were baptized were devoted to the ministry of<BR/>the saints." Babies can’t be devoted to the ministry of the saints. It says,<BR/>"All who were baptized were helping in the spiritual work of the church." It’s<BR/>impossible for infants.<BR/><BR/>In the case of Lydia, in Acts, "her heart was opened when she heard the<BR/>gospel. The gospel was preached and her heart was opened," it says. So, we<BR/>understood she heard the gospel, she believed…others must have heard the<BR/>gospel, their hearts were opened, and they believed and they were baptized.<BR/>By the way, to assume there were children in the house is maybe stretching<BR/>it since, apparently, she had no husband. She, apparently, was a single<BR/>person.<BR/><BR/>In John 4, in verse 53, it says about a nobleman—you know, whom Jesus talked<BR/>with and He healed his son—it says about that man, "He himself believed and<BR/>his whole household." They all believed. Household belief, then household<BR/>baptism. Where there is no faith, there is no baptism.<BR/><BR/>In Acts 2:38—let me show you this. Turn in your Bible for a minute to Acts<BR/>2:38. Here is another Scripture which they use to defend infant baptism.<BR/>Acts 2:38—Peter is closing the sermon on the day of Pentecost and he says,<BR/>in verse 38, "Repent…let each of you be baptized!" So, we see the sequence:<BR/>repent, be baptized. "And, you’ll receive forgiveness and you’ll receive the<BR/>gift of the Holy Spirit…" Then, in verse 39, "For the promise," he says, "is<BR/>for you and your"—what?—"children." "Oh," they say. "See, the promise here<BR/>for the children. This is an important Scripture." "Repent and be baptized<BR/>and the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off as<BR/>many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself." Now, they see "your<BR/>children" as an allusion to the baptism of children. And, of course, that’s<BR/>a stretch. There’s nothing about baptism of children here whatsoever.<BR/><BR/>Well, what is being said here? Do you understand what’s being said? He’s<BR/>talking to some Jews, O.K.? And, there gathered around him…it’s the day of<BR/>Pentecost and they’re in the city of Jerusalem…and he said, "Look. I’m<BR/>saying to you, ‘Repent, come to faith in Christ, be baptized in His name…you’ll<BR/>receive the forgiveness of your sins, you’ll receive the gift of the Holy<BR/>Spirit and this promise is not only for you, but it’s for your children."<BR/><BR/>Now, how obvious is that? What is he saying? He’s saying, "This isn’t<BR/>isolated to the crowd today—this is for anybody who comes into the future."<BR/>Right? This is for your children, and your children’s children, and your<BR/>children’s children’s children…He’s simply saying this promise goes on and<BR/>on and on, and for all who are far off, it’s for Gentiles too. So he’s<BR/>saying, "For your children, Jews in the future, and for Gentiles as well in<BR/>the future." Anybody who repents of sin, anybody who believes in the Lord<BR/>Jesus Christ, anybody who receives the forgiveness of sin and the gift of<BR/>the Holy Spirit—that promise is fulfilled to anybody whether they’re Jew or<BR/>Gentile.<BR/><BR/>That’s all he’s saying here. There’s nothing about babies here. The children<BR/>he’s speaking about are the offspring of crowd there. This is for all future<BR/>generations to be called to the same salvation promises and the same<BR/>salvation blessings.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Now, one other Scripture they use is I Corinthians 7 and I’ll show you this<BR/>one and then I’ll make some more general comments. I Corinthians, chapter 7,<BR/>verses 12-14, is another Scripture they like to use. Again, it doesn’t say<BR/>anything about baptism at all, none of them do, but this is where they have<BR/>to go if they’re going to try to find a Biblical foundation.<BR/><BR/>Now, he’s talking to people in various marital situations here and in verse<BR/>12, he says, "Look, this is something I’m going to say to you; it’s not a<BR/>direct quote of Jesus—it’s still inspired and it’s from God—but it’s not<BR/>directly quoted from Jesus." He’s been saying some things that come right<BR/>out of the instruction of Jesus, but he says, "I’m saying this. This isn’t<BR/>quoting the Lord here, but here’s the principle. If any brother has a wife<BR/>who is an unbeliever"—OK, you’ve got an unconverted wife; your wife’s not a<BR/>Christian and she wants to live with you. She doesn’t want to separate. She’s<BR/>not a Christian; she doesn’t believe, but she wants to be with you—"then,<BR/>you shouldn’t send her away." You shouldn’t send her away. That means<BR/>divorce; that’s the word for divorce in the Greek. "Don’t divorce her."<BR/><BR/>You see, the idea was: Christians were coming to Christ and they were<BR/>saying, "Wow! You know, I don’t want to be unequally yoked with an<BR/>unbeliever," he just got through saying that in chapter 6, you know, and you<BR/>don’t want to be connected up with anybody who’s sinful…so maybe you’re<BR/>married to an unbeliever and you don’t want to continue that relationship,<BR/>you want to marry a Christian…Well, look. If that unbeliever wants to stay,<BR/>you keep that marriage together. The next verse says, in the reverse, if the<BR/>woman has an unbelieving husband and he consents to live with her, don’t<BR/>send him away. So, stay in that marriage even though you have an unconverted<BR/>spouse.<BR/><BR/>Why? Verse 14, "The unbelieving husband is sanctified," what does that mean?<BR/>"Set apart," set apart to what? To blessing. What happens to that unbeliever<BR/>is, by being married to a believer, he gets the spillover of God’s work in<BR/>your life. He gets the spillover of God’s blessing. God is so kind and God<BR/>is so gracious! For the sake of that unbeliever, God would like him to just<BR/>hang around so he could enjoy the blessings that God pours out on you.<BR/><BR/>And, then he winds it up at the end of verse 14 and says the same is true<BR/>with children. If you separate, then you’ve got a problem of the children.<BR/>Otherwise, your children are unclean, but now they are holy. The word means<BR/>"separate." What happens is you’ve separated your children from blessing. If<BR/>you keep that home together, even with an unconverted husband or an<BR/>unconverted wife, the blessing that God pours on the believer is going to<BR/>spill on the husband or wife and it’s going to spill on the children.<BR/><BR/>It doesn’t mean that the child is a believer. It doesn’t mean the child is<BR/>in the covenant community. It doesn’t mean the child should…where’s baptism?<BR/>It isn’t here! A very simple principle: it’s good to keep a marriage<BR/>together if an unbeliever is willing to stay there, because then blessing<BR/>will come down on that unbeliever and down on those children. Who knows, but<BR/>what that blessing could lead them to faith. No mention of baptism;<BR/>absolutely none. Just don’t get separated and divorced if it’s not<BR/>necessary, so that unbelievers and children can enjoy the spillover of God’s<BR/>blessing on the believer in that marriage.<BR/><BR/>Well, the full counsel of God is either expressly set forth in<BR/>Scripture—listen carefully—it’s either expressly set forth in Scripture or<BR/>it can be necessarily, compellingly, and validly deduced by good and logical<BR/>consequence. I’ll say that again. The full counsel of God is either<BR/>expressly set forth in Scripture or can be necessarily, compellingly, and<BR/>validly deduced by good and logical consequence. In other words, it’s either<BR/>there explicitly or it’s there implicitly and you can easily draw it out,<BR/>like the doctrine of the Trinity, for example. But, this issue of infant<BR/>baptism just isn’t there in any way, shape, or form and it is not<BR/>necessarily, compellingly, and validly deduced by good and logical<BR/>consequence. It’s just not there.<BR/><BR/>2. The second reason is really the other side of the issue. I don’t believe<BR/>in infant baptism because infant baptism is not Christian baptism.<BR/><BR/>What is in the Bible is Christian baptism. I already dealt with this two<BR/>weeks ago; I’m just going to comment on it briefly. Christian baptism is<BR/>this: somebody believes as an adult, they repent of their sin, they confess<BR/>Jesus as Lord, they acknowledge Him as Savior, they are saved, then they are<BR/>baptized. That is New Testament Christian baptism. It’s definitive. It’s<BR/>meaning is clear. It’s mode is inescapable. The word "bapto," "baptizo,"<BR/>means "to immerse" or "submerge." Every single time it is used in the book<BR/>of Acts, it is talking about the immersion of a believer. Even John Calvin<BR/>said, "The word ‘baptize’ means ‘to immerse’ and it is certain that<BR/>immersion," he says, "was the practice of the early church." Of course, that’s<BR/>what the word means.<BR/><BR/>They had a different word for sprinkle, it was the word "rhantizo." This<BR/>ordinance was very clearly designed by God. When a person believes, here’s a<BR/>public way to confess their faith: put them down in the water and bring them<BR/>out. Why? Because it’s a symbol of their death, burial, and resurrection<BR/>with Christ. Remember, we went through that two weeks ago. It is a picture,<BR/>an object lesson, a symbol, a visual analogy of a spiritual truth. Clearly<BR/>unmistakable.<BR/><BR/>The only distinctive—if you were to go through everything to the core of the<BR/>Christian faith, it would be this: I am in Christ and Christ is in me.<BR/>Right? That’s it. I’m in Christ. It’s a great doctrine of imputation—my sins<BR/>imputed to Him, His righteousness imputed to me. God treats Him as if He<BR/>lived my life and He died on the cross bearing my sins. God treats me as if<BR/>I lived His life; God sees me perfectly righteous and takes me into His<BR/>glorious heaven. It’s that I’m in Christ and Christ is in me. I was buried<BR/>with Him in baptism, Romans 6 says, and I have risen to walk in newness of<BR/>life. Galatians 2:20, "I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless, I live."<BR/>Galatians 3:27, "We were baptized into Christ." Colossians 2:12 and 13, same<BR/>thing.<BR/><BR/>Baptism pictures the fact that, by the divine power of God, when you come to<BR/>faith in Christ, you’re joined with Christ and you die in Him. Your old life<BR/>dies at the cross with Him and you rise in His resurrection to walk in<BR/>newness of life. That is symbolized in immersion very obviously. We are<BR/>literally immersed into Christ—into his death, into his burial, and into his<BR/>resurrection and now we are joined with Him in one life.<BR/><BR/>That’s why the Bible can say, "Go and make disciples, baptizing them,"<BR/>because baptizing was synonymous with evangelizing, synonymous with saving<BR/>faith. They were inseparable—one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Baptism<BR/>became, really, the expression—the word used to define salvation…they were<BR/>inseparable. We know what New Testament baptism is; it’s a person repenting,<BR/>believing, embracing Christ—spiritually they, therefore, are united with<BR/>Christ and that is symbolized as they go down into the water and rise. Their<BR/>old life dies and they rise in newness of life with Christ. I think the<BR/>Church needs to get back into this understanding of baptism. The fact that<BR/>the church doesn’t do this is tragic. It needs to be restored. I’m going to<BR/>give you some reasons why it needs to be restored.<BR/><BR/>One, in our day an open, public, solemn confession of the crucified risen<BR/>Lord is necessary. All who experience the reality of the power of the risen<BR/>Savior should give this public testimony to His glory.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, by Biblical baptism in the New Testament manner, believers give a<BR/>witness also to careful obedience to Scripture in which nothing can be<BR/>treated as unimportant. We say, when we are baptized, "Yes. The Bible says<BR/>it and I’m doing it." Therefore, you tell people you’re not only joined with<BR/>Christ, but you are obedient to Him.<BR/><BR/>Thirdly, by Biblical baptism believers testify—this is crucial—to a redeemed<BR/>church. I’ll say more about that later. By Biblical baptism, believers<BR/>testify to a redeemed church. The point there, just as a hint, is you’ve got<BR/>all kinds of people who were infant baptized, who, at the time of their<BR/>infant baptism, were supposedly ushered into the church. They have nothing<BR/>to do with the church now, what are they? They’re a part of an unredeemed<BR/>church, confused by infant baptism.<BR/><BR/>Fourthly, by Biblical baptism, believers give fundamental rejection of all<BR/>human regulations through which, clear Biblical teaching has been obscured<BR/>or curtailed or supplemented. Baptism becomes an apologetic for the truth<BR/>and a denunciation for error.<BR/><BR/>Number five, by Biblical baptism the church signifies a public renunciation<BR/>of the nominal and mass Christianity of our day. We make it real and<BR/>personal in believer’s baptism.<BR/><BR/>Finally, in Biblical baptism the church calls for the reintroduction and<BR/>practice of Biblical New Testament church order and discipline.<BR/><BR/>Those are reasons why its so very important. The great commission makes it<BR/>very, very clear—for Jesus the order was very clear. You preach the gospel,<BR/>they believe, they’re baptized, and they obey. That’s it.<BR/><BR/>Do you know, in 1955, the Anglican Church—which baptizes babies—the Anglican<BR/>Church did a study on baptism. This is what it says—1955 report, "Every<BR/>expression in the New Testament concerning the rights of baptism assumes<BR/>that the convert receives them with living faith and a renunciation of his<BR/>old former life." That’s right! "It is clear," it says, "that the New<BR/>Testament doctrine of baptism is established with reference to the baptism<BR/>of adults." Adults with living faith—that’s New Testament baptism.<BR/><BR/>Where in the world does this infant thing come from then? It’s not in the<BR/>Bible; Christian baptism is in the Bible and it’s very clear what it is. It’s<BR/>the immersion of people who have believed as adults.<BR/><BR/>3. Third point, why I reject infant baptism: it is not a replacement sign<BR/>for the Abrahamic sign of circumcision.<BR/><BR/>Now don’t get too carried away here; this isn’t going to be as complicated<BR/>as you think. Infant baptism is not a replacement sign for the Abrahamic<BR/>sign of circumcision. Now, let me give you the bottom line. Infant baptism<BR/>says this. This is the theology of it: the old covenant sign was a baby<BR/>circumcised. That introduced them into the covenant. So, we need a parallel.<BR/>The parallel sign is baby baptism. That’s in the new covenant; that<BR/>introduces them into the new covenant. Sounds good. In the old covenant,<BR/>they had a circumcision which introduced them into the covenant community.<BR/>In the new covenant, we have the baby baptism which introduces the infant<BR/>into the covenant community. That’s the logic.<BR/><BR/>You know what? Those two things just don’t go together ever in the Bible. It’s<BR/>a nice thought; just isn’t Biblical. Scripture never makes that connection.<BR/>There’s not a verse they could point to. There’s not a passage they could<BR/>point to, either by explicit terms or by implicit. There’s not one place in<BR/>the Bible where baptism is ever connected to circumcision, period…no place.<BR/><BR/>So, any connection is purely manufactured. So, without Scriptural support,<BR/>without Scriptural connection, they infer that baby baptism is the new<BR/>covenant equivalent of old covenant circumcision. Now, let me make a very<BR/>simple few statements so you’ll understand just exactly what the difference<BR/>is.<BR/><BR/>It’s true. In the Old Testament, little boys, on the eighth day after their<BR/>birth, were circumcised. Girls weren’t so that poses a real problem in<BR/>paralleling the new covenant since girls can come into the new covenant too.<BR/>But, little boys were circumcised the eighth day. Now, that introduced<BR/>them—listen carefully—that introduced them into an earthly, temporal<BR/>community of people. That introduced them into the nation Israel, as it<BR/>were. It was physical and it was temporal. That’s what it was.<BR/><BR/>In the new covenant, there is no "physical" community. We don’t have a<BR/>nation; we don’t have a land. We aren’t a duly constituted people, ruled<BR/>over…We don’t an order of priests. We don’t have a king. We are a spiritual<BR/>community. There’s a big, big difference. Circumcision was the sign of<BR/>ethnic identity. It was the physical participation in the temporal features<BR/>of the Abrahamic covenant. Listen carefully: it didn’t have any spiritual<BR/>implications at all. None! Because most of the people who were<BR/>circumcised—the vast majority of Israelites who were circumcised, went to<BR/>hell. You understand that? They rejected the true and living God; they<BR/>worshipped idols. Right? That’s the history of Israel. In the present, most<BR/>of the Jewish people, who are circumcised, will perish without the knowledge<BR/>of God. In the future, two-thirds, it says, of the nation Israel, will be<BR/>purged out and be judged eternally by God and He’ll save a third and bring<BR/>them into His kingdom. The vast majority of Jews will perish without the<BR/>knowledge of God.<BR/><BR/>Not all Israel is Israel. What did God say? Circumcise your—hearts. You see,<BR/>the spiritual promises and realities that God offered Israel didn’t come to<BR/>them by any right or ceremony or ritual. All circumcision did was mark them<BR/>out as a part of the nation Israel. They entered into the physical<BR/>participation, the ethnic identity, the temporal features of the nation<BR/>Israel that was under blessing, promised by God to Abraham. It was an<BR/>earthly blessing, not salvation. That’s why Paul said, "I was circumcised<BR/>the eighth day and that’s manure. That did nothing for me savingly; I was on<BR/>my way to hell and I had been circumcised," Philippians 3.<BR/><BR/>A person born in Israel of Abrahamic seed was physically related to<BR/>temporal, external privileges; nothing more. Now you come into the New<BR/>Testament—the new covenant—this is dramatically different. There is no<BR/>physical participation. There is no temporal, earthly feature attached to<BR/>this—we don’t have a land, we don’t have a place. Under the old<BR/>administration, the Abrahamic covenant during the Mosaic era, you entered<BR/>the earthly, natural, covenantal community by birth, and by circumcision you<BR/>took the sign of that people. But, there was a small remnant in Israel that<BR/>really believed, wasn’t there? They entered into the special, spiritual<BR/>blessings.<BR/><BR/>But, in the new covenant, there are only those who believe, there are only<BR/>those who have come by repentance and faith. This is not the same at all.<BR/>There is absolutely no connection. All in the new covenant are believers.<BR/>All in the new covenant know God. Now, if the early church thought that<BR/>baptism was a replacement—baby baptism was a replacement for<BR/>circumcision—why isn’t that in the New Testament?<BR/><BR/>And then, why did the Judaizers who were going around telling everybody they<BR/>had to be circumcised, why didn’t Paul say to them, "Hey, you guys, that’s<BR/>over; baptism has taken it’s place. We don’t circumcise babies, we baptize<BR/>them." He could have put an end to the Judaizing deal with just one comment.<BR/>Now, why would they go into the Jerusalem counsel in Acts 15 and had this<BR/>big, long debate about what do we do about the circumcision…what do we do?<BR/>Why didn’t somebody just get up and say, "Oh…no, no. That’s out and baby<BR/>baptism has taken its place." That’s never said. Nobody ever says that.<BR/><BR/>The Abrahamic covenant had a unique feature: circumcision. All that meant<BR/>was you identified with the nation of Israel. Circumcision had a second<BR/>benefit: it was physically beneficial. Up until very modern times, Jewish<BR/>women had the lowest rate of cervical cancer of any people in the world<BR/>because circumcision does help prevent the passing on of certain diseases.<BR/>God knew that that would be a preservative in His people and He wanted to<BR/>preserve His people Israel because of His ultimate purpose for them. Also,<BR/>it was a sign of how desperately they needed to be cleansed on the inside…it’s<BR/>symbolic of that. But, the point was it just introduced you into the nation;<BR/>it didn’t save you. There is no parallel to this in the New Testament. There<BR/>is nothing that sort of ushers you into some earthly group. There’s just the<BR/>believers and they’re all in the new covenant.<BR/><BR/>You see, Jeremiah 31:34—Jeremiah in 31, is talking about the new covenant.<BR/>Listen to what he says; here’s the character of the new covenant, they are<BR/>very different from Israel under the old. Here’s what he says; this is the<BR/>most salient feature of the new covenant. Here it is—Jeremiah 31:34, "They<BR/>shall all know Me." That’s the difference. Under the old covenant, they didn’t<BR/>all know God. They didn’t know Him. Remember when Jesus came, He said, "If<BR/>you knew My Father, you’d know Me," didn’t He? "You don’t know My Father,<BR/>you don’t know Me."<BR/><BR/>In the new covenant, they all know God. You’re not even in the new covenant<BR/>unless you know God and the only way to know God is through Christ. That<BR/>means that all those who are members of the new covenant community know God<BR/>savingly. Membership in the new covenant is limited to those who have been<BR/>saved. Jeremiah is making a dramatic statement here. He’s saying, "I know<BR/>under the old covenant there were lots of folks who had the sign of the<BR/>covenant, there were lots of folks in the covenant community who didn’t know<BR/>God. But, in the new covenant, everybody in it is going to know God. That’s<BR/>distinctive. That’s conclusive. Circumcision was never a spiritual sign of<BR/>anything. Baptism is a spiritual sign of true inclusion in new covenant<BR/>salvation by grace through faith.<BR/><BR/>4. Well, let me give you a fourth reason. I reject infant baptism because<BR/>infant baptism is not consistent with the nature of the church.<BR/><BR/>I hinted at this earlier. Infant baptism is not consistent with the nature<BR/>of the church. This opens up proverbially Pandora’s box. There is so much<BR/>chaos at this point, it begs discussion.<BR/><BR/>It’s just impossible to solve the problem unless you go back to rejecting<BR/>infant baptism. Here’s what I mean. You have, for example, in the Roman<BR/>Catholic Church, millions and millions and millions of people who were<BR/>baptized. At their baptism, it was stated that this baptism ushered them<BR/>into the kingdom of heaven.<BR/><BR/>Are they part of the church? Is the church responsible for these people? Are<BR/>we responsible to shepherd these people who don’t believe? The vast majority<BR/>of those people obviously have no knowledge of God, no knowledge of Jesus<BR/>Christ. Millions of them have no connection to the church whatsoever. They<BR/>go about living their lives…are they a part of the church? Are we<BR/>responsible to shepherd these people? Should we discipline them?<BR/><BR/>You see, what happens is pedo-baptism destroys the redeemed church idea. It<BR/>just completely assaults the idea that this is a redeemed community of<BR/>people who have come to personal faith in Jesus Christ. Now you’ve got<BR/>something that’s so vast, that’s so ubiquitous [universal] that it’s<BR/>impossible even to define, let alone deal with. It confuses the visible<BR/>church with the invisible church and such confusion is not helpful. If<BR/>people, when they’re baptized as babies whether it’s in an Anglican church<BR/>or an Episcopalian or a Presbyterian church or a Lutheran church or whatever<BR/>it is, if that includes them in salvation in the kingdom of God and in the<BR/>church and they go on to live dissolute lives of sin and just carry on just<BR/>like the pagans that they are, are they really a part of the church? What in<BR/>the world is the church then? Is the church not redeemed?<BR/><BR/>You see, infant baptism perpetuates the same thing it did in Israel. You had<BR/>a whole bunch of circumcised kids who didn’t know God. Now, we have a whole<BR/>bunch of baptized babies who don’t know God either. If we’re going to carry<BR/>that over, we get the same result. The true church, however, unlike<BR/>Israel—Israel was a nation of people, earthly people—the true church is a<BR/>nation of believers. Whether somebody was baptized as a baby, whether they<BR/>were confirmed at the age of 12 or not, if they don’t know God personally<BR/>through faith in Jesus Christ, they do not belong to the Redeemed church.<BR/><BR/>There’s this huge confusion about: what is the church? Infant baptism just<BR/>totally throws this into chaos because the world is full of these<BR/>baby-baptized adults who range anywhere from the hypocritically religious<BR/>through the indifferent, to the blasphemous. They’re not in the church; they<BR/>can’t be included in the church and if infant baptism saved them, then<BR/>salvation doesn’t change anybody.<BR/><BR/>You say, well why is it in there then? Let me give it to you. Infant baptism<BR/>is a holdover from absolutist state church systems in Europe. I’ll give you<BR/>a little history here. Here’s what happened. Catholicism reigns till the<BR/>1500’s. . . 1500’s comes the Reformation. Catholicism built it’s power this<BR/>way: back in the 4th century, Constantine takes over (325 AD); he makes<BR/>Christianity the state religion and starts to persecute the people who aren’t<BR/>Christians—this is kind of a switch. It feels good for the Christians for a<BR/>while, but pretty soon it’s serious.<BR/><BR/>He decides that the greatest way to have power over the people is to have<BR/>religious power over the people, so he makes Christianity the State Religion<BR/>of Holy Roman Empire—starts calling it the Holy Roman Empire from about 325<BR/>AD on. Then he determines that we have to include everybody within the<BR/>purview of the Roman system. Everybody in their vast world kingdom has to be<BR/>included under this great power so we’ve got to baptize everybody and that’s<BR/>where infant baptism is introduced (in about the 3rd century or 4th<BR/>century).<BR/><BR/>In comes infant baptism. Infant baptism serves the power of the government<BR/>very well because now everybody is automatically in the kingdom of heaven,<BR/>which is the same as the government. Everybody is now in the church;<BR/>therefore, the government has power over them all. It creates national<BR/>solidarity. It allows the church and government to be one, the church and<BR/>the military to be one, the church and the body of politic to be one…and so<BR/>they can use the big club of God on everybody’s head.<BR/><BR/>So, now God is ruling through the Roman Empire…everybody’s a baptized<BR/>convert, everybody’s a baptized part of this thing, and you get this massive<BR/>monolithic, great kingdom that perpetuates itself for a thousand years. You<BR/>know, that’s remarkable. The great Babylonian kingdom, the first world<BR/>empire, lasted two hundred…the Medo-Persian lasted two hundred. These world<BR/>kingdoms…then the Greek kingdom came along—the third world came—it lasted<BR/>two hundred. But, the Roman system lasted a thousand years! Actually more<BR/>than a thousand years and they did it because they had this monolithic<BR/>religious structure, and infant baptism was the key to it because everybody<BR/>was baptized into the system; therefore, God was their authority as wielded<BR/>to the power of the system, and the Roman church took that power.<BR/><BR/>So, what happens is the Reformation comes…now, all of a sudden, the<BR/>Protestants pull out and they’re these little, sort-of weak groups of<BR/>Christian people and they feel over-powered. The Reformation starts to gain<BR/>some momentum, gain some ground…larger numbers of people join in the<BR/>Reformation and they want some power. How are they going to get it? How are<BR/>they going to unify their people? How are they going to have a state that<BR/>has the power that can counteract the Roman state. You have a state, a<BR/>government, that’s Catholic, like France—what’s Germany going to do to stand<BR/>against France? They don’t have the solidarity, so they decide, "Well, we’ll<BR/>have a state church here and we’ll baptize everybody as infants." So, you<BR/>have a Reformation state church developed so that it has the political clout<BR/>and the solidarity internally to stand against the power of France, which is<BR/>Roman Catholic.<BR/><BR/>That’s how they began to work that infant baptism: because of it’s political<BR/>power. It’s a holdover from absolutist state powers. The absolute church<BR/>system, national sovereign church power, and with it came, by necessity, the<BR/>persecution of people who didn’t buy it. The people who didn’t buy it said,<BR/>"We don’t believe it. We don’t believe the Bible teaches infant baptism. We<BR/>reject that! We believe in believer’s baptism," and they called them<BR/>Anabaptists and they persecuted them.<BR/><BR/>The state church denied the right of conscience to the individual and to the<BR/>community, denied the right of freedom, the right of thought. The government<BR/>was going to control everything to create the solidarity that would give<BR/>them a base of power to stand militarily and politically against the<BR/>Catholic states. So, you had state Christendom: Catholic state Christendom,<BR/>Old Protestant, Lutheran, Reformed, State Christendom.<BR/><BR/>Now, at the beginning, Luther had a lofty idealism. He was against it. He<BR/>contended for a Christianity of churches that would embrace<BR/>freedom—Christianity of churches that would renounce force and live only by<BR/>the Word and the Spirit, he said. He said that the Scripture is the only<BR/>standard for all issues of personal life. We’re going to stand with the<BR/>Scripture. Luther says this, "I say that God wants no compulsory service. I<BR/>say it a hundred thousand times: God wants no compulsory service. No one can<BR/>or ought to be compelled to believe. But, a soul of man is an eternal thing<BR/>above all that is temporal; therefore, only by an eternal Word, must it be<BR/>governed and grasped."<BR/><BR/>Boy, he’s right on, isn’t he? Just the Word…Just the Word. Neither the Pope,<BR/>nor a bishop, nor any other man has a right to decree a single syllable<BR/>concerning a Christian man, apart from his consent. All that comes in the<BR/>spirit of tyranny and you know what? That was right. Luther was right. By<BR/>1527, he caved in and he turned back to the state church and he allowed for<BR/>infant baptism and the state church. And the state church grew into great<BR/>power and buried the true church and the Reformation began to disappear.<BR/><BR/>There was no real building of New Testament churches because they were<BR/>persecuted. They were seen as non-Conformists, as they were called in<BR/>England. They were threatening the state church. Infant baptism, you see,<BR/>saved the state church and served them well, as it had the Roman Catholic<BR/>Church because it initiated everybody into that solidarity and allowed them<BR/>to wield the God-club over everyone. They even did battle against each<BR/>other; sometimes Protestants against Protestants. The state church was a<BR/>great tree, far-reaching with its branches, but rotten to the core and<BR/>fruitless and intolerant of the true church.<BR/><BR/>So, in Europe today, true Christianity is very, very, very small. It was<BR/>buried, not only under Catholicism, in say, France, but just completely<BR/>buried under Protestantism is Martin Luther’s own country of Germany. That’s<BR/>why they developed infant baptism, not because it’s in the New Testament. It<BR/>is a relic of Popery drawn in to serve the Protestant churches politically.<BR/>The state church and the Biblical Christianity are and always will be<BR/>completely opposed to each other. The true church is not of this world and<BR/>doesn’t incorporate the unconverted.<BR/><BR/>I’ll tell you, one of the strategies that Hitler had—I told you this in the<BR/>past—Hitler knew the power of bringing everybody under the state church, so<BR/>he, literally, swallowed up the state church of Germany. Adolf Hitler did<BR/>and it capitulated completely to him and anybody who didn’t capitulate was<BR/>put into prison and executed. Guys like Dietrich Bonhoeffer who stood for<BR/>the true church against the state church, went to a concentration camp and<BR/>eventually was executed in a concentration camp. That’s a Protestant church<BR/>environment that Hitler, literally, took over and used for his own power.<BR/>That’s how apostate that system had become and any true surviving Christian<BR/>in the midst of that was fuel for the fires in the furnaces of Hitler’s<BR/>concentration camps.<BR/><BR/>There is no connection, no divine connection, between the true church and<BR/>any state power. "The true church," Jesus said, "is not of this world," and<BR/>it doesn’t incorporate the unconverted. Infant baptism serves the state<BR/>church well; it horribly confuses the true church. Neither Luther nor even<BR/>Melanchthon, two great reformers, opposed the assault on the Anabaptists and<BR/>others who rejected the national church. They even said that anybody who<BR/>rebaptizes is infested with heresy—that’s what was said in those days. A<BR/>Strasbourg reformer, a Matthias Zell, said, "He who confesses Christ as his<BR/>own Lord and Savior shall, in spite of anything else, share our table and I<BR/>will also share with him in heaven." He was right and he was going against<BR/>the grain.<BR/><BR/>Infant baptism, mass communion, which you see in the Roman church and in<BR/>some Protestant environments…infant baptism and mass communion efface the<BR/>contrast between the believer and the unbeliever, between the church and the<BR/>world. So, we have to reject those kinds of things. As the nature of the<BR/>church became corrupted, so the ordinance of baptism became corrupted. Well,<BR/>I think you get the point.<BR/><BR/>5. One last point and I’ll let you go. Infant baptism is not consistent with<BR/>the gospel.<BR/><BR/>It’s not consistent with the gospel. Maybe this is the most important point<BR/>of all. You say, "What in the world happens when a baby is baptized?" Shall<BR/>I read you the Heidelberg Catechism? This is a great German catechism that<BR/>defines the meaning of infant baptism. This is what it says, "Yes, for<BR/>they," speaking of children, "as well as the old people appertain [relate]<BR/>to the covenant of God and His church and in the blood of Christ, the<BR/>redemption from sins and the Holy Spirit who works faith and its promise not<BR/>less than to the older." So, they’re really saying in the Heidelberg<BR/>Catechism that children enter the covenant of God, His church, receive the<BR/>benefit of the blood of Christ, the redemption from sin, the Holy Spirit,<BR/>and faith.<BR/><BR/>"Therefore, shall they also though baptism, as the sign of the covenant, be<BR/>incorporated into the Christian church, be distinguished from the children<BR/>of unbelievers as in the Old Testament took place by circumcision, in the<BR/>place of which, in the New Testament, baptism is appointed." See that<BR/>connection? That illegitimate connection? But, they’re actually saying they’re<BR/>in the church.<BR/><BR/>And they go further than that. Luther finally affirmed, because he said<BR/>salvation is by faith…they say, "Well, how can a baby be saved if he doesn’t<BR/>have faith?" So, Luther finally affirmed the infant does have faith. He does<BR/>have faith. He said, "Children are to be baptized. They must be able to<BR/>believe; they must have faith." Luther said, "It’s not the vicarious<BR/>[substituted] faith of the godparents or the church"—he rejected that. "It<BR/>is the children themselves who believe," Luther said. Someone says, "How is<BR/>that possible?" "The Holy Spirit helps them to believe," he says. "The Holy<BR/>Spirit comes to the child in the holy baptism. By this bath of regeneration,<BR/>He is richly poured out upon us." This is a bath of regeneration in which<BR/>the Holy Spirit comes and gives faith to an infant? Some even call it<BR/>"unconscious faith." Some call it "surrogate faith."<BR/><BR/>In any case, it is not what the gospel is about, which is personal faith,<BR/>right? The great mark of the Reformation was salvation by faith alone<BR/>accompanied by personal repentance! A baby can’t do that. A baby doesn’t<BR/>have any faith. A baby doesn’t have any part in baptism. It’s no different<BR/>than circumcision; a baby didn’t have any part in circumcision. In fact, if<BR/>you’d asked him, he’d probably vote against it. Baptizing a baby has no<BR/>spiritual meaning to that baby. They got into a confounded viewpoint that<BR/>somehow faith, and grace, and salvation, and regeneration, and entrance into<BR/>the church is all dumped into that little baby at the point of which water’s<BR/>dumped on his head. It has nothing to do with the gospel of faith. That’s<BR/>why we have to call it into question.<BR/><BR/>I wrote down 25 quotes or so out of reformers that answered the question,<BR/>"What happens at a baby baptism. "Baptism," one of them says, "declares the<BR/>inward regenerated operation of the Holy Spirit." Wow. "It signifies the<BR/>regeneration ministry of the Holy Spirit." "Infant children of believers are<BR/>rightful heirs of the covenant." "It is the witness and attestation to their<BR/>salvation." This produced all kinds of confusion as the doctrine of<BR/>justification by faith. Only a person old enough to understand can believe.<BR/>Right?<BR/><BR/>Well, there’s more, but I think you get the message. Let’s pray.<BR/><BR/>Prayer:<BR/><BR/>Father, as we contemplate these things, some may think this is just an<BR/>academic exercise; the truth of the matter is we’re struggling to call your<BR/>church to true understanding of your Word, so that we might be obedient as<BR/>you have called us to be. Lord, thank you for the clarity of your Word. We<BR/>love many of these dear folks who continue to advocate this. We esteem them<BR/>very highly for many of the great things that they do in the kingdom, for<BR/>much of their great insight into the Word, but we are baffled by the fact<BR/>that they cling to something which, we believe, is a dishonor to you and<BR/>that they do not advocate a proper believer’s baptism in the way that You’ve<BR/>designed it in order to be a testimony of our unity with Christ in His<BR/>death, burial, and resurrection and thus exalt the cross and the open tomb.<BR/>Lord, work in your church and maybe use this message and others who can call<BR/>your church to re-examine these things, to come back to the truth so simply,<BR/>straight-forwardly set forth in your Scriptures. Make us to be obedient to<BR/>these things. We thank You in Christ’s name. Amen.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>The above message was delivered by John MacArthur Jr., of Grace Community<BR/>Church in Sun Valley, California. It was transcribed from the tape GC<BR/>80-194: "A Scriptural Critique of Infant Baptism." A copy of the tape can be<BR/>obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412<BR/>or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-437964542052755799.post-25311825071564416262008-05-20T15:18:00.000-03:002008-05-20T15:18:00.000-03:00"In a recent speech, Barack Obama said he has visi..."In a recent speech, <BR/>Barack Obama said he <BR/>has visited all <BR/>57 states. " <BR/><BR/>-Conan O'BrienProfessor Howdyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12189934292678757335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-437964542052755799.post-67340673407012914652008-05-20T13:13:00.000-03:002008-05-20T13:13:00.000-03:00In India it is perfectly proper for men to wear pa...In India it is perfectly proper for men to wear pajamas in <BR/>public. Pajamas are accepted as standard daytime wearing <BR/>apparel. <BR/><BR/> *** <BR/><BR/>The movie Jerry Maguire (1996) was Tom Cruise's fifth <BR/>consecutive $100-million-plus film, an industry record.<BR/>Now he gets little box office attention. <BR/><BR/> *** <BR/><BR/>The pyramids in Egypt contain enough stone and mortar to <BR/>construct a wall 10 feet high and 5 feet wide running from <BR/>New York City to Los Angeles.Professor Howdyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12189934292678757335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-437964542052755799.post-91088343994981314162008-05-20T13:04:00.000-03:002008-05-20T13:04:00.000-03:00*If you reflect on the state of our world today, o...*If you reflect on the state of our world today, or the state of humanity<BR/>throughout all of history for that matter, will you not find that we are<BR/>indeed a needy people? The range of our needs and struggles is large in its<BR/>breadth, far-reaching in its scope, and universal in its application. Some<BR/>view religion as dressing up on Sundays and a fuzzy feeling of fellowship,<BR/>yet as lacking the equipment to deal with these ubiquitous struggles, or<BR/>what you might call “real life.” Yet the Scripture does not candy-coat or<BR/>sidestep life’s harsh realities. Over and over again, it portrays for us<BR/>real people with real problems—anguished individuals in need, crying for<BR/>one who might bring comfort to their weary heart, hope to their present<BR/>situation, and healing to their fractured life.<BR/> <BR/>For example, consider the encounter between Jesus and the woman at the<BR/>well, recorded in John’s Gospel. The disciples had left Jesus in order to<BR/>buy food in the town. Upon returning, they were astounded to see him<BR/>talking to a Samaritan woman, for the woman epitomized all that was<BR/>oppressed or rejected in that society. She was deemed inferior as a woman,<BR/>despised ethnically as a Samaritan, discarded from five failed marriages,<BR/>and confused as to how to find God in her fragmented world. <BR/> <BR/>In their dialogue, Jesus began his tender yet determined task to disarm her<BR/>well-doctored theological jargon so that she could voice the genuine cry of<BR/>her heart. Almost like peeling off the layers of an onion, He moved her<BR/>away from her ploys of hiding her hurts, to the radiant source of her<BR/>greatest fulfillment: Himself. She had come to find water for the thirst of<BR/>her body, and He fulfilled a greater thirst-that of her soul.<BR/> <BR/>When the disciples returned, they awkwardly asked Jesus if He was hungry.<BR/>He replied, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.” Completely<BR/>bewildered, they wondered if someone had already fed Him. They were on an<BR/>entirely different level of hungers and thirsts while He was about His<BR/>Father’s business: To share the bread of life and open the spring of living<BR/>water so that one need never thirst again. In this simple narrative<BR/>converge our hungers and God’s desire to fulfill those inner hungers and<BR/>satisfy those deep longings. <BR/> <BR/>Are you thirsty, dear friend? Come, drink freely of this water. As Jesus<BR/>told the woman, whoever drinks the water that He gives will never thirst<BR/>again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-437964542052755799.post-16618506598230464972008-05-20T13:02:00.000-03:002008-05-20T13:02:00.000-03:00The Lord Himself will come down from heaven, with ...The Lord Himself will come down from heaven, with a loud<BR/>command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet<BR/>call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After<BR/>that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up<BR/>together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. <BR/>And so we will be with the Lord forever. --1 Thessalonians 4<BR/>(Rapture Verse)<BR/> <BR/>===============<BR/> <BR/>*1889: First Jukebox Installed<BR/><BR/>The origins of the jukebox can be traced back to November 23, 1889<BR/>and an entrepreneur named Louis Glass. That's the day Glass<BR/>installed a coin-operated Edison cylinder phonograph in the Palais<BR/>Royale Saloon in San Francisco. It cost a nickel to play a single<BR/>selection from the machine, and there was no amplification or<BR/>speakers. Instead, there were four listening tubes. Despite the<BR/>technical limitations, the machine, popularly known as<BR/>"Nickel-in-the-Slot," was an instant success, earning over $1000 in<BR/>less than half a year.Professor Howdyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12189934292678757335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-437964542052755799.post-71791636835324904412008-05-20T13:01:00.000-03:002008-05-20T13:01:00.000-03:00What did the post card from the UNC student say? ...What did the post card from the UNC student say?<BR/> <BR/> "Having a good time. Where am I?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com