Scripture Indicates that Believer Baptism is a Requirement for Salvation

 

 In this CD, Mr. Bercot takes a clarifying look at what Scripture has to say about water baptism. I should add that when he sees doctrinal controversy between denominations (such as on this topic), he resolves it by looking at Scripture, and, to help with interpretation, what the early church (pre-325 AD, before Catholicism dominated it) believed about it. Their beliefs were more likely backed by Scripture, since that church was closer to the apostles – plus, they knew the language and they were a church that the Lord made powerful--so it’s likely He didn't see any substantially deviant doctrine there. So let’s have a look at what those early church leaders interpreted from Scripture.

The early church believed, from Scripture, that in believer baptism, the following things happened: (1) all of a person’s prior sins are washed away; (2) a person is born again through baptism of water and the Holy Spirit; 3) through baptism, a person becomes a member of Christ’s church.  (This series of events do not happen with infant baptism because there must be a confession by the one being baptized that he/she has believed, and will follow Christ. That's all clear from the many instances of baptism in the Book of Acts.)  Because of the importance of these three, we must conclude that the salvation process is not complete without baptism.  When the person confesses Christ in Acts, details show they were usually baptized right away.  If a person died after confession of Christ but before a soon-baptism (an unlikely event), we believe that in God's grace, they were still on the way to heaven.  But if they hid their confession and refused public baptism (fearing for their life, in tines of intense persecution), that was not in God's plan.  You cannot hide a light under a basket.  Evangelism is the only way the kingdom of God can grow.  It is one of the gifts in Galatians 5, and one cannot deny Christ--such as being ashamed of what He has done for you.  If you hide it, do you really live in Christ?  Do you understand that He has saved us from hell, which we truly deserve because of our sin, and has invited us to heaven?  You must share to anybody.

Can we back this up from Scripture? Let’s start with John 3:5:

Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Does this not say that “born of water” is water baptism? Even in the Greek, the word translated "water" simply refers to physical water. Does it not clearly say that water baptism is essential in being born again?

Mark 16:16 says:

He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

This requires baptism to "be saved," or to be in heaven and escape Judgment. Of course, there are other verses which simply say believe in Christ, and be saved.  But many verses only give a partial look at the concept; you must consider all the New Testament together to get the whole picture.  For instance, if all you have to do is "believe," are we talking about just mental assent?  A mind-thing, but not a heart-thing?  What about the person who "believes," but doesn't change their life?  They still live a worldly life, and don't let Christ be involved with important decisions.  We should give command of all of our life to God's glory, and pray about those important decisions for His direction. Besides, there is much more involved than "mental assent" with our derivative for the word "believe."  It's a heart-thing.  where you are committed to abiding with Him, the same as breathing.  We love Him if we obey His commandments, and baptism was a commandment that Christ gave to everybody (Matthew 28:19-20).

Romans 10:9-10:

...that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. ¹⁰ For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Acts 2:36-38:

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit

In verses 37-38, Peter has the ultimate evangelistic opportunity; the big question on the silver platter has been asked of him--"what shall we do?". Does he say what all of us evangelical Protestants have been taught, telling them to pray to "let Jesus into their heart"? No; after they’ve been shown who Jesus is in earlier verses in Acts 2, assuming they believe in Him, what they need to do to be saved…is (1) repentance and (2) baptism. He emphasizes the importance of baptism, saying “every one of you” needs to do it. They can have the "gift of the Holy Spirit."  (Different denominations have different views on what exactly that is, but what's important, if you really want to be saved, why would you NOT want such a gift?  So jump in; be baptized.) These additional two steps will give them remission of sins.  You must want "remission," defined as "cancellation of a debt."  If you bear the weight of sin when you are judged, you won't make heaven.

Acts 22:16 was when Saul was saved, becoming Paul, and he was told:

…And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’

Baptism, as it says, washes away our sins. That’s very important, is it not? Without it, with the guilt of sins on us, how can you get to heaven? (Again, allowance is made elsewhere for those who cannot be baptized.) Note the urgency that they should be baptized right away after it is evident that the Spirit has opened his eyes.

The early church fathers felt that baptism is important enough that they believed, and said, that a man who was saved, immediately imprisoned, then martyred fulfilled the required baptism—by having a baptism of (his) blood.

Galatians 3:27:

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ

What is the meaning of “put on Christ"? Read Romans 13:14:

But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts

So it means wrapping yourself in godly thoughts and not thinking about sinful ones or things of the world. A result of salvation.  A phrase in the same book is “clothe yourself with Christ.” This makes me think of Genesis 3, when God clothed Adam with skins of an animal (which required a sacrifice and blood) after Adam sinned. That blood being shed to provide his skin was the first evidence of God’s plan for His Son, the Lamb, whose blood was shed once for all. The animal sacrifice was a sacrificial covering for the effects of sin—for the Old Testament.

Going under the water is symbolic of His death, and rising out of the water is symbolic of Resurrection.  Romans 6:2-4 defines it and does the metaphor:

How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

The expectation is that we must "walk in newness of life," a subject for another paper.

Titus 3:5: …but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit

The word "washing," in Greek loutron, is defined as "a bath, a laver."  This seems to speak of water baptism, does it not? Baptism results in regeneration, defined as becoming a new creation. And, as Jesus put it (John 3:3), that’s essential to go to heaven. And it clearly says, “He saved us, through the washing of regeneration (through the water baptism) and renewing of the Holy Spirit.”

Hebrews 10:22:

...let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

“Pure water” is water baptism. Baptism helps gives us a full assurance of faith and enables us to draw near to Him.

I Peter 3:20b-21 uses the term “antitype.” That’s a New Testament fulfillment from an Old Testament prefigure (the prefigure is called a type):

...in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.  There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

The type in the Old Testament is how the Ark saved Noah's family from the death of the Flood.  The anti-type is baptism.  Peter bluntly points out that baptism, and Christ’s resurrection, save us. To be saved at the end, you need baptism combined with true faith, repentance, and abiding in obedience (John 15:1-6). Paul doesn't want anyone to think that baptism merely is a temporary cleansing through works that has to be repeated, so he says that the symbol has nothing to do with removing "filth of the flesh."  Baptism gives you a “good conscience toward God.”

Again, EVERY ONE OF THESE VERSES IS DIRECTED TO BELIEVERS WHO ARE MAKING A CHOICE TO BE BAPTIZED. There are no baptisms of babies in Scripture that we know of.

There are other "types" in the Old Testament. Consider I Corinthians 10:1-2's comments on the Jews passing through the Red Sea:

Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

So, to think of the type: was crossing the water of the Red Sea (a type of baptism) merely a “symbol” of their salvation from the Egyptians? No, crossing the water DID save them! Why do most evangelistic churches use the weak word “symbol,” taking away all the power associated with baptism? It seems pretty clear that using the Red Sea type, baptism completes our salvation. I use the word “complete” because other things of faith were involved too, all of which together ensured their salvation. They had already stepped out in faith to follow God’s leader Moses. In faith they believed the ten plagues were a message from God. In faith they obediently protected themselves from death at Passover, when they obeyed the instruction to put lamb’s blood on the doorposts. And when they packed their belongings and marched out into the desert—that was a great step of faith, since a sensible man would never expect to stay alive long in the desert. All of these things, faith plus obedience, ensured their salvation, but the baptism of passing through the Red Sea completed the initial job—but all this was still only at the beginning of their journey. They still had to place faith in God throughout the journey, and the battles with the Enemy that followed. Salvation is Not a one-and-done thing.  Subject of another blog.

Another Old Testament figure of baptism—mentioned several times by early Christians—was Naaman, the leper. Leprosy is a metaphor of sin. In II Kings 5, Naaman was purified of leprosy when he was baptized in the Jordan. This was a symbol of what baptism can do for us regarding the leprosy of sin.  The sin is wiped away.

If you’re thinking, about the early Church, “surely there was some group who didn’t hold to this view of baptism, who thought it was just symbolic,” you’re right—the Gnostics felt that way. Of course, you also need to know what else they believed--that the creation of the earth and mankind was done by an inferior god, a second god, so “His” creation was flawed and beyond redemption, so they concluded that flesh cannot be saved. They did not believe in the resurrection of the body—you can’t get a perfect result from an imperfect body. Jesus couldn’t have come in the flesh, since He could never be imperfect, as all flesh is. Thus, they maintained, there was no God Incarnate. No one can be “reborn” through physical substances (since all such are evil)—like water. So baptism has no power to save, they said, it’s just a symbol of what’s happened in the spirit.  So say the Gnostics.  Are these views corrupt, or what?  Can you believe that they got one doctrine correct ("baptism is a symbol, has no deeper meaning), when all their other doctrines are so Wrong?

The vast majority of Protestants do not believe in the power and necessity of baptism, as seen by Scripture above, and think that it's just a "symbol." So, if you agree with the Gnostics that it's just a "symbol," you're also saying that all the church fathers, as holy a group as you ever want to meet in heaven, men who were taught by the apostles--were dead wrong. Which group do you want to follow—the Gnostics or the church fathers? But really, our beliefs should be founded on literal Scripture, don't you think? Can we argue against all the above Scriptural passages? Not without doing twisty reasoning (as all the MODERN commentators do), instead of simple, literal reading of God's Word.  Does God want the common person to understand Scripture, or should we wait until the erudite commentators do their twisty reasoning and give us their "solution?"  God wants every one of us to understand, and would use common-sense literal readings where possible.  Water should mean water, wherever possible.

How did the church move away from this doctrine, if it’s correct? Why either baptize babies or, the opposite, say that's it's a "symbol?" I think the change in doctrine happened partly because the church reacted to people’s desire for "salvation by convenience"—people wanted to feel assurance of salvation, wanted a simple “formula.” So when the Catholic church was forming its doctrines, they came up with a convenient formula: do the sacraments, or ordinances, and you shall be saved.

Infant baptism came about partly because when a ‘Christian” nation conquered an entire nation, they wanted Everybody to get baptized and start believing as they do.  Also because, due to high infant deaths, and the ongoing fear that without baptism, their baby would die with the stain of Original Sin (taught at the time), and wouldn't go to heaven.  So people wanted assurance that their baby was saved when he died, so they rushed to have them baptized. Note that none of these changes were Scripturally based--they are mechanical devices, not a choice being made by a repentant sinner. This religion requires no relationship with Christ and no day-to-day holiness, as Scripture demands (see the “Paul vs James” blogs). Expanding “the kingdom of God,” as they called it, by sword, by expansion, by alliances with pagans, came naturally to them as well. Scripture explaining the truth of baptism became hidden, in an impossible language (Latin, which most people of that day couldn't understand), so darkness reigned.

When pietism (late 1600s, beginning in Germany) and the Great Awakening revival (1700s, in England and New England) came along, they placed their emphasis for salvation on the conversion experience; in some cases, the evangelist didn't want to complicate things by explaining the correct theology of baptism to Catholics, or anybody else. The evangelist said, let's make salvation easy to understand--more people can be saved.  They called the spiritual awakenings the “new birth.” The evangelist was faced with the fact that, in state churches, everyone had already been baptized—as babies--but many grew up dead spiritually. Rather than preach on the negative topic, “why baptism as a baby wasn’t good enough now,” the revivalists wanted to see as many people turn their life around as possible, and make the salvation easy to get to. So it was the decision for Jesus, that was it.  Oh, yeah, you "should be" baptized as a witness to show to everyone that you're saved, but you can already be sure, they said, that you're going to heaven.  Everybody loved assurance like that.  No follow-up requirements.

Now I again warn you: Keep in mind this extremely important caution: Don’t assume you can get baptized, and you’re saved and done.  A continuing saved relationship with Christ means continuing to  follow His commands. “Inward” baptism—of the Spirit—was essential as well, not just “outward” baptism.

When you want to repent of your sin and submit to the Lord Jesus AND when you are baptized in the water, then your sins are washed away. You need both. If you do the outward baptism without the inward desire for submission and cleansing--you’re still spiritually questionable, on "probation," or dead.  In any event, you need to have an abiding relationship with Christ so you don't lose salvation.

Acknowledgements:  Dave Bercot CD, "Baptism"

 

Is the Antichrist Islamic?

 

This blog is for all you eschatology, or future event, thinkers out there.  You may want to think more broadly about who the Antichrist is, particularly if you are a follower of Lindsey, LaHaye, or Hagee, because this study considers the idea of whether the Antichrist is a Muslim, a conclusion from the book The Islamic Antichrist by Joel Richardson.  His best proof for that claim is by proving that the same man is in the Bible and in the Quran (or Koran, depending on your spelling).  The irony is, the same man is the Antichrist in the Bible, but the Savior in the Quran! This one chapter in the book that I will summarize might convince you too. 

Now, first, keep in mind that there is more than one sacred text to the Muslim Scripture:  In addition to the foundational Quran (Mohammed’s writings of “God's actual words” through the angel), you have the Sunna (presumably Mohammed’s life and thoughts) and the hadiths (presumably Muhammed’s sayings); these are sacred as well.  A deeply dedicated Muslim believer will follow any of these to the death, if need be. 

 

Why is this study of the Quran worthwhile, you may ask?  The Quran records five things that a Muslim must believe in to be a true Muslim; these five areas are fixed and non-negotiable.  As it says in sura 2:177: “righteous is he who believeth in (1) Allah and (2) the Last Day and (3) the angels and (4) the Scripture and (5) the prophets.”  Note the importance of the Last Day to them.  Eschatology (study of future events) may be optional for study to us Christians, but their scary Last Days may lead to some irrational and murderous action—on Jews and Christians.  Also keep in mind that the religious leaders truly rule in Iran, not the secular government.  The military responds accordingly. We need to know their predictions of their future, in thinking about a defensive strategy against them. There is also this: In some terrorist’s twisted mind, bringing the Last Days sooner, might send them to heaven—and we are the “Great Satan.” 

 

Of their many key figures in the Last Days, the man above all men was al-Mahdi, which means “the Guided One.”  Other names given to him by Shia Muslims are Sahib Al-Zaman and Al-Mahdi al-Muntadhar. These names mean “the Lord of the Age” and “the Awaited Savior.”  Let me quote hadiths, for much of the details Muslims have in their theology are about him.  Then we’ll compare to what the Scripture says about the same man.

From the hadiths:  The Mahdi will be a world ruler through revolution. To quote Al-Sadr and Mutahhari, former leaders of imams, “He will reappear on the appointed day, and lead a world revolution, and set up a new world order… " Quoting imams Izzat and ‘Arif, this will bring ”victory of the Truth and the fall of all tyrants.” According to Islamic tradition, the Mahdi is said to preside over the entire earth as the final caliph of Islam.

 

But what the Quran says about Mahdi is what the Bible says about the Antichrist. The Bible says the Antichrist will be a world ruler, same as the Madhi, through military power. It calls the Antichrist the “fourth Beast” In Daniel 7:23:

 

‘The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom on earth, Which shall be different from all other kingdoms, And shall devour the whole earth, trample it and break it in pieces

The first three kingdoms (“beast” or “beasts” can mean kingdoms or people). were Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece, most experts agree.  Each of those dominated much of the known world.  Rome was the fourth kingdom.  Daniel 2:33, about the same four kingdoms, he adds this about Rome:

.

His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay

 

This suggests a revived fourth Roman kingdom that will have a weakness—it did not merge well with a partner. This one is yet future.  The first Roman empire was “legs of iron;” the future fourth empire has “his feet part of iron and part of clay.” We’re suggesting the partner for the latter Rome is Islami (the partner idea is mine, not Mr. Richardson’s).

 

Secondly, hadiths say: “The Mahdi will be worshiped, a popular political genius, and able to perform climate control. Allah will sow love of him in the hearts of all people…everyone only talks about Him.”  He will have control over the wind and the rain and the crops; the world will live in prosperity, says Sahih Hakim Mustadrak. 

 

The Bible says that the Antichrist will be worshiped, a popular political and military genius, and seemingly able to come back from a fatal wound. Revelation 13:3,4,8 says:                                  

 

³And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast.…they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?”… ⁸ All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

 

Third:  According to Hadiths, The Mahdi will be spiritually good and a Messiah;

Sahih Hakim Mustadrak claims: “He will give away wealth profusely, flocks will be in abundance.”  He will be perceived to be a miraculous archaeologist, uncovering Jewish and Christian sacred treasures, perhaps to convert them to Islam at the beginning: he finds the Torah (first five books of the Old Testament) from a mountain in Syria, and the Gospel from a town called Antioch (a major town in south-central Turkey).  And if that weren’t enough, the Ark of the Covenant (a wooden chest clad with gold, containing the Ten Commandments) will be brought forth from the Lake of Tiberias and will be placed in Jerusalem.  As quoted by Ayatullah Baqir al-Sadr: “For the ultimate salvation of mankind he is the Pole Star of hope on which the gaze of humanity is fixed…He stands high above the narrow walls in which humanity is cut up and divided.”  To quote Al-Sadr and Mutahhari, “He will…set up a new world order based on justice, righteousness, and virtue.” From Sachedina again: “He will create a just social order and a world free from oppression.” 

 

The Bible has a different view:  The Antichrist will be worshipped, but he will spiritually and literally  be the embodiment of Satan, with hate and murder of God’s family at his core beliefs

II Thessalonians 2:4 shows his hunger to be worshiped, and his blasphemy against God: 

 

…who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God

 

Revelation 13:4-7 shows the Antichrist (the beast) gets his authority from Satan (here as in many places, his symbol is the dragon); it shows his control will last 3-1/2 years; and shows he will persecute Christians to the death:

 

⁴ So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?” ⁵ And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months. ⁶ Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. ⁷ It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them.

This man will be sly in hiding his true hatred for Jews and Christians for awhile.

 

In further proof of his real nature being evil, let’s quote Muslim sacred texts which, without shame, confess his hatred and murderous spirit as a thing of pride.  As Sunan Abu Dawud says, “Every believer will be obligated to support him.”  As Ibn Maja says, “Give him your allegiance, even if you have to crawl over ice.” The Mahdi’s means of accomplishing world revolution will include multiple military jihads (holy wars), as Abdullrahman Kelani says.  Even Harun Yahya, supposedly a moderate, says, “the Mahdi will invade all the places between East and West.” Sheikh Kabbani says, “black flags coming from the area of Khorasan (in Iran) will signify the appearance of the Mahdi is nigh.”  The black flag is the flag of jihad.  On the flag is one word written in Arabic:  punishment.  Here are some really ugly quotes showing their anti-Semitism:  Egyptian authors Muhammad ibn Izzat and ‘Arif:  “The Mahdi will be victorious and eradicate those pigs and dogs and idols of this time…will abolish the leadership of the Jews…and put an end to the domination of the Satans who spit evil into people and cause corruption in the earth, making them slaves of false idols and ruling the world by laws other than the Sharia of the Lord of the worlds.”    

To quote a famous Islamic traditional belief: “the last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews, and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide behind a stone or a tree and a stone or tree would say: “Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.” 

Fourth:  Hadiths: The Mahdi will have his seat of authority in Jerusalem

As Tirmidhi says, “No power will be able to stop them and they will finally reach Eela Baitul Maqdas, where they will erect their flags (i.e., the jihad black flags).”  This place is the Jewish Temple Mount, in Jerusalem, which no longer exists—but will then.

 

To quote Izzat and ‘Arif again: Jerusalem will be the location of the rightly guided caliphate and the center of Islamic rule, which will be headed by Imam al-Mahdi. 

 

Vs the Bible:  The Antichrist will set his throne in God’s Temple (Jerusalem) and desecrate it

Zechariah 14:2: For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem; The city shall be taken, The houses rifled, And the women ravished.  Half of the city shall go into captivity, But the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

 

Matthew 24:15, 21:  “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (i.e., in Jerusalem)…²¹ For then there will be great tribulation...

 

Fifth:  Hadiths: The Mahdi will present Jews and Christians with a “Hobson’s Choice”

 

To quote the Ayatollah Ibrahim Amini:  The Mahdi will offer the religion of Islam to the Jews and Christians; if they accept it, they will be spared, otherwise they will be killed.

 

Bible:  The Antichrist will present Jews and Christians with a “Hobson’s Choice”

This is in Rev. 12:17, keeping in mind that the Antichrist is the embodiment of Satan (the dragon).  It is a picture of the woman being persecuted; she is Israel (as indicated elsewhere in Scripture).  Note the added reference to “her offspring, who...keep the…testimony of Jesus Christ.”  This refers to Christians.  Thus, we Christians will not escape the Antichrist’s intense persecution. Here is the verse:

 

And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ

Remember, the Antichrist is the embodiment of Satan.

Sixth:  Hadiths: The Mahdi will ride a white horse

The Muslims’ authority for that idea came from the Bible, of all things (which they consider it a source, but “less than sacred” book).  They quote Revelation 6:1-2, but misrepresent it. They are proud that he will be a conqueror:

 

Now I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals; and I heard one of the four living creatures saying with a voice like thunder, “Come and see.” ² And I looked, and behold, a white horse. He who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer.

 

The Bible agrees, but only about the white horse.  The real guy on the horse is NOT anybody’s savior: It is The Antichrist.

The same Bible verse is used on both sides of this debate in this point.  But Scripture actually proves that this is not a messiah, but a deceiver.  For proof, first, we look at the word “crown” in Rev. 6:2.  The Greek word is “stephanos,” used for the winner of war games.  A true Messiah crown is a “diadem,” a kingly crown.  Plus, note the chronology of subsequent seals in Revelation 6:3-17:  war, famines, death and Hades, martyrdom, and cosmic disturbances.  There is no way this follows a triumphal entry of a Messiah.  No, this terrible trail  follows that of a deceiver, one who pretends to be a Messiah.  And the world then chaotically reels under his hatred and destruction, when he unmasks his true nature. 

 

Seventh, the best comparison of all:  From the hadiths:  The Mahdi will make a Seven year treaty with Jews. This is the most shocking and convincing testimony that the Antichrist and the Mahdi are the same.  Because the Bible has the same length of a covenant.

 

Note the hadith first:  this is called the “fourth treaty,” to be made with a descendant of Moses’ brother Aaron the priest.  To quote Muhammad Ali Ibn Zubair:  "There will be four peace agreements between you and the Romans (i.e., Christians, Westerners).  The fourth will be mediated through a person who will be from the progeny of Hadrat Aaron and will be upheld for seven years.  The people asked, “Who will be the leader of the people at that time?”  The prophet said: He will be from my progeny and will be exactly 40 years of age.

 

Bible:  The Antichrist will make a seven year treaty with Jews

This is from Daniel 9:27:

Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one seven; But in the middle of the seven He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate…

Note the use of “abominations” and “desolate,” which we tie in to Jesus’ reference to the Antichrist (from Matthew 24, above). 

Thus, in these seven important comparisons, what happens when the Antichrist comes to power will mean the Muslims who read their sacred texts will be completely deceived into thinking that this horrible man, this embodiment of Satan, is Their Messiah!  This will bring about, I believe, an intensity to follow their sacred texts—which are texts of murder and hatred.  (I have another blog on their version of Allah vs. our Biblical God). And with over a billion Muslims in the world, they would rise up in religious fervor and perform whatever their sacred texts tell them to.   This would lead to unbelievable deaths and chaos. 

My fellow Christians, think about the “Hobson’s choice,”whenyou are offered to become a Muslim believer or die. When persecution comes, as it may be in our lifetimes, you should think of the ultimate sacrifice--as Jesus did for us.  Think nothing of your bodies, which are temporary abodes.  If all this happens in this age, be ready to be a martyr if given the choice of Jesus or al-Mahdi.  Your reward for the right choice will be a place in heaven for eternity. If you "play" along with pretending to worship the Mahdi (to survive), you are condemning your soul to hell. The Bible is clear on that in Revelation 14:9-11:

 Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, ¹⁰ he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. ¹¹ And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”

Thus, every one alive at that time has a "Hobson's Choice:" Do you save your body, which is only temporary, for a few years of survival, by bending the knee to the antichrist, and taking his mark?  But with that you spend an eternity of torture in hell.  Or do you trust Scripture, and willingly sacrifice whatever you have, even your life, to hold onto Christ, who will bring your soul to a forever existence in heaven?  You decide!  Whatever you do, do NOT say, "I know God.  He would never make hell for people like me."  Well, you THINK you know God.  Why don't you spend a little time to read Scripture, especially Jesus’ words in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and maybe you'll see yourself, the reason for Christ's crucifixion, and God's personality a little differently? Revelation 14 clearly points out your destination for making the wrong choice. Would you side with Satan, God’s enemy, even to live for a few more years—when the destination is Hell?

Acknowledgement:  The Islamic Antichrist, Joel Richardson

 

A New Kind of Christian

The Church is fragmented into hundreds of different sects and groups, so much so as to say, “There sure is an awful lot of interpretation of this Book out there.” Can we for sure say that “We don’t have the ability to be deceived, or come to a wrong doctrinal conclusion”? We should be humble enough to bow and pray, and say, “God, show me Your truth!” We naturally think our world view is right, and everybody should think like us. But it's also true that compromise for the sake of unity is a risk. But that’s what Christ wanted, after all. Wouldn’t it be cool if there was a Church of Newport, let’s say? All the churches in that city got together.  Like the churches in the book of Acts. But uniting churches is easier said than done.

Really, are which church to attend picked on the basics of logic?  Don’t people choose their denomination based on family history, or what their heart secretly wants to hear about God? What do people really want in a church? They say they want “something authentic, something real.” They dislike orthodoxy, which seems dead and outdated. They often are swayed by the “Emerging church” movement. But that movement’s desire to have relevance causes them to “come down to the world’s level.” And books like “A New Kind of Christian” disavow too much of “old Christian.”

If people are really looking for authenticity, they should look again at the lifestyles and words of the Christians in the book of Acts. The Kingdom of God was so irresistible, so radical, that the people had one of two choices: Either join us, or persecute us. Just like Jesus said, You’re either my friend, or you’re my enemy. There’s no “gray area” with Christ. The Church, in Acts—it will make your heart pound when you read it. When you read it, don’t you have a longing in your heart to see church today like that? When you look at the radical nature of what God is doing through them, does it ever make your heart burn? Let’s examine their lives.

Acts 2:41-47: Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. 46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

Acts 4:29-35: Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, 30 by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.” 31 And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness. 32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. 33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. 34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 35 and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.

Acts 5:12-16: And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s Porch. 13 Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly. 14 And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women, 15 so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them. 16 Also a multitude gathered from the surrounding cities to Jerusalem, bringing sick people and those who were tormented by unclean spirits, and they were all healed.

Acts 8:35-39: Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” 37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.

Acts 9:32-35: Now it came to pass, as Peter went through all parts of the country, that he also came down to the saints who dwelt in Lydda. 33 There he found a certain man named Aeneas, who had been bedridden eight years and was paralyzed.34 And Peter said to him, “Aeneas, Jesus the Christ heals you. Arise and make your bed.” Then he arose immediately. 35 So all who dwelt at Lydda and Sharon saw him and turned to the Lord.

Acts 13:2-3: As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.

Acts 14:8-10: And in Lystra a certain man without strength in his feet was sitting, a cripple from his mother’s womb, who had never walked. 9 This man heard Paul speaking. Paul, observing him intently and seeing that he had faith to be healed, 10 said with a loud voice, “Stand up straight on your feet!” And he leaped and walked.

Acts 16:25-31: But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them. 26 Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s chains were loosed. 27 And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself. 28 But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, “Do yourself no harm, for we are all here.” 29 Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Acts 20:7-11: Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight. 8 There were many lamps in the upper room where they were gathered together. 9 And in a window sat a certain young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep. He was overcome by sleep; and as Paul continued speaking, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. 10 But Paul went down, fell on him, and embracing him said, “Do not trouble yourselves, for his life is in him.” 11 Now when he had come up, had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long while, even till daybreak, he departed.

How inspiring!  These are regular people, these are true stories.  Let our hearts hunger for reality with Jesus Christ like they wanted--and  got. Look at His willingness to pour His Spirit out. People were so moved that they gave away their wealth, unreservedly; miracles were flowing, angels were appearing (other verses). When you look into God’s heart for His people, do we still believe what Jesus said—“You’ll do greater things than I have done”? Do we really believe that Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever? Or have you bought into doctrine that cynically says, “That was then: wake up, this is now.” Wouldn’t you just want to be in the early church? We didn’t mention about how leaders were losing their heads, literally, that believers were persecuted and had to flee. In a couple of cases, church people were killed by the Holy Spirit for lying. That was an intense church. Would you have counted the cost and joined—or are you content to be comfortable? You know, our churches fall so short. You could argue that, hey, miracles are not the whole story, but doesn’t Scripture say that “these signs will follow those who believe.” (Mark 16:17).

What keeps it from happening in America now? Jesus might answer by saying, Do we really want to meet Him on His terms? Our lifestyle is quite different than that church. We don’t have their dedication. We are distracted by our worldly "toys." Are we hungry enough to pray for ten days straight? If anyone in the church is lacking, would we give up our food, would we all fast to get the money to feed them? Would we give up all of our excesses to meet those in need—do we have a heart to give like that?

Could it be that the reason for this difference is that our interpretation of doctrine is different than theirs? After all, doctrine and lifestyle go hand in hand. Doctrine is useless unless it transforms your life. You can think you believe something, but you only truly believe something if it moves you to action. Do you believe that people are on their way to hell? To the extent that you actually believe that, you will intercede for the lost, your heart will break when you see people that don’t know the Lord, you’ll stand on the street corner and plead with people, or write a letter to an aunt that doesn’t know Him. You’ll hit your knees often.

To the extent that you believe in something, it changes your life.

What was it the apostles believed that made their lives so radical? Let’s call it “doctrine that the apostles held.” Let’s spend some time reading the earliest church fathers, whose lifestyles were the closest to theirs. These men bled and died for the faith too; they sat at the feet of the apostles, or only a generation removed. Let’s interpret Scripture as close as possible to what the fathers believed and wrote about. These guys must’ve had their doctrine right, the way they lived. When we see lifestyles like the book of Acts, then we know that apostolic doctrine was taught. We’ve layered on some weaknesses in the 2000 years since, I suspect. Let’s find them. Are we ready to admit we might be wrong on some points? Sure, they didn’t have modern technology; but they did it one better—they just read the Bible, over and over and over. In fact, they were the people who debated thoroughly and decided on what was Scripture in the first place. They took the words literally, they consulted no twisting commentary; their knowledge of other Scripture enabled them to place things in the proper context to explain seemingly contradictory passages. They didn’t have to fool with interpreting Greek—they spoke it, they knew it intimately. Here is their lifestyle, 125 AD, first from a new believer:

They do not bear false witness; nor do they covet what is not theirs. They comfort their oppressors and make them their friends.  Their women are pure as virgins and their daughters are modest; their men keep themselves from all unlawful unions and uncleanness. They go their way in all modesty and cheerfulness. They love one another. They deliver their widows and orphans from those who would treat them harshly. He who has, gives to him who has not. They fast two or three days to supply the necessary food for the needy. They follow the commands of their Christ justly and seriously. Every morning and every hour they give thanks to God for His lovingkindness to them. If any righteous man passes from this world, they rejoice and give thanks to God.

Now from a non-believer, whose sarcasm was a compliment:

They despise the temples, as dead houses; they reject the gods. Half-naked themselves, they despise honors and purple robes. Oh, wondrous folly…They despise present torments, although they fear those which are future. They fear to die after death, but they do not fear to die for the present. The larger portion are in want, are cold, are laboring in hard work or hunger. And God allows it. You do not visit exhibitions; you reject public banquets and abhor sacred contests…you assume you will rise again but refuse to live in the meanwhile. Cease from prying into the destinies of the sky. What is wrong with you?

Could the church of America be accused of that? No, frankly. The church today, in fact, is too often accused of hypocrisy, of embezzlement, of worldliness. Mostly, lukewarmness. The early church had a Holy Spirit-touched lifestyle. They won souls, they turned the world upside down. The secret was in their doctrine. It was different than ours. (see my "10 indictments" blogs for finishing this thought.)

Acknowledgement: Scott Schones, “A New Kind of Christian?” CD, Scroll Publishing

 

Infant Baptism

Dr. John MacArthur had an insightful sermon on an important subject.  Most of the words below are his.  Please read:

One of the strange paradoxes in the church is that the world is full of baptized non-Christians, millions of them, all over the planet.  While at the same time, the church is full of non-baptized Christians.  And it raises the issue of baptism, and what it is, and why people are so confused about it.  What does the Bible say?  Its method?  Its meaning?  There are too many people who don’t know that it is important, and who don’t think the methodology is important, or even the time when a person is baptized.  In particular, we will look at the baptism of infants, which is how you get a world full of baptized non-Christians.  Because of the “media-oriented” church of today, many people come to Christ by listening to radio or from TV evangelists. They are not connected to a church when saved, so they don’t think about being baptized.  A lot of church pastors don't emphasize it.  Also, people might hear nothing about baptism.  They might be going from church to church to find more connection, but baptism never becomes an issue for them.  But baptism in Scripture is a command.  The Great Commission is very clear at Matthew 28:19, when Jesus said:

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…

All nations need to believe the Gospel, and those that believe need to be baptized.  Peter, in the first Gospel sermon, the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 says, “Repent and be baptized.”  On that day there were 3,000 baptized, and thousands more, day after day in the early days of the church.  It is clear in Scripture that baptism is urgency once they’ve been saved, seeing His Words spoken to individuals and to the church.

Still, its confusion is widespread, and we have millions of infant-baptized non-Christians, and millions of un-baptized Christians.  So let’s cover Scripture on this.  Some of you need to face the reality that you should be obedient to this command, and you cannot be indifferent to it.  Perhaps you’re defiant, perhaps you’re not willing at all to confess Christ openly and publicly—which raises the issue of whether you are a Christian at all.

Much confusion over baptism has come from the phenomenon known as pedo-baptism, or baby baptism. Where did this come from?  For those of you who are Roman Catholics, or former Roman Catholics, you were likely baptized as a baby.  For those of you who were raised by Presbyterian parents, or Lutheran parents, or Episcopalian parents, or Anglican parents, or Methodist parents, and we can pretty much go down the line of “mainline” denominations, and see baby baptism—until we get to the Baptists and Anabaptists (Mennonites/Amish).   So baby baptism is widespread.  It is woven into Catholic tradition—and the Eastern Catholic church as well. It is part and parcel of Protestant theology, except for Baptists and those who identify with their view of believer-baptism.  From the fourth century on, infant baptism has been the norm for both Catholics and even the later ”Reformed” theology.  The Reformation in the 1500s didn’t change the view of baby baptism—so it was an “incomplete Reformation.” (I will explain that term later). Tradition ruled the day, and still does.

You say, “Well, is it a really big issue?”  It’s a huge issue, and I’m going to show you why.  I will give you 3 reasons why we must reject infant baptism.

Here’s the first one, and that would be enough:  Infant baptism is not in the Scripture.  Scripture nowhere advocates or records any baptism of an infant.  It is therefore impossible to support infant baptism from the Bible.  There’s not an incident of it, and there’s no mandate for it. A German theologian, from a Lutheran background, affirmed that infant baptism is not Biblical.  Most highly-esteemed theologians of the Church of England not only affirm the absence of baby baptism from the New Testament but the absence of it from apostolic and post-apostolic (AD 100-300) Christian writers.  Keep in mind, the Church of England, the Anglican Church, does infant baptism.  A reputed Presbyterian theologian could not confirm baby baptism in Scripture either.  So how did it come about?

Infant baptism began in the 2^nd and 3^rd century, and was the norm by the 4^th century—when the Catholic Church merged with the Roman government.  This provided a relief from Roman persecution, which was wonderful short-term, but a disaster long-term.  Infant baptism ruled unopposed for 1200 years.  But the Reformation didn’t change it either, so it is still the norm in most Protestant and all Catholic Churches to this day.  But they knew it wasn’t Scriptural, so simple tradition doesn’t answer “why” they took to it.  Looking into details, here are some important facts: during the Middle Ages, severe ecclesiastical laws were created as part of the civil code. (Civil code ruled how you must behave in public.  Punishment was actually meted out for profanity, gossiping, etc.)  In Europe, nations were divided.  There were Catholic nations, and there were Protestant nations. To keep the particular State united, they wanted one religion; you could not be Protestant in a Catholic country, and vice versa. Church and state were merged; civil code was designed to make everyone toe the line and accept the religion of that country.  Thus there was no religious freedom.  You were baptized as an infant as Catholic, let’s say. But if the family refuses, Catholic dogma says that means (1) you would not wash out Original Sin, per church tradition (not in Scripture, by the way).  If the baby died (which sadly happened frequently), (2) the baby could never go to heaven.  Whatever decision the state rulers said, it was backed up by the religious rulers.  (Not by Scripture). The religion and the state, maintained tyranny—but this ensured compliance and unity.

You would think baptism would not divide anybody, since “everybody” did the same baptism of infants.  But there arose “re-baptizers,” or Anabaptists—who read Scripture, realized their baptism as infants only gave you wet babies, and decided to baptize adults who truly believed in the reconciliation of Jesus Christ.  Believer (re)baptism, also operable in the early church, was born again in the 1200s or so—which had been long gone since 300 A.D.

The devil must have really hated this believer-baptism idea, because the persecution of Anabaptists (I have a blog on them, by the way), was beyond unbelievable.  (Ed. Note:  I also have a blog on how believer baptism is part of salvation).   The rulers decided, particularly on the Catholic side, that re-baptizing was a capital offense!  It was an act against the state, against the state church, and you usually would pay with your life.  (Read the book Foxe’s Book of Martyrs for some horrible but true tales of man killing man in the name of religion--and the courage of those who stood against the system).  It was a heresy, so it deserved death.  Hatred of re-baptizers went a long way back--to 391, in fact.  In that year, the Roman emperors had a law that whoever “desecrates the holy baptism through heretical superstition” shall be “excluded from society.”   That means if your belief system was “wrong,” you could not appeal the judicial decision, you could not make a will, or take possession of an inheritance, or be appointed heir by anyone. People would not talk to you. If they did, you would be banished, forced out of your home and the village.  There was no making amends, no repentance, no way to legally come back to society.  You were considered traitors.  You’re Done—if you affirm anything other than infant baptism.  In 413, the persecution escalated—the one baptized and the baptizer would have “death without mercy.”  After that, the humiliation of the family would go further; they would confiscate (because of greed, I suspect) all the possessions of these people. But people were fearful, and few made public note of their different beliefs. As you can see, these persecutions were around for a long time, but there were few violators who went public until the late 1400s.That’s partly because most people were kept illiterate, and there were few Bibles—the Catholic Church kept them locked away.

So if you came along then and said that Scripture teaches us that you should first come to a faith in Christ and then be baptized—which is what the New Testament teaches—you would be violated like the above.  If this seems to be extreme persecution, and you wonder “why,” a writer puts some light on the subject:  The real reason for such harshness was to secure the existence of the state, and individual liberties be damned.  Protesting was a test of "are you willing to die for Christ?"  Believer baptism disrupted the national church, posing a threat to solidarity; the “corruption” by doing it might be copied, and might break the monolithic power of the nation. 

Once the Catholics formed powerful alliances between religion and state and controlled their populations under the tyranny of the Pope, the Protestants felt the only way they could match that power was to have the same “security” excuse.  Luther eventually felt the Protestant state would have to exist and not be overtaken by Catholics, so to preserve it, we must force everyone in Germany into the Protestant mold. But since it was difficult to make  a new Protestant convert comprehend about why they needed to re-baptize, they just dropped that subject, and focused about faith, not tradition.  Even Luther knew that it was not Biblical, but “practicality” reigned.  (Actually, there was no faith in God’s ability to come alongside and defend the truth).

If you’re wondering how the Protestant Reformers treated the Anabaptists, even though they were supposedly more accurate than Catholics on “how to be saved and go to heaven,” they hated the Anabaptists too.  They supposedly believed in “sola Scriptura,” yet they didn’t really practice what it clearly said about baptism, because they persecuted the Anabaptists only a little less aggressively than the Catholics. Instead of torture, they simply drowned the re-baptizers. They were called devilish vermin by the Reformers (Luther, Calvin) as well.  Thus, freedom of conscience remained unknown in Protestant Europe as well.  You want to be baptized again?  We’ll strap you down in the water and won’t bring you up until you’re dead. 

Through history, there were always believers in the New Testament way, believer baptism, but they were small in number, so not a great threat.  Bohemian and Moravians were easily snuffed out.  But not the Brethren—the Waldensians. They finally had the boldness to take a public stand.  They grew in number from the 1200s and took a public stand in the late 1400s, and endured unbelievable persecution in the 1500s—from Catholics and Reformed Lutherans.   Martin Luther originally defended the freedom of Christian conscience, but under pressure from the ruling nobles, he crumbled. 

The Reformation also began a new era of tribulation, tears, and blood between Catholics vs. Protestants.  God was determined that Satan would never take away the truth, so war was on.  Through it all, a remnant of Anabaptists endured, and morphed into the Amish, and the Brethren. Let’s not forget the Zwinglians (who later became Mennonites) and Baptists—who had an independent history beginning in 1600.  Despite their mostly pacifist ways, they were to be flogged and banished from the cities forever. So, in summary, infant baptism was defended by fire, water, and the sword. Infant baptism was imprinted with divine authority, though it was a ceremony invented by men for the worst of political reasons.

So you may say, “Well, all these denominations now, we need to agree on a lot of things, but baptism is a minor detail.”  It was not a minor detail to them, if they were willing to be drowned for believing it.  The city law for Hanover Germany (and other cities) called for re-baptizers to be beheaded.  This had the specific approval of Martin Luther.  (I have a blog on him).

Let’s talk about the Scriptural arguments presented to "back up" infant baptism.  (1) Matthew 18, where it says, “Except you become a little child, you can’t enter the kingdom of heaven.”  I don’t read anything about baptism there.  It’s saying, childlike faith is necessary to come into the Kingdom.  (2) Matthew 19:14 and others, “Let the little children come to me for such is the kingdom of heaven.”  No baptism.  It says God has a special care for the children—not just baptized children.  Neither Jesus nor anybody else in Scripture baptized any children.  (3) Five times in Acts and I Corinthians it talks about households being baptized.  So they assume that the children are baptized under the protective umbrella of the father; his faith is the surrogate for them.  But the truth is, in those 5 cases, it never mentions children ever.  In Acts, in the case of Cornelius, “all in his house heard the Word” (can a baby "hear the Word?").  The Spirit fell on all, and all were baptized. No mention of a child.  If there were, receiving the Holy Spirit means you heard the Word and believed, something babies can’t do.  Scripture accents that elsewhere.  Same story in the jailer’s house, in Acts 16.  In Acts 18, with Crispus, “all heard, all believed, all were baptized.”  The same wording was in the account of Stephanas, where it also says that all were devoted to the ministry of the saints.  (Now you have to understand “saints” means every believer in Scripture.)  Therefore they weren’t infants.  Another reference in John 4:53 talks of the nobleman’s son who was healed, that his household “believed.” But it says nothing about baptism. Also, all were old enough to believe. Finally, in Acts 16, in the case of Lydia, when her household were baptized, there are no children mentioned—in fact, no husband is mentioned.  Possibly it was her, her mother, or her slaves.  If no husband, it was more likely that there were no children. This next Scriptural example requires some explanation.  In I Corinthians 7:12-14, the believing husband is urged not to divorce his unbelieving wife.  And her for him.  Then comes an interesting verse:

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

Catholics claim that here is the father acting as surrogate, the umbrella of protection for the family, supposedly justifying infant baptism. It’s true that a believing husband (or wife) can influence the family’s acceptance of Christianity.  But no salvation is through surrogation, no grace is transitioned, simply because the father is baptized (the verse says nothing about baptism anyhow—again). This is the same kind of superstition as praying for the dead, or praying to the angels or saints. Those heretical actions have no impact on anybody.  Finally, their last “proof” is Acts 2:39, where it says,

the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off… .

It’s likely here that “your children” refers to the next generation of Jews, since who are those who are “afar off?” The Gentiles.  This isn’t about baptism, it’s the promise of salvation to future generations of all races.  So these texts don’t prove infant baptism in any way.

So, there’s never mention of a child in any of these 5 texts. None of these “proofs” are compelling enough to take a radical stance away from behaviors and words of the earliest church fathers—and from clear Scriptures elsewhere. The Scriptural model in all 5 verses:  You hear, you believe, you are baptized.  That’s pretty clear proof of believer baptism, instead of baby baptism.  If the martyrs were asked to give proof for their beliefs, they could cite these Scriptures.  (The Foxe book indicates all the courts were kangaroo; cite all you want—you were still a “heretic.”)

For our second reason to reject infant baptism, Infant baptism is not baptism. The Bible is crystal clear on directions for baptism.  Barring unforeseen difficulties (water is unavailable or poisoned, or insufficient, person has a phobia of water, or weighs 400 pounds, etc), baptism is immersion, a total dunk. (In ancient cities, they would grab a baby’s feet and dunk him in water three times!)  The Greek is clear.  Baptism comes from Greek “bapto” and “baptizo,” terms that are always transliterated to our word “baptize.”  It means “dip down.”  “Sprinkling” comes from a completely different Greek word—never used to describe baptism. Even Calvin, who baptized babies, wrote “it is certain that immersion was practiced in the early church.”  (There’s another guy who didn’t practice what he wrote.)  This immersion was inspired by God to convey the symbolism of the ordinance.  The dunk was identifying Christ in His death for us, the time spent underwater is identifying us with His burial, and the raising up identifies us who will someday be resurrected from the dead as He was.  Sprinkling doesn’t convey any of that.  Of course, the baby (and likely his/her parents) don’t make any connection anyhow.  It’s Tradition.  Romans 6, Galatians 2 and 3, and Colossians 2 explain that theology of our union with Christ, our union in Him, if anyone would care to look it up.  Note: The only other ordinance given to us is the Lord’s table—or Eucharist.  We are to do both these things as a public declaration, or proclamation.  Hopefully you can, from Scripture indicated, get a vision of how important believer baptism is--and it offends God for those who deny this sacred symbol, or those who don’t bother to read His Word on such important subjects and practice a deviant or obscured form.  In every real baptism, the believer is saying he receives Christ, renounces former life, embraces Him as Lord and Master of his life, and is eager to publicly confess to those facts.  In every case of baptism in Scripture, personal saving faith is predisposed.

For the third reason to reject infant baptism, infant baptism is not, as its claimants contend, “a replacement sign for the Abrahamic mark of circumcision."  The claim that infant baptism “takes the place of circumcision” is not identified anywhere in Scripture.  A little bit about circumcision would help the understanding.  Every Jewish baby boy was circumcised, a proof that they were Jews.  But it was not a sign of salvation.  What did Paul say in Romans 9? “Not all Israel is Israel.”  Meaning not all from Jewish lineage in the nation of Israel are saved.  But saved was the faithful Israel, or Jacob.  His lineage, among Jews and mostly Gentiles who are faithful to Christ, are saved.

Let’s not forget: As Jesus points out, the nation Israel became under divine judgment.  As were Gentiles, I would hasten to add.  That’s why we all need salvation, for our sins have offended God.  Which Jesus provided for. The Jews were apostate and, as God repeatedly calls it, adulterous.  They loved other gods—just not the one who had blessed them, and was ready to bless them again if they repented.  Among that entire nation of circumcised people, only a small remnant was saved.  So it is today; few Jews are saved.

So if you make infant baptism a replacement for circumcision, are you infant-backers saying the same thing about those who are baptized as infants?  In other words, do you want to claim that only a small remnant of those baptized as babies are saved, as it is said of Jews who are circumscribed? No, you back away. Are you willing to admit that circumcision was not an evidence of salvation?  Bingo.  It would have been nice if the Jewish people had faith in God, were godly, and wore the badge of circumcision, but they didn’t.  We likewise pray that those who are baptized as infants will wear that badge and have real faith in God and Christ, and live godly.  But again there is no guarantee. Infant baptism does not save.

Some Catholic, and some Christian communities that baptize babies, lately have a newer theology: they maintain that there is some “covenant community” that the baby is in, once baptized.  But for the most part, they’re not saying flat out that these kids were automatically saved. It seems to me, the children would be confused—as I am, reading about this.  What state are they in?  The Episcopalians can’t explain it, the Anglicans can’t either. Are they going to let the public, prone to self-deception, make that judgment? Let’s hope not. I don’t think God would want such fuzziness about such an important idea.

In all this, there is a weak connection between circumcision and infant baptism.  Both are done involuntarily, before the little one knew what was happening. (Though circumcision is only for boys, while infant baptism is for boys and girls).  It’s important to point out that no salvation, or even special grace, will follow automatically for either device, as Scripture indicates.  (In case you’re worried about death of the little child before baptism, we believe little ones who die will go to heaven.)  Scripture says heaven is full of these little ones.  That’s great.  I love every little person. There are at least 60 million from America alone who have been aborted who will be joining the crowd, along with the gigantic number of infanticides when China made a demonic “one-child” argument.  They were determined to have a boy—so there will be more cute little Chinese girls in heaven than boys. (I shouldn't say that--we don't know what age we are upon resurrection).

By the way, it is important to point out that this weak connection about circumcision does not talk about salvation, nor does it reduce the Scripture that clearly points out believer baptism.  Infant baptism is a failed device and should be ended as soon as possible, as the rest of this paper shows.  Let’s end tradition and go for whatever God says in His Word. (Ed. note:  This third explanation for rejecting infant baptism is not John MacArthur’s words, they’re mine).

The fourth reason to reject infant baptism is that it confounds the nature of the church. With infant baptism, you can’t distinguish between the believer and non-believer.  They say “the baptized becomes the church.”  But as we have seen, there are many baptized infants who grow up unsaved.    So is the church supposed to be a mixture of the saved and unsaved?  Then how can you administer church discipline?  Should unsaved people, who happened to be “members” because they were infant-baptized, be allowed to be haters and blasphemous and still unrebuked?  What if they slow down the church’s growth, ultimately preventing people from being saved? So infant baptism destroys the reality of the regenerate church. Ideally, to be in the real church (God’s Kingdom), you must be saved, and that means you must abide in Christ (John 15:1-6).  Admittedly, churches everywhere, though, are some mixture of saved and unsaved.  If churches want to reduce the unsaved membership, all they have to do is heat up the sermons and make life uncomfortable for the unsaved to listen.  And practice church discipline

Speaking of being confounded, I can’t pass up mentioning this.  Scripture says works are not the path to getting saved.  You begin by faith in Jesus Christ and what He did. You then lead a godly life through the Holy Spirit.  Learning and doing His commands enable you to abide in Christ.  But here are the shocking words of the Reformed Heidelberg Catechism.  Wikipedia says it “is regarded as one of the most influential of the Reformed catechisms.”  Thus it is accepted by most mainline Protestant churches who were in the Reformation. The "74th question" below was written in 1563 to counteract the Catholics and the Anabaptists (ie, it gave them a reason to call Anabaptists “heretical” and go about killing them without remorse):

74^th question:  Shall one baptize young children also? Yes, Infants as well as adults are included in God's covenant and people, and they, no less than adults, are promised deliverance from sin through Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit who produces faith. Therefore, by baptism, the sign of the covenant, they too, should be incorporated into the Christian church…so it was believed.

Quoting Dr. MacArthur, ‘It says “Baptize the infants, because they’re promised salvation in the Holy Spirit.”’  Surprisingly, Luther calls this baptism a “bath of regeneration.”  Considering how this is the opposite of faith, the opposite of Scripture, and considering how much it introduces confusion; one question needs to be asked:  Was this man the great theologian we have all heard? He who believed in “sola Scriptura?”  How could theologians who claimed to believe in the great doctrines like justification and faith, if they truly believe that Scripturally we are not saved through sacrament, or rites, come to this sorry confusion?  They are worshipping the apostate altar of a sacrament for salvation.

(My comment paragraph) Frankly, I was shocked to read how “off” the Reformed theology was on this important subject, which importance, let me remind you, is not about infant baptism so much as it is about salvation!  I could see why Dr. MacArthur called it an “incomplete Reformation” above.  This document (taught in “Christian” seminaries everywhere) has the audacity to assert that there is salvation in an infant being baptized.  He could then live like hell and still be saved? God forbid.  Nothing in this answer resembles Scripture, about how each individual needs to assert faith in Christ and live a godly life to be saved.

As you can see by the Catechism, infant baptism confuses all that.  People who were baptized as infants are told repeatedly afterwards that they are going to heaven. This feeds their self-deception.  A lot of people assume they will go to heaven, and infant baptism adds to that, but they often live a worldly life, ignoring God except for emergencies, and they will be surprised by Jesus’ words “I never knew you.” Why add to the confusion and self-deception, which is bad enough already? They should cancel the infant baptism and start the Gospel by stressing that only a minority will go to heaven (Matthew 7:13,14). Then maybe people will pay attention to Scriptural requirements, particularly how to live a godly life.

Luther published another statement that seems to say something promising: “The Anabaptists are right, the baptism without faith profits nothing, and that thus in fact children ought not to be baptized, since they have no faith.” Sounds right, right?  But let me finish the quote: “But the assertion of the Anabaptists is false; yes, we know the children cannot believe, but….”  You want to know how did he conclude this? At first, it was the vicarious faith of the parents or the godparents that did the job.  But that wasn’t enough for him (he had a reputation for changing his mind on important things). He thought some more, and concluded…yes, the Holy Spirit helps them to believe.” (Some “theologians” even called the Holy Spirit’s job in infant baptism is to grant “unconscious faith.”)   Well, now Luther is on the verge of declaring that infant baptism makes a child an elect, thus he is guaranteed that God will get him to heaven.  This idea was formalized by Calvin, which eventually became the famous TULIP acronym.  Something derived from this is called  “once saved, always saved.” Proponents of that actually believe God regenerates you before you accepted Him In your life.  Presumably man doesn’t have free will; God has already selected who "makes it."  God picks who will go to heaven—and thus, unfortunately, by omission, who goes to hell.  And such garbage as that.  (I have a 3-part blog to discuss that).

MacArthur’s concluding quote:  Infant baptism has no saving efficacy, delivers no grace, confers no faith, is a symbol of nothing.  It is absolutely and totally pointless.  It leads to ritualism, confusion, and false security.

May God help you to read all this and ponder how Scripture is pointedly clear, as opposed to tradition.  Ignore the theologians.  Just read Scripture—over and over and over.

Acknowledgement:  Sermon by John MacArthur, delivered October 21, 2011.